meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaCC_07242018_2018-5806 | Speaker 3: Sort of the the the board's process.
Speaker 8: So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So now we're on 10 a.m. if you want to read.
Speaker 2: Yes. And you're down to just the consideration for the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, Social Service, Human Relations Board. The other two are done.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So, um.
Speaker 1: And I appreciate the earlier comments and I want to clarify that I nominate and then council confirmed. So you need to take that into consideration in regards to who actually gets seated. If I nominate people from diverse backgrounds and I don't get the votes from council, they're not going to be seated. So that being said, Historical Advisory Board, Jennifer Witt w i t planning board. Marcia broke this. I'm not quite sure i would say the last name br0 qe d i. S and. As a chef, I have to make sure I get this right. Sorry. The chefs sa harbor a s h e s h h last name as a tba sahaba are the question. Those are for for planning board.
Speaker 6: Because Marcia Brockett is a she's listed as an applicant for a historical advise for.
Speaker 1: Both is applied to both.
Speaker 6: Is.
Speaker 1: Not on you may not have the updated list.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: And give us one social service human relations board. I'm not nomination. Sure at this time.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 1: All right. So that concludes the nominations. And we will be adjourning in memory of Neil Wilson.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, counsel. Comment, sir. Oh.
Speaker 1: At this time.
Speaker 6: So well, we have. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nomination for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07102018_2018-5599 | Speaker 1: execute a First Amendment with preferred alliance for three years and an amount not to exceed 40,000 for drug testing services in conjunction with services provided by Kaiser Permanente.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Vice Mayor, did you have specific questions or how would you like to proceed at this time?
Speaker 4: So I asked my questions prior to the meeting and I'm satisfied with the answers, but I had gotten some questions from a couple of members of the public, and so I wanted to just pull the item to go over and convey the answers that I received shortly before the meeting. So first of all, one of the questions that I've been asked is why were not working with Alameda Hospital to provide these occupational medical services? My understanding from staff is that these services are not offered by Alameda Hospital, so that's why we've contracted with Kaiser. And from what I heard from our staff, they've they've liked working with Kaiser. It's been a good relationship, both from the management perspective and from the employee perspective. And then the second thing I was asked was, why was there an increase? And my my understanding is that there has been increases relative to the number of employees we are going to be sending over for testing. It's not an increase in the actual cost. And I see that Nancy's and Nancy Brownstein's at the podium, and Nancy provided me the answers to those questions. So thank you, Nancy. And I think the other thing that I had asked was I noticed in the staff report, we have certain departments that are directly billed for their employees going for this testing, but some of the other departments actually fall under budget. And so, Nancy, my question for you is, and you mentioned this in your email to me, that there's a history to that.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor.
Speaker 5: Council Members. Nancy Bronstein.
Speaker 1: Human resources director. Council vice mayor. Bella, I didn't I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question.
Speaker 4: You mentioned that there is a history or a reasoning behind the fire department and AMP being directly billed for those services versus H.R. covering the cost for the other departments.
Speaker 6: That's correct. And it precedes my being here.
Speaker 1: But my understanding is the fire department actually, because they send employees both for pre-employment and annual medical test.
Speaker 6: That they really like to.
Speaker 1: Manage that budget themselves. They manage that. They do a great job managing the process, making sure that everybody's getting the appropriate test.
Speaker 6: But then when the bills come in, they review.
Speaker 2: Those bills, they make sure they're correct, they're.
Speaker 1: Being billed correctly, and then.
Speaker 6: They are the ones then making the payments.
Speaker 1: And for AMP, it's an enterprise fund, so it's a separate fund and it's been set up that way.
Speaker 6: So I don't have an answer as to why it's.
Speaker 2: Been set up that way, but it is a non.
Speaker 1: General fund department, so they do pay for that.
Speaker 2: Expense.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. So then any other questions or comments? We do not have any speakers on the site. And so I think we can go ahead with a motion at this time.
Speaker 7: So moved.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of a roll call.
Speaker 1: Council member as the Ashcroft. Yes. Matter. I, i. I bear Spencer. I carried by five.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And five j. And we do have a speaker on this item. And I also want to pull that. I want to give staff the opportunity to explain to the public what this is, because I do think it's a significant policy. So I don't like it being a consent because then the public may not actually know what's happening here.
Speaker 1: Recommendation two, but oh yeah, to amend the inclusionary housing program guidelines to modify available preference points, including adding a preference for eligible Alameda Unified School District Employees and revise underwriting standards and direct staff to prepare a proposed amendment to the city's inclusionary housing ordinance to clarify the appeals process.
Speaker 0: Okay. And since this goes and I don't know what staff members is going to be able to present this item. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Approve Two Amendments Totaling $270,000 for a Three-Year Extension Period as Follows: 1) Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a First Amendment with Kaiser Permanente Medical Center for Three Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $230,000 for City of Alameda Occupational Medical Services; and 2) Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a First Amendment with Preferred Alliance, Inc., for Three Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $40,000 for Drug Testing Services in Conjunction with Services Provided by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. (Human Resources 2510) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07102018_2018-5691 | Speaker 7: I got her.
Speaker 0: Potter. As we all know, we don't have sufficient affordable housing below market housing for the public. And this item goes to changing the preference points, how they're allocated to people that are trying to obtain the units. And so I wanted to have staff present on that what this proposal is.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm Debbie Porter. I'm the city's community development director. And the item before you this evening is a recommendation to amend the preference points for the city's inclusionary housing program. The inclusionary housing program is the requirement that market rate developers provide 15% of their units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households . And we contract with our housing authority to administer our inclusionary housing program. We use a lottery system when we award those inclusionary units. And our lottery system also entails a an opportunity for preference points to be granted. And those preference points. We're proposing to amend the preference points and streamline them. Currently, we provide a preference point for first time homebuyers. We would remove or eliminate that as a preference point and make it a program requirement, a threshold requirement so that you would if you're going to participate, you have to be a first time homebuyer. And we currently have a preference point for large families, and we are proposing to eliminate that preference point two, and we're proposing to eliminate that. We as part of our fair housing requirements, we conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing and large families that are not discriminated against disproportionately within the city in terms of fair housing . So we think it's more straightforward to just require a minimum requirement that you must have the family size must be equal to the number of bedrooms. So if you have a two person household, you could apply for a one or two bedroom household. And our third preference point that we currently provide is a preference point. If you live or work in Alameda and we are proposing to maintain that preference point and then expand the preference point or add an additional preference point for a USDA employees.
Speaker 0: Alameda Unified School District.
Speaker 5: Alameda Unified School District Employees for moderate income units only a maximum of one unit per project, or no more than 30% of the moderate income units that might be available in any given project. And the reason that we are recommending this preference point to the Council and this revision to our inclusionary housing program is because the city has an opportunity to access $30 million in affordable housing funds from our former redevelopment agency. And we have been directed by the State Department of Finance to run that funding through the school district because those funds are available as part of the 1991 pass through agreement between the school district and the former redevelopment agency. And the district and the Housing Authority have negotiated a memorandum of understanding about how that process would work for the housing authority to access that money to build low and very low income housing. And part of what was agreed to was that the housing authority would request city staff to bring a preference point for moderate income ownership units before the Council as consideration for the school district. Processing and sending these funds through to the Housing Authority and staff is recommending, therefore, that the Council approve this revision. In the preference points. We are recommending other changes to our inclusionary underwriting guidelines and to the appeal process. We have had our inclusionary ordinance in place for over 15 years and this is the first time council staff has brought clean up recommendations and kind of best practices and bringing our program guidelines current. So that is staff's recommendation this evening.
Speaker 0: And how long would this additional preference point to a USG employees be for.
Speaker 5: Through 2050 that the project area runs till 2046? We have the opportunity to receive these funds through 2046 and if monies coming in and projects are being built three years out was that was the logic for coming up with 2050.
Speaker 0: Okay. And is it based on when the money actually comes in or does this start immediately? How does how do we make sure that we're getting money that is somehow is it somehow tied to actual receipt of money so that we know that new units are being built that would not be built, but for receipt of this
Speaker 5: . Correct. So every year we prepare an annual recognized obligation payment schedule, a ROPS, and every year we, we put down the funding that will come to us for projects that have affordable housing units that can be reimbursed. And we are sitting right now on invoices from seven from. 17, 17, 18, and then four, 18, 19. So for the past three fiscal years, we have received these funds and we have projects for which we want to reimburse the housing authority for money that they have advanced in anticipation of this MRU getting finalized, which was finalized by a UCD board and the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners in May of this year.
Speaker 0: Okay. So is there going to be some way to have oversight to ensure that these monies did in fact come in from a USD two, which then their employees received a benefit?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: How is that going to happen?
Speaker 5: Well, so through the memorandum of understanding that's been executed between the USDA and the housing authority, all of the funding is done on a reimbursement basis. And all of the marketing and advertising and outreach for the unit availability will be coordinated between the housing authority and the school district. Okay.
Speaker 0: So can someone go to the housing authority, for instance, annually and see, you know, what? And that in fact, you know, if in fact, employees were able to receive these preference points and obtained access to units and that in fact moneys were received from AUC. Yes, there would be some kind of formal report that that is available to ensure that, you know, because honestly, my concern is that we have many people in the city that will not that do not work for Alameda Unified, that do, in fact, desire affordable housing. So I wanted to make sure that somehow there's a real relationship that there is a are additional homes being built to offset that preference to a USDA employees? So there will be some kind of report that will be accessible to the public annually. Yeah. We'll somehow demonstrate that. That. Right.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then I want to. Catherine, I'm going to go ahead and call a cab. Thank you, Alan. At this time, the public speaker.
Speaker 5: I in council. Thank you so much for your time. I stand in opposition to a portion of the measure and five G and that is the portion that allocates 30% of affordable housing to the moderate income homeownership opportunities. I say that because I think 30% is a very big portion of what is in very limited supply. And personally, I'm a single parent. I 100% physical legal custody. I have no financial support. I truly don't feel that I deserve less of a chance to get into affordable housing than a teacher. The way that this preference points system is that if you're an 82 employee and that does not mean a teacher, that means any employee part time, full time at all that you get an additional preference points. You would have four preference points instead of three. Everybody else in the general public can maximum only get three preference points. So this gives the EEOC employee an advantage over everybody else. I feel it's an unfair advantage, discriminates based upon profession and occupation. I think, to be quite honest, federal fair housing regulations don't limit discrimination based upon occupation. But I think we could kind of all agree that that might not really be quite fair in terms of the affordable housing, the $30 million of funding. I'd like to know what will happen to that $30 million of funding if we don't agree to this MRU. What is happening to that funding right now? Well, it does appear. Will it be given to housing authority anyway? Why wasn't it directed to the Housing Authority as a partner to begin with? If it was allocated for a USD, why isn't USD building their own housing with that money? I started a thread about this on a public Facebook group and the thread generated over 150 comments. Susan Davis, the acting community manager for USD, commented. Mike McMahon, who's a former school board member, commented The post is deleted after about 48 hours. There were so many people commenting and this post was deleted. People didn't know about this measure being brought before the city and there were a lot of different opinions, but nobody on that board was in the position I am. Where they're seeking affordable housing. And I think that that voice needs to be heard. I definitely wasn't reaching it through that community bulletin board. And I do think that this issue is a broad issue that's going to impact residents and workers of the city. And it's something that needs to be thought about, you know, carefully and thoughtfully so that, you know, people get a fair chance.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council members. I'd like to remember that. Yes.
Speaker 9: Can we have Miss Potter answer the question of what happens if the MCU is not? Sign.
Speaker 5: So the MCU has been seen in what the MCU says is that if the city council does not approve that the preference point for one one inclusionary moderate income unit minimum or a maximum of 30 moderate income units in any given project. By September of this year that the MCU, the district, will honor the costs incurred in the 1617 fiscal year for affordable housing and in 1718. But that's it. And then we the money is lost. We the money goes to the money essentially goes into a waterfall and goes to all the taxing entities and does not stay in Alameda.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 6: And I appreciate the the explanation. Miss Potter and I, I do understand the speaker's concern. I mean, I'm concerned we just aren't producing enough housing, affordable housing. We might have an opportunity to do something about that just a little later in this agenda. But at the same time, I don't know how we would benefit from turning back money that will go to help building affordable housing. Yes, a percentage of that housing at the moderate income level will be allocated to any USDA employee. But without it, that additional housing wouldn't get built. And just by comparison, $30 million. I wish we went further. But for instance and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Potter, the new senior affordable housing that's going up at the corner of Sherman and Buena Vista next to Del Monte, that was about a $30 million project for 30 units.
Speaker 5: $88 million.
Speaker 6: 80 million for 30.
Speaker 5: Over 33 units.
Speaker 6: For 32 units. So that was in the when when that project went into contract. Construction costs have gone up a bit. But Will the good news is we will get housing out of this affordable housing and you know, some will go to USD employees, but without that money we wouldn't have that source of funds to help build it. But I just I don't want to pit one group against the other. I want to recognize we have a housing supply shortage and we need to do something about that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I'm sorry the public comment part was completed, but I want to follow up on so any other council comments at this time or questions otherwise? I'm going to go ahead and ask. Okay. So can you explain what public outreach occurred on this item? Did the city have any meetings with community members for their feedback?
Speaker 5: We did not. The community outreach consisted this agenda. This item was actually agenda is for June 5th. And when that agenda was posted in that staff report was posted, then Ms.. Allen was able to see the item and then engage in the the Facebook, the social media conversation. And then it was followed up with a continuation to tonight's meeting, and it was part of tonight's posted agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay. But the city did not itself hold any outreach on this item. Okay. In regards to housing, when it get built, what housing would not get built. But for this 30 million. Because I actually don't know that that's a true statement. We have housing that gets approved. We have, for instance, a project tonight and the developer is going to provide the funding we have site is will site. Will this money go to, for instance, site A that is not funded currently 43 million short well by this money go to get that housing funded.
Speaker 5: This these funds are restricted to very low and low income units only so they would. So it is possible that for the very low and low income portion of the units that yes the money there could be funding from this source for the city, even housing projects.
Speaker 0: Okay. But that goes to my concern of how do we, in fact, know that this money is going to building the units, that then we're giving the preference to points to a USD four as opposed to just any units. So the concern. Right. That we had to speaker on this, if there is no money from this, a USD that goes to the affordable housing, then will a US employees do not get preference points for so than for all members of our community equally. Or do they do they only get preference points when it is in fact housing built with the USD money.
Speaker 5: There are preference points for a USDA employees for the very low and low income units that are built with these moneys. But these funds cannot be used for moderate income units. So there is an A. So under the inclusionary program, we are creating a preference point for a max of 30% of moderate income units.
Speaker 0: That are those moderate income units where in fact there was a low and very low built or.
Speaker 5: Dependent independent.
Speaker 0: So then do you keep track and you say, okay, over here there's the low and very low five units. So then we're going to do five units moderate. Is there any relationship between what's being built with a USD money and the number of moderate units being where we're awarding additional preference points?
Speaker 5: Now those are two independent programs.
Speaker 0: So how do you figure out how many moderate units that we give a USD employees a preference point for then?
Speaker 5: Well, we have proposed we have proposed that we have proposed a minimum of one moderate income unit per project up to a maximum of 30.
Speaker 0: What is that based on?
Speaker 5: That was based on the negotiations between the school board and the housing authority. And the request then was made to city staff to bring that proposal to the council.
Speaker 0: But is it based on dollar amounts? You have $30 million supposedly from a USDA that's going to may be used to build housing. It may or may not, right?
Speaker 5: No, it absolutely has to be.
Speaker 0: Paid for.
Speaker 5: Low and very low income housing. It is on a reimbursement basis only. It's based on invoicing and it will only go to use used for very low and low.
Speaker 0: Income housing than the moderate units. Is that the moderate units immediately they become available. The USD employees get a preference point for even if we haven't built any new units that are affordable or low, very, very low or low affordable.
Speaker 5: Have already we have already generated over about $3 million worth of expenses on very low and low income housing over the past two and a half fiscal years, which well are already eligible to be refunded with this money before there is a single moderate income unit that is made available on a preference point basis only. So costs have already been incurred and will be reimbursed before we ever award one inclusionary moderate income unit.
Speaker 0: Okay. But is there then do you are you going to be keeping track of the number of units that are built very low and low that then offset the moderate or the relationship, which is they get 30% regardless of the number of units of the very low and low.
Speaker 5: That's correct. During the time period of the B WEP and the pass through agreements life, you.
Speaker 0: Know, there's not a relationship really is 30% period, regardless of how many very low and low are funded.
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let me speak to my attorney then. There was also a concern of then some sort of discrimination. Can we in fact, award reference points to one group of employees when there's no relationship between the number of units being built with that money and what they're being awarded, they're getting 30%, regardless of how many units are being built with these moneys. And that would seem to me like there's some sort of legal challenge there.
Speaker 8: So the way this evolved was because the path the 1991 pass through agreement had all of the moderates, not moderate, had all of the housing money, which was in redevelopment terms there, 20% of the generated tax increment. 20% of that money had to go to build affordable housing. 80% could go for other purposes. The 1991 pass through agreement had the 20% housing money flow through to the school district. And since it was in 1991 and none of us were here. My understanding, reading the agreement is that the intention was that the school district was going to attempt to build housing. That didn't happen over the course of time. So we now are trying to protect that money flowing through since redevelopment has been dissolved, that that money, which otherwise, as Ms.. Potter described, would go through the waterfall and and would go through all the various taxing entities, not be designated for housing. That that money be protected and continue to flow to the city of Alameda to build affordable housing in Alameda since the school district. So the school district worked with the housing authority, which is the entity that continues to build affordable housing in the city. And this is the deal they worked out. They're trying to retain the notion that that school district employees would gain some benefit from the pass through money. And the way they did that is by having it flow through. As Ms.. Potter explained, the housing authority does not build moderate income. It always was intended that there be low, very low and moderate income available to the school district employees. The housing authority can't doesn't control moderate. The city does throw inclusionary policy. So this was the transaction that was negotiated between the school district and the housing authority with the blessing of the Department of Finance, to be able to retain that consideration and to keep those moneys flowing through to the city of Alameda. So you are being asked to assist, make that happen by allowing for this this portion of the moderate income housing to be made available to eligible employees of the school district. They still have to meet all the requirements, the eligibility requirements. So because of all of that, I do not believe there is anything improper, legally improper about doing that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So none of that addressed my question. I'm sorry. My question goes to the relationship of you have a third of the bill, a third of the units being offered with the preference point. That is very valuable. I can look at this room. In fact, I'm just going to ask, if you work for AUC, do you raise your hand? One person raised their hand. Okay. It's a percentage. It's a relatively small percentage of all of the people in our communities. They're looking for housing. So but you are going to be giving a third of a preference point that is very valuable. It's 30%. And I'm looking for a relationship. I would think that there would have to be some sort of relationship between the percentage that we're offering these this preference point to and the number of units that are being built.
Speaker 8: So let me just say one thing. We aren't giving 30% of the moderate income units at each project to our school district employees they up. That is the maximum amount that potentially could be qualified for. If there are zero unified school district employees who can qualify, all of those moderate income units will be available to other citizens in Alameda.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. But the cap is the maximum of 30%. But that's much greater than the number of people as the percentage of the people in our community that are seeking the sort of housing. And I'm trying to figure out how we came up with that relationship and if it is actually just arbitrary.
Speaker 8: It was a negotiation between the school district and the housing authority to try to honor the 1991 pass through agreement and the intention of that agreement. And that is the consideration that was arrived at.
Speaker 0: So it's not based on the number of new units that would be built or the number of employees from a U.S. city, anything like that. It's not based on numbers. It's based on something negotiated. So arbitrary, it appears.
Speaker 9: Yes. I'd like to make a motion because I don't want to lose $30 million that we've already paid taxes on. I'd like to make a motion that we follow the recommendation, amend this inclusionary housing, and we can take our chances with whatever might happen. We lose that $30 million. We don't build any affordable housing with it. So to someone else.
Speaker 3: So again.
Speaker 6: We've all seconded the first, second and third seconds.
Speaker 0: So I will not be supporting this. I think it is critical that the city do outreach and figure out a way that there's actually a relationship between what's being offered and for the money that's being considered. And also that we know, in fact, that units are being built with that money. I think that it is extremely valuable and I really appreciate the comment that on a USD board there is no one that qualifies for this and what the value of that is. And I will tell you, there's no one here on City Council that also participates in that, and I agree with the Speaker it is extremely valuable . That being said, I'm going to go ahead and call to clarify all those. There has to be a role.
Speaker 6: We have to do role.
Speaker 0: Although some.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I. I. I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer. Oppose carry.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Next item five k.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to support city efforts to attain a zero waste goal by approving update to zero waste implementation plan and authorizing the acting city manager to negotiate and execute a contract not to exceed 300,000, including contingency to conduct targeted technical assistance to commercial businesses, multifamily properties and adoption of related by budget resolution. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Amend the Inclusionary Housing Program Guidelines to (a) Modify Available Preference Points, Including Adding a Preference for Eligible Alameda Unified School District Employees; and (b) Revise Underwriting Standards; and Direct Staff to Prepare a Proposed Amendment to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Clarify the Appeal Process. (Housing 266) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07102018_2018-5716 | Speaker 1: A consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Parks Commission and Social Service, Human Relations Board and Transportation.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm going to nominate for Public Utilities Board Geoffrey Gould and for Transportation. I'm going to nominate Michael Hahn's David Johnson election. Not Chuck Todd, not Chagall. Sorry about that. And Sharon Byrne any air and. And that can lead to my nominations at this time. And then 11 is 12. Actually, we are going to be going back into closed session, so I don't believe I'd do it during the meeting.
Speaker 1: No, this is a journey because you're just going back to the other special.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'm going to adjourn this regular meeting at 1225. We will take a short recess and then we will go back into the special meeting. Enclosed.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank.
Speaker 1: So you already keep it.
Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: We're now going to be reporting out from our special meeting closed session that started at 4 p.m. today and on Tuesday, July 10th. It is now 1245 in the morning on Wednesday, July 11th. We just came out of closed session and our clerk is going to read the report out. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nomination for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Parks Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06192018_2018-5608 | Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Now five s.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to award contract for the publication of legal notices to the Alameda Journal for Fiscal Year 2018 19. And I don't know if you want a brief report or if you want to hear from the speaker first. I did like a brief.
Speaker 0: Short, brief report and then your speaker.
Speaker 1: Right. So every year the charter requires that the council award a contract annually for the publication of legal notices. This past year was the first year we did it with the Sun, and we've had two bidders, again, both the Sun and the Journal. And the costs for the sun are higher again. And the costs didn't show up through the last fiscal year to be higher as we anticipated by choosing them. And so I my recommendation is to go with the journal. There have also been a few instances of issues with publication from the Sun and in notes. It's not making it any more than they said it would. And so I understand the representative from the Sun is here to address that, if there's any questions on that, too. And both submitted letters.
Speaker 0: All right, so then I'll go ahead of the public speaker. So I don't know. I have once that. Julie I'm going to guess but log us l ogi with the alameda journal.
Speaker 4: Good evening, City Council Mayor. Thank you for meeting with me tonight.
Speaker 5: You want to be a little closer to the microphone?
Speaker 4: I'm sure. I just wanted to thank you very much for the opportunity to bet on the legal business. I've enjoyed working with the city of Alameda for a long time and hope to continue to do that. I do have a letter that I included in your packet.
Speaker 2: In.
Speaker 4: Response to a letter that was.
Speaker 2: Written by the publisher.
Speaker 4: Of The Sun. So I don't feel the need to have to read it or or say it, but I just wanted to make myself available tonight. If you had questions.
Speaker 2: Or concerns that I can answer them for you.
Speaker 4: And again, just wanted to say thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council. He's a member of Parliament. So it's my understanding there's a recommendation by staff to use the Journal this year. Okay, Castle. I'm happy. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: I'll make a statement. Way. I think we live in a time where factual reporting is really important. And perhaps I'm a little sensitive to this because reporters from the Bay Area News Group not only Ms. quoted me, but they actually never even reached out for comment and then publish saying that they had. To their credit, one of them did reach out, and eventually the other one did. But I find it a bit ironic that we would contract for legal advertising with a paper that at best engages in sloppy or UN researched or unverified reporting. I also find it interesting. I'm happy that the editor lives here in Alameda. It would also be nice if you're going to have an editorial board that your editor who lives in Alameda might sit on that board rather than just having a single reporter who doesn't live in the city of Alameda. You know. For those reasons. I have a problem with spending public dollars with the Bay Area newsgroup. But I would also say that it's a bit disconcerting that we only had to to people put in bids. I do know that there's other newspapers that do circulate, but I also know that the Sun has been doing this for us or has put in bids for this as well. And they're another local paper. They're headquartered here. A number of their employees work here more than just the editor. So it's something I would consider.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 2: I mean, I will echo my colleague's comments. I mean, the the staff report says the Alameda Journal is the lowest responsible bidder. I don't think there's anything responsible at all about the Bay Area News Group. I mean, if you consider, you know, what they published last fall and the fact that they published an editorial and then share that editorial as news and that they did just like the vice mayor said, it happened to me, too. They posted an article that said, I declined to comment and I wasn't even contacted. Until like seven or 8 hours later. And to me, that's not responsible. And I also know that last time we did this, when we evaluated what we considered the best bid, we considered other factors like the son's place in our community, the fact that they are a community newspaper, that their own their operated here in Alameda, that a lot of their employees work here and they have a long history here. And, you know, I would much rather have our public money go to what I consider a real responsible newspaper and not an irresponsible newspaper.
Speaker 0: Member matter.
Speaker 6: I'd like to make a motion to award the bid to the Alameda Sun, because as part of the my definition of the best, it is the locally operated and locally established institution rather than a large media network.
Speaker 5: Second discussion.
Speaker 0: Any other comments?
Speaker 5: Member Ashcraft If I could just hear from the the city clerk about you mentioned, I believe there were a couple of instances when, when something went to the sender for publication but didn't get in. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
Speaker 1: There have been some publication errors and most recently the example was an HB notice that they said would go in the paper. They printed.
Speaker 5: Ten HB it would be.
Speaker 1: The Historical Advisory Board notice. Is it a printing? That one they printed the council one twice in error. So just the little system issues that they're working out. And I've been told by their staff that it's a staffing issue and they're redoing staffing and that they're going to, you know, get it nailed down. So they have said that, but they are here if you want them to be responsive.
Speaker 5: And that a mayor I know we have a motion in a second, but I do see a mr. Aronofsky from the Sun. Would you permit him to speak?
Speaker 0: Did you want to respond at all like that?
Speaker 5: I assume that was why he.
Speaker 0: Might identify yourself and then.
Speaker 6: I full and out of my pocket there. And for the record, Dennis, I would ask him, I purposely allowed me to sign with Eric cos and I do want to apologize for the mistakes we made first of all. And, but I do want to point out we did 132 ads. And by our calculation, there were three mistakes out of 132 ads. So I'm not saying we're perfect and I'm saying we're going to be perfect in the future. But when the ads when all the city ads come before us, from now on, there's going to be a we have to we have to set a buy rule. Two sets of eyes goes on. Everything. As the publisher I know have instituted a three set of rules for the city ad. So what I'm saying is I will I will either have someone on my staff read the ad, double check the ad for the third time, or I will do it myself. So I promise I can't promise a mistake for a year, but I can certainly promise a little more care in place in your ads. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5: And then to the secret. Can you tell us the difference in the two price bids?
Speaker 1: Sure. Basically, there's the sun's is almost.
Speaker 5: And and dollar wise, what is that come out to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It worked out this year to be about. Well, the, the main focus that we usually focus on general fund money, but the main focus was there was like $40,000. Whereas in the past it. Over.
Speaker 7: Oh.
Speaker 5: Okay. So. And then just to finish my comments, I am willing to go along with the majority to give the local paper. A chance to rectify after the first year of doing the the work for us, the legal publications. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Award a Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices to the Alameda Journal for Fiscal Year 2018-19. (City Clerk 2210) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06192018_2018-5515 | Speaker 0: Wonderful. Do we have any or communications on agenda at this time? No, that's eight. Number nine, Council referrals. Nine. Eight.
Speaker 1: Consider directing staff to provide background information on the property prior to any council actions on the property. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Spencer.
Speaker 0: Right. And it's just my understanding at some point we're going to have a be asked to take action. And my preference is always to try to get especially legal background information in advance so that we're prepared as much as possible in regards to how to make an informed decision. So that's what that goes to. Without getting into too much detail. Right. Member Ashcroft?
Speaker 5: Well, I and I appreciate you bringing the staff report. I also note that we received a very nice summary of the history of this property and the legal aspects of it, I think, from our assistant city attorney or deputy city attorney Selina Chen. And I see that. But the settlement agreement with the East Bay Regional Parks Department and the federal government is included. And then I know in my mail I received a copy of the letter from Robert Doyle, general manager of the Regional Parks District, to the Mayor and the council members, stating the park district's position on the property . So I feel that I have the information I need to make whatever decision comes before us in the future, and there will be a staff report attached to that when it does.
Speaker 0: So I actually didn't think it was comprehensive in regards to the when was it one parcel, when was it two parcels, when in regards to when the people voted or what dates it changed from 1 to 2 parcels. And I don't think that was really addressed, which is just a part of my referral of Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: Madam Mayor, I'm just trying to understand the request. There have been questions that have been raised, I think, by various groups. And so is your request that those questions be answered in supporting or supporting information be provided?
Speaker 0: Yes. And especially in regards to a timeline going back, when was it one person, one was to the subject property? When did it become two parcels? How does that relate to when there was a vote for WW and any other action that was taken? But I'm really looking for a comprehensive timeline so that when it comes to us and I think it will be at some point that we have or that we've already had the opportunity, I wouldn't want to I'm hoping not to slow down the ask when it comes to us, but already have our legal department trying to figure out the timeline of when it was one parcel to parcels the vote and whatnot.
Speaker 4: So I have.
Speaker 7: A question for staff. So we have our city attorney here. And I know that there's been preliminary work done on this by your office. Do you care to weigh in at all in terms of. Where things are at or what.
Speaker 3: Selina Chen, the assistant city attorney, has been working on this project. Selina Chen City Attorney's Office. We have done some preliminary research and answered some preliminary questions. My understanding of this referral is to do some additional.
Speaker 4: Research to confirm or verify.
Speaker 3: Some of the. Facts, I think, are facts that have been raised by some other groups related to the timing of the personalization of the Navy owned parcels. I think those things can be researched and we can look into that further. Did you I was wondering if you had specific questions.
Speaker 7: I think that was just my general question. Some of the questions it looks like that have been raised aren't necessarily things that we can consider as a body. So I'm just wondering whether or not these questions are also being posed to other bodies who would have authority or jurisdiction?
Speaker 3: You're correct. These. A lot of these. I guess this is more it seems like for background purposes. It seems like the mayor wants to have a complete picture of of what's happened to date some of the things we don't know.
Speaker 4: For example, when the Navy's personals were.
Speaker 3: Separated, you know, that's not subject to the state law or the subdivision map act. So we would actually have to ask the Navy to confirm that date. That's not something that we would have, but we can look into it.
Speaker 6: We're talking about rep. McCain not just USDA.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: USA. I don't think it's navias.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. You're correct. I was just referring to the federal government.
Speaker 6: North. Yes, I was.
Speaker 4: I think I was confusing the two. So you're correct. But when the federal government's parcels were separated.
Speaker 3: I'm not. I mean, we can do as much research and try to track down information as the council directs us. It sounds to me like this is more of an informational piece. I mean, we will be bringing back information when we're coming forward with any kind of application on behalf of the the person who ends up with the property and how they want to develop it. And we can have as much information as we can gather. Obviously, we listen to all of your requests for information and try to resolve them. If you're asking us to try to do more research than we've already done and contact the GSA and others and try to figure out if they'll even get back to us in a timely fashion when they might have done personalization, and then just bring it to council or send it to you on an off off agenda memo or something like that. We can certainly do that. I think what what Miss Chen is advising is that there is a lot of a lot of work that's going to have to be done. And we can't control the responses for everybody. But we respect the mayor's request for wanting these kinds of things. And of course, we will move forward if that's what council wants us to do.
Speaker 0: Member madrassa member.
Speaker 6: Ashcroft we already have up on the city website. I think if you can, I think it's still there. Frequently asked questions. And I think from the input that I've had, it's important for the public to know what actions are taken by whom in a timeline. And I think that's what I think that can be posted on the website, and that doesn't involve GSA asking them for additional information. It's just what is the timing and who has authority over what action. And then I'm assuming the rest is going to be in the staff report on whatever action that we have to take and . You've heard input on what should be in the staff report. I don't see the need to do anything more than that.
Speaker 0: So what's my answer in regards to that? My interest. So I think you do. I would like staff to reach out to the federal government or whomever and find out when the parcels went from one parcel to two parcels. And that's not enough for me. So they can request it and try to complete the timeline, not just currently. What's happened historically, especially in regards to when that WW was in 2008, what the property looked like at that time. So that's what I'm trying to get to. And then that. And then I think I'd be fine to have it, and I think it'd be a great idea to add it to the ethic used in the information that I would like staff to go farther back. And that was preliminarily given to us. And you may they may have done it regardless. I just wanted to bring it as a referral because I'm always I don't know. You know, it's good to have counsel when a member Ashcraft and.
Speaker 5: I certainly respect the mayor or any council members. Right. To bring a council referral. I cannot support this one, though, because I look at the information sought and I ask, what's the relevance and to what end? And I agree that there is information up on the city's website. That was a very comprehensive memo that Mischin provided the council a month or maybe two ago. And to the extent that there are opponents of the proposal to do a homeless accommodation as not only allowed but required to be some right exercise for surplus for federal government property, I don't know that we have an obligation to do the homework for the opponents. I mean, they can they can do research, too. But I just with everything else we throw at our legal staff and, you know, they haven't gotten any bigger. I just don't see that this one needs to be addressed because as has already been stated, this will come back to us in the form of a staff report at such time as an application comes before this body.
Speaker 7: I swear I actually see this referral a little differently and I may be wrong, but I do think that it's been helpful in terms of at least giving staff, having being able to have a conversation about the types of information that various council members are hoping to have for when this item comes back. I. I do not want to create unnecessary work, but at the same time I do think we have a need that's been demonstrated through the various reports that come through to provide services for homeless and for homeless veterans. That's been something that's been demonstrated through our various reports. So I also see the request for information in the light of if there are going to be different challenges, we need to have the answers for them. And I do trust that that information is being looked at by our staff. I think to the extent that we are getting things, I think it's helpful to clarify and the facts have been very helpful, I think, for a number of people. I think to the extent that we're reliant on information from other agencies or jurisdictions, letting people know that we've requested the information, but we haven't heard back. That to me is it is being as transparent as we can be. We've requested it, we've asked for it. We can't. There's no other function that we can or process by which we can actually obtain it right where we're requesting it. If you would like this information, you can request it as well. So, you know, I do want to be cognizant of where our jurisdiction lies on this issue, but I do want to be responsive. And I think that that that direction has been given to staff and been made very clear.
Speaker 0: Everybody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So my quick comments, somebody could correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my memory is that when this referral came out on April 24th, you know, we did not know that the G overlay removal proposal was going to be done in December. I thought I thought there was some concern in the community from those opposed to the homeless project that it would be quicker. So I do think there's a lot of time now because of all the hoops that they have to go through, that all of the pertinent questions could be answered. So I just want to also remind folks that, you know, when we had our priority setting workshop a year ago or two years ago, I can't remember exactly. And then we reaffirmed it this year. You know, homeless was still the number one thing. I mean, everyone put that is the number one thing. So now we have an opportunity to approve a project. You know, granted, it hasn't gone through all of the steps yet that actually meet that need. So, you know, I'd like to make sure that we're able to do that. You know, one thing that I see every day in my job is connecting homeless people with services is probably the most helpful thing we can do. So with that said, I mean, I'm a little disappointed that like a councilmember can't get an answer to her question and has to do referral to get an answer. So, I mean, I hope that when we ask questions that we get those answers.
Speaker 0: So I just really want to make sure that there was it sounds like maybe at least three of you are agreeable to reaching out to these different agencies to confirm it. Other entities are saying if if we don't get a response, then so be it. But I think it is appropriate for us to for our legal staff to try to confirm what other organizations are saying.
Speaker 2: I know if I said.
Speaker 0: So and maybe you did it so maybe I misunderstood then, but I think.
Speaker 2: You should have got an answer to your question when you ask.
Speaker 0: But I would require the referral to it. Okay. So this is why this is. It's hard to know. Can. So, you know, is it appropriate for me and I don't know what all of you are asking for additional data. I would there are a lot of statements that are being made, and I would hope that our legal department would try to reach out to the agencies for confirmation. So we have a complete timeline. And I just try to be transparent, which is why I brought it. Maybe I don't need to bring it. I don't remember matters.
Speaker 6: And I'm glad. Councilman Brody brought up that the homeless. Situation that we're in is number one of on our list of the council work plan. And this is the this is truly the first tangible remedy that were being offered. We took a step ourselves in contracting with Operation Dignity to do field outreach. And this is. Hopefully the a place where people can get the medical knee service they need. That being said, there's a lot of churn out in the community and I think it's very helpful to have it. So I want to make a motion that we refer this matter to staff. To start gathering the information that has been mentioned. In this referral as well as to post as soon as practicable a timeline that includes the. Decision points that are made and who makes those decisions. So that's posted on the website and. This is in preparation for a staff report that will accompany city council action or actions. That are going to be related to this this partial.
Speaker 7: I just.
Speaker 4: Think you. Madam Vice Mayor, I just want to make a comment about staff providing the information. And I think just in defense of the city attorney's office, they provided a lot of information. They did a lot of research. And and I think there was additional research that was requested. And I think staff just wanted to make sure that all the counsel was okay with us doing that additional resources or spending the time to do that and to give you that information. So I just want to acknowledge that her staff actually did a lot of work on this matter already. And this is really in recognition of Councilmember Otis comment that, you know, that you're sad to hear that when a council member asks for information that you have to bring a referral to get that information. That's really not true. So the attorney staff did a lot of work and this is just ask you to do some additional work. And I think, you know.
Speaker 0: The timeline, how much it had done.
Speaker 3: If I if I may just add one thing, and I appreciate the acting city manager saying that about this office when we got this when this project came up, the city attorney's office working hard with city staff, the community development department, it wasn't just us work very hard at trying to put together what would happen, what going forward, I mean, what the situation was and then what approvals things would have to happen going forward. What we're being asked for now and primarily by the mayor, which is her prerogative and I'm not objecting to that, is to go all the way back to historically. How did this property come about being put up, which all was the federal government, which is entirely the GSA, the Department of Agriculture, and how they did it. That's what we're saying. We don't have that information. So we're happy to go back and to however historically you want us to. But I don't I appreciate the fact what the acting city manager said. It wasn't that we weren't being responsive. We're getting additional requests for information. And we will provide we will do our best to gather that information and provide it.
Speaker 0: And I just want to add this referral I wrote a long time ago. I actually probably wrote it before we had information from the attorney's office. If you look at the date that I and regards how much history actually in going back to 2008, which isn't that far back back when WW was voted on, I want to know then, was it one or two parcels? That's my my. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. And then I do need to have a motion, apparently, to consider remaining items 99 C and ten A is this 1030? We have a motion to consider the additional items.
Speaker 1: The last meeting will have to do that.
Speaker 5: But second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I, i, i know. I guess we need for votes for this.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 3: Hopefully we can go through it.
Speaker 7: So just really quickly, it looks like a lot of the information that was requested has been provided and was being worked on at the time that the request went in. Councilmember Morrissey My one question for you is when you talk about the timeline and that sort of thing, are you are you literally talking about a timeline of as we get the information and if we get it and, you know, who can or are you looking like how robust is the information that you're looking for?
Speaker 6: I'm looking for. We're here right now. The GSA took some action. There were applications. What's the projected timeline? What are the steps that have to happen to the point where a project comes before? First of all, geo overlay comes before the city council. And I'm not asking this mainly going forward. Going forward. Yes. For us, it's for the public to know what's happening.
Speaker 5: Not going back.
Speaker 6: I don't see the need to go back except in the staff report and that's going to be published before we take the action.
Speaker 3: So we have provided, I believe, the timeline that you just described. That was my point. We did the go forward. What has to happen now? And now we're going to we will go back and we will try to find, you know, what is more historic. And I understand Mayor 2008, but it's still historic from this point forward. We do, but we're happy to do that.
Speaker 2: I remember. I mean, only thing I'll say is, you know. You have. It'll probably come up in December. Oh, I don't know if it's something I would tell you to do now, but I'm sure the question will be asked. So you can you can decide what you want to do based on knowing that the question will be asked.
Speaker 4: And. Yeah. It's on.
Speaker 2: I'm sure it'll be on. And for December it'll be asked if it's not in the staff report. So take that for.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: So I'm not telling you when.
Speaker 3: We hear you and we don't.
Speaker 5: Want you to take a vote on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Let's take a look. I don't think we have a second.
Speaker 0: So my referral goes to wanting to know the history of the ownership of the property back in 2008 when the people voted on w w and it sounds like it may require writing letters and requesting it from other jurisdictions, and we may or may not get a response, but I think it's important for us to have that information. If we can get a response, that'll be great. If not, you know, we tried, but I want to confirm this information. And so that sounds like that's not going to make I don't know if that was included in member mattresses motion or not.
Speaker 7: I'm supportive of I'll second member Matt Ross's motion.
Speaker 0: But his motion is not to have the history. It's actually sounds like it's not it doesn't include my referral.
Speaker 6: My assumption is that that's going to be in the staff report when this comes to us for action. And I stated that at least twice.
Speaker 7: And I think that there's been sufficient direction in this conversation that the city attorney's office knows that there's expectation that the information that you've requested will be included. And that's what I was saying earlier. I think that we've we've we've collectively let them know that this is the type of information that we think is going to come up as part and has come up and that we would like them to include it in the staff report in December.
Speaker 0: Okay. So can that be a friendly amendment to your motion? I think it's more clearly articulated.
Speaker 2: What you said. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. All right. So then there's a motion and then a second, then all those in favor I oppose.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 0: The motion carries 40 oh oh.
Speaker 2: An abstain.
Speaker 3: Oh that.
Speaker 2: I think, I think.
Speaker 0: Okay so we.
Speaker 2: Got it's.
Speaker 0: One one it sounds like. Okay, okay. The next motion. I'm sorry. The next item nine be. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Provide Background Information on the Crab Cove Property Prior to Any Council Actions on the Property. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on May 15, 2018 or June 5, 2018] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06192018_2018-5523 | Speaker 0: One one it sounds like. Okay, okay. The next motion. I'm sorry. The next item nine be.
Speaker 1: Considered directing staff to prioritize efforts to increase safety and reduce crime and to do the same as place on agenda at the request of mayor.
Speaker 0: This is another one that I had placed on that I had submitted quite a while ago. Um.
Speaker 6: So who's going to vote against prioritizing safety and reducing crime?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: So then so that a motion.
Speaker 0: Okay, their motion for my.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: Well, hang on a second before you do that, because I want to make sure that's I just want to make sure that the referral I want to see what the action is in the referral before we.
Speaker 6: That's more my reaction to.
Speaker 5: I think it was a moot point maybe.
Speaker 6: I think they're doing that for the. There's any I just haven't seen any thing to tell me that we're not doing that and the chief's not doing that, and the department's not doing that.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes, very.
Speaker 2: Sorry. I mean, I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Martin. I mean, I don't I don't see anything that our, you know, police department is not doing to either solve crimes that happen or prevent crimes from happening. But I did want to point out that I think there was some discussion offline about Prop 47 in a study that came out by the PC. And, you know, the. The headline. You know, one is that violent crime has not increased in California due to Proposition 14 or Proposition 47. And the other headline, even though some people are touting this on the right, that some of these property crimes have increased, it's important to note that, you know , they've increased. They went from the lowest on record and the increase was to the second lowest on record. So even though there may have been a slight increase, which you may or may not attribute to Prop 47, we are still in a really good period when it comes to property crimes, especially when you compare it to the rates back from the seventies and eighties. So I just want people to, you know, not get caught up in the in the data because Mike McMahon used to tell me there's lies, damned lies and statistics. So I just want to make sure we don't rely on statistics to prove some point. And I don't know, one on this council did. So I'm not saying anything about anyone on this council, but there was some offline communication that I received from some of the outside the council.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 7: I of course, support reducing crime, but I draw the line at Fourth Amendment protections and civil rights. And if this is a resolution to push forward or somehow bolster support for expediting the cameras, I'm not going to be in support of this because I think that that's a conversation that we still need to have and it's already on the agenda. And certainly one thing that we did hear from our chief at our budget workshop was that it looks like we're going to be at full staffing and that we have new recruits coming in. Right. And I think that that's a significant step forward, because we do know that community policing, having trained officers who are out in the community, is is the most effective thing that we can do. And also working with our citizens to make sure that, you know, that that they know what to look for and what to report and how to engage or, you know, to to improve their safety is another thing. And so I don't I also don't want this to be kind of a. Read as a comment against our department and the work that they've done. To get up to staffing and to go out and actually do the do the good work that they're doing.
Speaker 0: Hey. Well, I brought I actually don't know when I submitted this. I know it was a while ago, but I do want to I think it is important that we prioritize efforts to increase our safety and reduce crime. And that's why I brought the referral to get it to have it come back. And my understanding was at some point this can come back like in December or something. And I think maybe it was moved up in one of our meetings. I'm not really.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 4: So I mean, I think the general idea of supporting, you know, to prioritize efforts to increase safety and reduce crime, I mean, we I think we can get behind that. I'm not sure what we would bring back. We are, um, you know, on the uppers. We had discussed that on the 18th. We plan on bringing back the policy as well as, um, if there's a RFP. So I think we're clear on that. So I don't think any of it we wouldn't be planning on bringing anything back on this.
Speaker 0: And when a staff planning to bring that back at this time, that.
Speaker 4: Is coming back in, I believe, in September.
Speaker 2: At a nice handed engagement.
Speaker 3: They.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So personally, I don't know if it's possible to move that up, but if it works out that it works where he has the twenty-fourths and sooner and my preference would be to have it come to this, you know, whenever, as soon as possible. So but I think the referral honestly was written quite a while ago. This has been.
Speaker 4: You can tell. Yeah. So it sounds like it's coming back on September 4th. That's about as quick as your as we're going to get.
Speaker 0: Great. Okay. So September 4th sounds good. I know it had been later date at some point and we moved it up, so I appreciate that. Okay.
Speaker 1: Nine C visitor directing staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of gas powered. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Prioritize Efforts to Increase Safety and Reduce Crime. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on May 15, 2018 or June 5, 2018] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06052018_2018-5623 | Speaker 1: And this is to approve actions to implement the only two point transportation demand management plan, including adoption of a related resolution and a recommendation to allow pass through of fees and a recommendation to allow pass through of special taxes.
Speaker 0: Okay. And the public speaker. Okay. Yeah, the public speaker on this one is Michael McCarron. But the USS Hornet.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. Good evening. I am Michael McCarron. I'm the executive director of the US's Hornet Sea, Air and Space Museum. As you're aware, the Hornet is a 5.3 sea charity. We received no funding from the federal, state or local government to operate the museum. What you have before you is a proposal to pass on assessments to the Hornet for transportation plan. This year, the Hornet will be assessed $4,000. Next year, 8000. And in 2020. $12,000. I'll be brief and to the point. These assessments propose a serious financial challenge for us in spite of numerous new programs, a revamp marketing campaign and broadening different Grammy demographics. The number of our annual visitors, unfortunately, remains flat. We are now in the process of developing a capital improvement plan. So the thought of having to pass these costs of these assessments onto our existing visitors and our members would be self-defeating in our effort to raise capital funds to maintain the ship properly and safely. I respect the request you tables plan until a comprehensive demand analysis can be looked at to see what the visitor benefit would be for the Hornet. Because right now we see none and it would not benefit our employees as well, because none of our employees would use any of the proposed options. I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I believe he's the only speaker on this item, not.
Speaker 6: A mere.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 6: I would request a brief staff report. It doesn't have to be a full thing, but just maybe to give the public an overview of what is the issue at hand.
Speaker 4: Sure. I'll go ahead and start, Jennifer. Acting Assistant City Manager and Gayle Payne, senior transportation coordinator, is here to support us as well. The City Council and May of 2014 adopted a Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan, which was that all employers and residents are property owners, developers, employers participate in helping to fund and participate in programs related to transportation demand management to minimize car trips from al to and from Alameda point. So a major part of in fact a mitigation as part of the environmental impact report for Alameda point something that we've been developing for for many years the city the first development is implementing and this is an attempt to take additional measures to implement that program, including bringing in our existing employers on board to this this process. We held three or four community workshops with all with the tenants went over numerous different over the course of a year, numerous different options, looked at different options and then ultimately decided on the program that's being proposed here that the primary source of is include essentially all employees of all the businesses there will be will have access to essentially free easy passes paid for by the employers. And then we're modifying the line 96 with AC transit help to expand and have a wider catchment of of Alameda point in that's looking to be implemented at the end of this year . So this is in line with the team plan for by the council the project area committee for Alameda Point that's part of the nonprofit that now that Alameda TMA or the transportation management association that oversees implementing team programs both at both Northern Waterfront and Point, they unanimously approved this program. So did the board of the Alameda TMA and really here to ratify this or the council.
Speaker 0: That's right. So I think are you going to do do does the clock work? Are you supposed to be keeping track of the clock on this part? Yeah. Okay. And I'm going to go to member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: So thank you, miss. My questions are in the approval. The process of approving this program will mean that the Council adopted it. But was any consideration given for a special category 450133? And now we have the U.S. Hornet. Hornet, we have the Alameda Naval Air Station Museum. Was there any consideration given to special categories? And then were concerns like the one the gentleman just articulated, raised during the the process of of sharing this with the different entities at the point.
Speaker 4: You know, there was a lot of discussion about different uses and whether or not they fell into certain categories. And because of that input, we actually segregated the rates. We had one rate initially that we had proposed and we ended up putting the other different rates and even hybrid rates because of the different uses there to try to address the issues that folks raised about being having different types of uses, some more intense than others, potentially generating more traffic than others. And so we did look at that and I think in the case of the Hornet, even worked with the Hornet because of the square footage being very different, really trying to reduce that and minimize that. And did talk about that. We you had an important collaborative here you have the other they're all paying this fee because we we everyone I mean everyone we our hope is really everyone. And that if we start exempting people from the fee, that there's a lot of reasons other employers may want to be exempted as well. And then it really starts to open the door for, you know, not full participation in the team program. And we think that essentially undermines the overall program.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other questions? So in regards to the Hornet. Their rates are going to go from 4008, whatever he just said. Right. So does that mean what does that mean? We're not going to have the Hornet around.
Speaker 4: No, I don't. I mean, the question this was originally this rate and this amount was negotiated with the previous executive director. And this is the first I've heard that this would be a financial hardship. I hadn't heard that before was not appropriate before that today with regard.
Speaker 0: Okay, so now you've heard that financial hardship, you do like having the horn in town. So then the staff have a proposal of going back. What do you propose at this point?
Speaker 4: I think it's what the council would like to do. So there are other there are other tenants that also had questions about this. And they have essentially gotten on board with the idea that we tried to be very responsive by reducing the overall program to a very minimal program to start really wanting to start something small. That was one of their big concerns. So that's what we've done. We also bifurcated the rates to respond to that. And at the last meeting we had with a lot of with the tenants. There was general support for a much more limited program, which is what's before you today and try to minimize the impacts and the fees on the tenants, especially as this program starts to get up and running. And we've tried to be very responsive to all the comments we received from the different tenants.
Speaker 0: So do you have a list of the tenants that supported this and the list of the tenants that did not?
Speaker 4: And we did not take we didn't take a vote, but we had a final community workshop after four community workshops, and there was essential general support for proposing the financial plan that you have here. And then the project area committee that actually is made up of tenants at the base voted for this and recommended it. And then the table had a.
Speaker 0: List of who the tenants are that are on that committee that voted for it.
Speaker 4: Sure. Yeah. There's Representative Saint George Spirits Representative of the West Tower LLC. So SRM Ernst is on that. And then you have Joanna Hendrickson as well, representative in point developers and you have city staff myself on that. And then you have Doug Beggs, Executive Director of the A Point Collaborative, on that project.
Speaker 0: So you have two developers, one person from.
Speaker 4: A nonprofit.
Speaker 0: Developers, one nonprofit.
Speaker 4: And then one one business of spirituality.
Speaker 0: Four members comprising of to develop.
Speaker 4: In the city and my city.
Speaker 0: All right. So who came up with that composition? Because I think that's actually heavy in regards to that. 50% of the members are developers.
Speaker 4: It was in the bylaws and that was and so determined as part of the initial set up of the bylaws of the TMA and.
Speaker 0: Who said who set that up.
Speaker 4: So the said we we staff worked with the bylaws and with the community. And we asked we asked for nominations from the tenants. We did not receive any offers or nominations. We sent out emails to tenants asking for interests. And and those were the folks that ultimately agreed to serve. And we're representative of the interests in the bylaws and we need to have a representative of a largest property owner. We needed a representative of commercial interests and a residential interest city. And so those were so the largest.
Speaker 0: Property owner is.
Speaker 4: Well, the right now is the city because we own most of the property, but we as a proxy for that. We have Joe Ernst of SRM Ernst, who is part of the partners who now is the largest, who is now the largest property owner.
Speaker 5: So private property owner.
Speaker 0: So the city and developed Joe Ernst was in that position in the capacity as first a proxy for the city.
Speaker 4: Well know the city as the largest property owner essentially worked with the community and the tenants to determine who would be composed on that board because the city was the largest property owner, hadn't really transferred any property at the time that the bylaws and this nonprofit were formed, we went back out to the tenants and kind of sought out folks that represented the different interests. There's term is three years so at the and then the bylaws stipulate who essentially gets to serve. So at this point the largest developer will be element of point partners when the terms are up in three years. But the city sought out interests that represented the commercial interest, residential interests and then the largest property owner interests. And so it was SRM.
Speaker 0: Ernst Okay, so is it possible to have this go back with more input from community from community members in a more public process? Do you have a very public option today?
Speaker 4: It was a very public process. It's been no to all of the. So we've had three or four community workshops with the tenants. We then advertised the project area committee meeting. So just a matter that.
Speaker 0: Has to be voted on today or could we have more time to look at the sites?
Speaker 4: I think what if there's an interest in reviewing the Hornets amount and whether or not that seems fair? The council could kind of ask the TMA board to take another look in the project area committee, to take another look at that amount and determine whether or not they think that's an appropriate amount given the use. So that might be something that could be directed to staff to take back to.
Speaker 0: And were there any other tenants that voted no? Was there anyone else that voted no or expressed any concerns about this going forward?
Speaker 4: So initially there were a lot of concerns. We put something on the table, a lot of concerns. We met with the ASP, asked the tenants what they wanted, came up with a program that were questions, concerns. Then we worked with the tenants, held a couple of different meetings with them, and then ultimately came up with a number of options for them. And at the last meeting that we had, the options that are before you tonight is what they. Generally supported was that they were wanted to move forward with easy passes, with easy transit and a modification to the line 96.
Speaker 0: Yes, I would feel more comfortable if there were an actual vote with each of these tenants to get an input from each tenant. I'm going to go to a member. Oh, did you have question? No, I didn't remember. Matter. I see.
Speaker 2: It's my understanding that the Hornet gets a substantial lower cost for the birth than the merit. Is that correct? Mm hmm. And my I would say go forward with this and make that emotion that we go forward this. And if that transportation fee becomes a hardship, we can again look at the saving, the cost on another end. And I think it's also a misstatement to say that the city doesn't support the Hornet because that lower berth fee is a substantial savings that the city could be getting revenue from if it was leased to somebody else . So that's where I'd make that motion that we go forward with the proposal as listed here. And then if there is a true hardship, we can revisit saving some money on the berth fee.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashraf.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Amir. And I'll. Second Councilmember Maher Estes. Motion. I'm concerned with a couple of things. First of all, one of the things that is often said about new development is it brings all this traffic. And what are you going to do about it? And this is in part what we're doing about it. We're having all the employers, all the developers paying into this fund to add to the the baseline and free transit passes. I would think that the Hornet would generate a lot of traffic. I know there's often events that are held at the Hornet that bring hundreds of people out. And so, I mean, that is a responsibility to to help support the mitigation of traffic to the Hornet and to Alameda Point. And I also am concerned that the previous executive director was part of the negotiation and agreed to it. And so, I mean, I get that there was some changing of the guard, but I think Mithat and staff were well within their rights to rely on the agreements they had at the time. I also would say we can have this, you know, if there are indeed hardships, then something can be brought back to, you know, perhaps modify. But when I hear that Alameda Point Collaborative and others are going along and paying their assessment, I think it's time that we get behind, you know, putting our money where our mouth is that we we know that more traffic will be generated. And this is a way to get at least some people out of their cars and onto public transportation and to provide more public transportation. So I'm in support.
Speaker 0: Throughout the report, it did reference the lime bikes and that went out for an RFP. So I just wanted to make sure that this we're not committing to using line bikes in the future.
Speaker 4: No, no. But Bikeshare has always been a part of the 11 point plan. So I think that is one of the times this was part of the pilot point. Yeah, okay. You're right.
Speaker 0: So we have any other questions? Comments?
Speaker 7: We asked Molly if she had it.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: No, I'm fine.
Speaker 0: All right, then. We have a motion in a second and it would be a roll call vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council members. The i. I. Ella. Odie. Sorry.
Speaker 5: Hi, Bella. I.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Or I one.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's five ee. The next is five G. And we do have a speaker on this one also.
Speaker 1: Okay. Adoption resolution requesting and authorizing this county needed to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the city of Alameda as voter approved levy for the general obligation bonds issued pursuant to the general election held on November seven, 2000, for the Army Library. | Consent Calendar Item | Summary Title: Approve Actions to Implement the Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City of Alameda to Ratify the TDM Fee Amount for Existing Tenants in Alameda Point;
Recommendation to Allow a Pass Through of the TDM Fees from Existing Tenants in Alameda Point to the Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA); and
Recommendation to Allow a Pass Through of the Special Taxes Generated for Transportation Purposes from Property Owners within Community Facilities District 17-1 (CFD 17-1) at Alameda Point to the Alameda TMA. (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06052018_2018-5548 | Speaker 1: Okay. Adoption resolution requesting and authorizing this county needed to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the city of Alameda as voter approved levy for the general obligation bonds issued pursuant to the general election held on November seven, 2000, for the Army Library.
Speaker 0: So did staff want to give a brief discussion of what this is?
Speaker 5: I ask where Finance Director Elena dare to come in. Describe what this is.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Madam. Mayors. Members of council laying out their finance director. So in 2000. Year 2000, the city decided to build a library. Free library, which is really close to the city hall here. And for that purpose, the city issued general obligation bonds in 2013, with the better interest rates, the city was able to refinance the bonds , but the repayment of those bonds is still under the same resolution that was set in year 2000. So based on the calculation which we do every year, which supposed to support the interest and principal payments on the bonds, we assess all the properties within the city, a certain dollar amount. And as I mentioned, it changes every year. And the reason it changes every year because we have different number of properties, we have different assessed values and it fluctuates and we do the calculation and it has to be approved by the City Council before we send it off to the county for an actual final assessment.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: This is more of a comment. I'm really familiar with this bond because Councilmember Materazzi and I have. Speaker Oh, okay. I will save that for afterwards. Yeah. Let's hear the speaker.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'm going to go ahead and call up our speaker, Jim Strelow. He gets 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Council staff. Citizens. About 16 years ago, there was a problem that occurred with Park Street trees where the city council had authorized tree removals and stuff. And there was like two or three years later after that, that public works finally got around to doing it. But the citizens weren't aware of what had been authorized three years before, and citizens got a little bit miffed saying, Well, why don't you remind us about what's going on? Tell us that you're doing this sort of action. Well, what I now dislike here is, is that in the year 2000, had this bond issue passed by the citizens. And then all of a sudden, you make this an automatic pass, a tax on the citizens. Now, without the the discussion, without the releasing the financial information, which is why I asked this item, Leopold, how much is owed on the library, how much to its debt obligation? Is it to whom? Is it to Wells Fargo and contractor No, it's probably to the state of California. So that, you know, how much is there, what are the amounts? What do we when do we expect to retire this tax? Because you're going to be taxing ulcers, all properties in the city of Alameda. I would think that people would anybody here aware that this new tax was.
Speaker 8: Being passed on them? Probably not. That's why I want.
Speaker 2: The, you know, making it above board. Please present some of the information so that we know what is this total amount due. And, you know, what's the what's a typical I think it's for $54.50 per 100,000 being assessed. So that's $45 a year extra or something on people's taxes, you know, for an average house, but then other other properties. And, you know, please tell the citizens so that they know what this actual new obligation is that you're passing on to the citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Amber Matter.
Speaker 2: SC And first of all, this is not a new obligation. The voters voted in 2000 for a 30 year bond. The maximum assessed value was $15.98 per 100,000. It's never been that high. First of all, it's gone down every time because our valuations have gone up. It was at nine, something like eight years ago, six years ago, and now it's at 450. It was lit in 2000 and. To. So when this 30 years up so if you can answer that question actually but this is but this is not a new tax.
Speaker 6: I wanted to finish my comment.
Speaker 2: This is not a new tax. This is a reduction because valuations have gone up and we've got more properties. And if you could just answer when it's over, because there's 30 years is a long time and it's going to be reduced as we go for that. And we have the library.
Speaker 0: And could you answer the questions of the speaker? Thank you.
Speaker 5: Of course. So if anybody really would like to learn more about Citi's debt, they're very welcome to go in and look at Citi's annual financial statements that are actually presented on the city's website. It's called Capper Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. And there's a whole section on the bonds and general obligation bond. This particular one is one of them. It presents what is the outstanding balance on the debt. And as of June 30th, 2017, that was a little over $7.9 million. The payments principal payments are made in August. Interest payments are semiannual. The bond is going to be repaid in six years. So we have about 16 years left on this particular bond. And our assessment is really to make a payment on the principal and interest that is required for a year. That's coming up. We have accumulated a little bit of extra cash and we take into account, in consultation with the Bond Council, what needs to be done and we reduce the payments. That's one of the reasons why assessment is a little lower than it would have been otherwise to make sure that we do not over collect. But the reason for over collection that happened was because the assessed values have gone up.
Speaker 6: And if I could finish.
Speaker 0: Let me just circle back to remember matters you first.
Speaker 2: Did you? Yes. I just want to make sure people know that this is not a new tax and it's been going down and we have the building and 7.9 million left is nothing to the cost of replacing that building today.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 6: And I'll just pick up where I left off. Frank and I. Councilmember matter. As you know, I co-chaired that campaign. And by the way, when we passed that bond measure and Mr. Steele, I think you were one of my supporters, but we had 78.8% of the electorate. And it was a high turnout was a presidential election year, 78.8% voted yes. And I remember phone banking for that measure and people would ask, well, how much is it going to cost me? And at the time, we what we believed was $15 per $100,000 of your assessed, not your appraised, but your assessed property value. And for the most part, the folks we were talking to on the phone would go, Oh, that's nothing. And so now the way you property owners can look at it is you got a little raise because as Ms.. Adair explained, as property values go up and our property values have all gone up since 2002, whenever this was initiated, that means that the you know, the percentage amount is less. And we have added more properties, both commercial and and residential. So it's a good thing. And as councilmember matter, as he pointed out and we have a library, we can't keep saying it's new because now it's ten years old. But and we were very fortunate that this community also voted to to do the bond because that was a matching fund we needed to apply for the state money . So the state put in $2 for every $1 of local match the state put into, and you just can't get a better deal than that. And that, by the way, was the last library construction bond the state of California has passed. They've tried to get others through the legislature, and it's just never gotten all the way up to the governor's signature. So it's not a new tax.
Speaker 0: Remember 80?
Speaker 7: Actually, I think this is our only bond indebtedness we have.
Speaker 5: Right as a general obligation on. Yes.
Speaker 7: I'm of approval of the item.
Speaker 0: Could be vice mayor. I don't know if you had any comments. Questions.
Speaker 3: No, I second the motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a motion in the second. Any other questions? Comments.
Speaker 5: Mark?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, I think i.
Speaker 7: I i.
Speaker 1: I know you're Spencer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: It's been five days.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So now we're on five H.
Speaker 1: Adoption resolution approving a workforce change at medium to some power to add one position advanced metering infrastructure system administrator and amending the related salary schedule. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library. (Finance 421.1) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06052018_2018-5586 | Speaker 1: Adoption resolution approving a workforce change at medium to some power to add one position advanced metering infrastructure system administrator and amending the related salary schedule.
Speaker 0: So I mean.
Speaker 7: Brody Yeah. I have three quick questions if. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council Members. Niko Prokop General Manager, HAMP. Thank you, sir. So first question. This was on your request, correct? Correct. And you're the department head. And is is in your professional opinion, as the department had you judge this as an essential need of AMP. Is that correct? Absolutely. As you are aware, we just finished replacing 36,000 meters. We have a lot more data that we're dealing with. We're getting ready to launch a customer portal. We need somebody with a high degree of expertize to be able to monitor the health of the system. We get alarms and we get notices that tamper validations that need to happen. We have meters that sometimes go silent. A lot of these issues we did have before with the old meters, we just had no visibility in them. We did. We have a consultant who's currently doing the work, but now the amount of data and information that's coming in that we need to troubleshoot really justifies this position. And this is a personal. So we're going to be a paying person on this. This is Percival, correct? Okay. I don't have any more questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The other questions.
Speaker 3: I have a question.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: Was this costs factored into or included in the consideration of switching over to the metering?
Speaker 7: So when we embarked on the AMI program, we did do a cost benefit analysis and we looked at. Kind of a broad view of the organization, and some positions were fairly obvious that they were going to be phased out. So for example, meter reading positions we did have three of those were now down to one. And then at the same time, though, there was a recognition that this is we're moving towards more of a technology focused platform with these smart meters. We're going to need to maybe a disposition. I don't think there are any plans at present to add another position or more positions related to the program, but they're kind of somewhat of an offset. But I think overall the benefit there is a benefit to the utility in terms of cost reductions, both in this perspective and then also in operational efficiencies, other operational efficiencies. So for example, we have significantly less truck rolls right now. We're able to do a lot of activities remotely that saves on greenhouse gas reduction and other things like that, that saves on wear and tear on vehicles and and other personnel related issues.
Speaker 3: So this position wasn't factored in into the initial estimate. When you switched over to the MRI system.
Speaker 7: I don't know whether this one was specifically identified. It was there was a recognition that we would need as part of monitoring the platform. A position of this nature. I don't know whether that was a bit before my time. I turn to Bob as Bob is nodding his head. So that was part of the original business case assessment. So it was included as part of our analysis.
Speaker 3: And this cost was considered as part of that analysis.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 3: So this was factored into the potential budget of an anime program? Yes. Cost?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. Um, my second question is, um, you know, for this for this position, um. Do we have an internal candidate? Is this a position that's going to be posted later on?
Speaker 7: We will be opening up the position and there are some potential internal candidates. It will be an open recruitment, so there could be outside interested parties. This is a very technical, IT focused position. So it requires a unique skill set. And that's what we'll be looking for when we when we do the recruitment.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other questions from council?
Speaker 6: Move approval second.
Speaker 0: I do. Oh, sorry. I do have a question. Um, my question is. Okay, so if we don't approve this, then what happens? Because I know you installed all the new meters.
Speaker 7: So currently we have a consultant who is performing to a large degree this function. There are other parts of the workforce who are filling in here and there on other components of the function. But by and large, it's a it's a third party consultant. It has worked up until now as we've ramped up the deployment of the meters. But we do feel that we need somebody in-house who's going to be able to be there day to day. This position not only has the a high technical component, they're also going to be interfacing with many other areas of the department. So, for.
Speaker 2: Example, when.
Speaker 7: Field crews, crews need to go out and and look at meters, they will work with them and then so that they can do their work. So it really makes a lot more sense to have this position in-house as opposed to have it with a consultant.
Speaker 0: So that in here it says something about there is a net savings overall, but there's not a, you know, do you have a dollar amount to give us some idea what kind of savings by I know you've let go some people that go out to the homes and actually do the reading. Correct. And now this is going to replace that. Do you have any idea of what the savings is?
Speaker 7: I don't have the numbers. We did we did start out with we had three meter readers. We're now down to one.
Speaker 0: In the pay of a meter reader.
Speaker 7: I don't know the exact approximately.
Speaker 0: Yes. Oh, yeah. And this. This starts at 91,000 per year. The range is 200,000.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Nancy Bronstein. Sorry. There is some savings because the meter readers, probably two meter readers, are probably closer to about 150 between them fully loaded or about 60,000 apiece for salary. So there's still some savings.
Speaker 0: Even with the addition of this position. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I have one more question.
Speaker 0: Oh, Vice Mayor Brody.
Speaker 3: Did the cost go up recently or aren't services?
Speaker 5: So did the cost go up recently for AMP services? Nice Mary. Talking about rates.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 7: So the board recently approved a 1% average rate increase starting in July that will impact different customer classes differently depending on the cost of service. At this time last year, we were projecting a 5% rate increase. So we were very happy to to refine the numbers a little bit. And it looked like based on the strong financial performance of the utility over the past year, that we were able to return that value to the ratepayers in the form of a lower than expected rate increase.
Speaker 0: Edit I swear. Did you have any other questions?
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 7: I said a quick comment. I know we had a budget meeting a few weeks back and there was a request by a department head who we trust to know what his department needs to fill a position that in his best business judgment he felt was necessary and that even would have been covered by cost recovery. And it was the majority of the council said no because it was personal. And now we are faced with a similar situation today with a very high level paid employee being asked for by the department head who we presume knows the business needs of his department. And it's also personal. Yet it seems we are poised to approve that. So it seems a little bit, you know, inconsistent with me that, you know, we have one standard for one department and one standard for the other. That's my comment.
Speaker 0: I'm happy to respond to that, and I appreciate that. This to me is different in that you have cut other positions because we are installing the automatic what do you call these readers?
Speaker 7: Smart meters, smart.
Speaker 0: Meters for installing the smart meters. And so you eliminated three or two of the people that walk around.
Speaker 7: There's two, and we have a third left and we'll revisit based on workload in January 2019. And I will point out that in the last four years, our staffing level has actually reduced. So some of that's related to the Smart Meter program and some of that is other other things going on as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: And I'll just add to the mayor's comments that as I believe it was, the fire chiefs request that was being referred to. And I do recall that we also informed the chief to come back when these prospective cost savings were known. At this point, they're just, you know, on paper. And we couldn't we can't base a budget on on speculation. But when those figures are known, then we will take another look at it. But there's always a lot of balancing that goes on. But I'm I believe there's been a has there been a motion in the second of.
Speaker 0: I believe, member matters to make a motion and your second on it and yeah. So any other questions or comments at this time? All right.
Speaker 6: Does the acting city manager I.
Speaker 5: Just wanted clarification that thank you that the this is not general fund money. We all okay.
Speaker 6: For another distinction? Still personal time.
Speaker 5: Still personal. But then general fund.
Speaker 7: Somebody somewhere in Alameda is going to be paying that.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Call the remember as the article I addressed. I. I.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: One note.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Five. I was withdrawn or will be coming back to council on a later date. Five. Oh, I just said I voted no on, but we did already vote on that. So now I believe we're on six a we're on our regular agenda. Item six a mayor member asked.
Speaker 6: My request on six A would be that we bifurcate the vote on the two members. Maybe you were going to do that anyway because. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of Resolution Approving a Workforce Change at Alameda Municipal Power to Add One Position, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System Administrator and Amending the Salary Schedule of the Electric Utility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA) to Add the Classification of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System Administrator, Effective June 5, 2018. (Human Resources 2510) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06052018_2018-5633 | Speaker 1: Consider adoption resolution supporting Almeida Rank and file employees post a Janice versus American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Supreme Court and the sign was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 7: So briefly. It's going to be recognized. Sorry. Sorry. So briefly, I think that the clerk described the referral, and the referral is to actually adopt the resolution that's attached, and that's reinforcing our continued cooperation with all of our public sector unions and supporting the freedom of them to collectively bargain post a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Janus . And I think everyone knows that that that decision is imminent. It could come down any day now. And this resolution is just to make sure that our workers rights are respected and that any communication related to this and their their rights and any changes of that, and that they don't have that information come from management, that they're able to have it come from their bargaining units, and that that can be done, you know, with release time. So I'm sure our speakers will talk more in detail on some of the intricacies about it.
Speaker 0: All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers now. And I'm not sure which order who wanted to go first. I have Al Fortier with IBEW 1245 and I also have Josie come and watch the sorry Camacho. Whoever wants to go first. And if you could identify yourself, that'd be great. Thanks.
Speaker 7: And looks like now it's.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm now 48. I'm the business representative for IBEW Local 1245. I represent the electrical workers that work for Alameda Municipal Power. I have a 20 year relationship approximately with the city of Alameda, 11 years as an employee, as a journeyman lineman, and eight years as the business representative representing the electrical workers. Like I said, I rise in support of nine. See the resolution that supports the Alameda rank and file employees post Janice versus me Supreme Court decision as you guys have seen in the resolution. The whereas is highlight the many benefits of working families who are union members. Many of our members are Alameda INS who have benefitted from the relationship between our union and app. They benefit not only from the good wages and benefits that we provide, but also from the training, joint training between the union and app and also the joint safety programs that are provided. Our electrical workers have gone through the apprenticeship program, as I said, at and we have a number of them who are Alameda INS. One of our earlier speakers talked about the need to attract high tech in order to provide good jobs for folks who can live in Alameda affordably. But I would submit that our relationship with AMP has already provided a model for training through their apprenticeship programs that would provide good jobs. And the union in the city has worked hand in hand for decades and both our parties to the IMO you that covers our agreement for working conditions for providing city services to the citizens of Alameda. The provisions of our agreement are put in jeopardy by the Janice versus Asman decision. Particularly, we have agency shop language that governs our dues collections. We also have a provision of our contract. As you may know, the separate severability provision which requires us to meet and confer over items of our MRU that become or become deemed illegal, which this likely would as a result of. Janice So I believe that the resolution reinforces the right to meet and confer the rights for union members and workers to have a voice. And I don't think it does anything or says anything that would not otherwise take place statutorily between the union and the city of Alameda . I think it does reinforce, though, that it is important to maintain a good and vibrant working relationship. I mean, that's you know, we have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, jose, also. I'm sorry. We have a strict time limit. I'm sorry. We just do appreciate it, Jose. You know. Thank you all.
Speaker 4: Jose Camacho. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I am the Executive.
Speaker 0: Secretary Treasurer of the.
Speaker 4: Alameda Labor Council. We proudly represent 132 local affiliated unions, 135,000 union members throughout Alameda County in support of supporting.
Speaker 0: Our public sector unions.
Speaker 4: Under the direction of the Trump administration, there have been nothing but attacks on a national scale and international scale. And this is one of those bullets that starting to hit home, we feel, in light of the MeToo movement, you know, now women more than ever are speaking out and being heard. And sexual harassment and abuse is no longer tolerated and never should have been. But now it's taken a movement to fight that. The other is.
Speaker 0: The civil rights.
Speaker 4: Movement. The Trump administration is trying to turn its back 40 years from what we have fought for this very day. My parents came from the island of Guam. There were ten of us and worked really hard during World War Two when the call was made to the people of the islands. But living here in Alameda County in Oakland at the time, there was so much racism that we faced just merely because of who we were and what we looked like. And now today we have the attack against unions.
Speaker 0: And I will say proudly that in Alameda County.
Speaker 4: AC Transit last week voted to support its public sector workers.
Speaker 0: Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
Speaker 4: This morning unanimously voted to support its public sector workers. The city of Emeryville Unified School District and Berkeley and other jurisdictions.
Speaker 0: Have it.
Speaker 4: On their agenda. Coming up with the Port Commission, with city of Oakland, city of Hayward, Berkeley, and other school districts and public entities. And tonight I am asking those of you that are elected leaders, that are public.
Speaker 0: Employers, that.
Speaker 4: Have public employees to support this resolution, it would simply mean that in light of the eminent decision from Janice, that you will stand with your public sector workers and allow the continuation of collective bargaining, allow the continuation of people, workers to have a voice, and allow the continuation.
Speaker 0: Through that voice to.
Speaker 4: Exercise raising of standards in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions.
Speaker 0: We have been in conversations with our public employers.
Speaker 4: They have been very receptive, were willing as labor. Thank you very much, Mayor. I got you before you got me.
Speaker 0: I know. I don't know.
Speaker 4: If I should say goodnight or good morning, but.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah, it's 1130. Almost here. All right. Remember matter. S.E..
Speaker 2: I'm. I think the the timing of this is is apropos as far as the whereas as I on the resolution, I don't have any issue at all with that. The city has used collective bargaining in good faith negotiations to provide us with a good framework for our behavior. And I think it should be continued. I think when it gets to the further resolved in our direction to staff, because there will be impacts on how we as employers have to change. I think it's important that the direction is not as is written here, but to make sure that we are prepared to address the changes in the law should this ruling comes down as expected. So I think that's the first point that should be addressed and in which staff our staff should do. I think our Council I, I am standing for this, but. I think our council is willing to stand for it as well. But as far as the implementation of membership cards, our staff really isn't isn't directly involved in that. But I think what we have to provide is the assurance that we're going to continue operating under the model or the standards that are set in collective part, the principle of collective bargaining and the principle of good faith negotiations and . I'm trusting that staff and I think our direction should be that staff will engage. As far as we know, we're going to have to react with with the union representatives so that and the association representatives so that we're all on the same page in maintaining, again, the principles that are established in collective bargaining and in good faith negotiations, which I think, again, is it's a standard that served the city well.
Speaker 6: Amber Ashcraft Thank you, Mary Spencer and thank you to Mr. 14 Ms.. Camacho for coming and staying till all hours to address us. This is an important issue, and I will quickly add that my father was the president of his union, and it was a large union in San Francisco. And I very much believe in union principles and the value and good work that unions do. And I also agree with councilmember matter. I have no problem with any of the warehouses. I think the one that talked about union membership declining in Wisconsin. Had there been enough time, could probably also have added in union members or former members are suffering and even having to go on public assistance as a result of some of the lack of collective bargaining. I'm also, though, mindful of what my colleague, Councilmember Odie, reminded us earlier in this meeting, that the council must be careful not to direct staff, not to step out of our lane, if you will, on things that are not within our purview. And so I would would favor this, and I could support this resolution if the further resolved language is modified to give it to staff, to come quickly back to us to draft language, that that reinforces our commitment to union membership, collective bargaining. All of the wonderful programs that benefit our workers and our community because we want people to be able to to live and support their families. But I, I am hesitant to a to for the Council to urge appropriate staff because we have three direct reports in there the city manager, the city clerk and the city attorney, and also the way that the specif specific directives are worded. I would just hand it back to staff to make sure that we stay within the appropriate legal framework. And and I believe that's something that they're able to do. I believe they are vice mayor.
Speaker 3: So I actually think that. To remove any of the further resolved language is to completely undermine the spirit of what this resolution is trying to achieve. I guess my question is and by the way, Emeryville unanimously adopted this exact resolution tonight. Alameda County adopted unanimously this exact resolution tonight. San Francisco adopted this resolution back in March. It's being heard in a number of different jurisdictions. I don't quite understand how this is interfering with staff. Ask them specifically to engage in good faith discussions around implementing membership cards in release time. All that saying is essentially to say that, well, we're going to continue to engage in the status quo, but we're also going to work with the new law as well. The new law is going to create a number of different issues that, frankly, our staff is going to have a hard time figuring out. And part of it has to do with when. In the year of this protest. This decision is coming out. It's coming out at the end of the fiscal year. So. I think that there could be a lot of issues from a staff perspective, frankly, by not having something in place for what the process is. And I'm not sure. I mean, is it our hope that we engage in bad faith? I just I don't understand that. Also, outside of California, this language has been adopted in a number of different cities. Columbus, Ohio. Chicago, Illinois. El Paso, Texas. Saint Louis, Missouri. Baltimore, Maryland. Nashville, Tennessee. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Durham, North Carolina. So I think it's all fine and dandy to say we believe generally and we're we're going to accept the warehouses. But when it comes to actually giving direction to engage in good faith discussions, we're not going to direct our staff to do that . I find that to be troubling and not in line with at least my values. And certainly I think. When we're talking about the intent of our own staff, my sense has been that their intent is to engage in good faith discussions around this issue and what could potentially come up and to also adhere to the current contract language which, as Mr. Fortier stated, is in line with those exact provisions. So in many ways I think that this is something that we should all be voting on. I think it's imperative that we enact it tonight. And I don't know why we have to rewrite something that so many other jurisdictions who represent similar workers with similar charter provisions have already enacted. So I'm ready to support this as written tonight, and I think that we can't wait on it because this decision is imminent.
Speaker 0: So I'd like to speak. Well, actually, remember already that you want to speak next. I'm happy to let member already speak.
Speaker 7: Trying though next. And then I'll hear what you have to say. So, I mean, just a comment on some of the comments. I mean, the first resolved clause is basically a value statement. It says that we support the freedom of all employees to exercise their right to voice and dignity on the job through joining together in strong unions. I mean, there's no prescription of how to bargain, you know, not what what to say. You know, there's nothing related to any ongoing negotiations. And I will say that, you know, a lot of those cities that the vice mayor mentioned had adopted this while they were negotiating new contracts and extending contracts. So I don't I don't see where that's an issue because it hasn't been an issue before. And then so the first resolved, I think, is just a clear value statement, and I don't know why there would be an issue with that one. And the second one, and look at what, you know, we're actually doing. You know, we're urging our staff to work with our labor unions. So that is basically, you know, bargaining in good faith. So if you chunk that up, work with the unions, I don't see how that's a problem, especially given that that probably is one of our requirements now for our current contract. So post the Janice decision to cooperate to mitigate impacts but doesn't say how to mitigate those impacts. It doesn't say exactly what to do to mitigate those impacts. It doesn't prescribe any behavior. It just as we're going to sit down in a room together in good faith and cooperate to mitigate those impacts, and actually that's the actual behavior that it's prescribing is good faith discussions. So it's not saying that that those good faith discussions have to result in A, B or C, and it just gives some framework around what those discussions should be. Membership cards and release time and explaining the negative decision. So I'm at a loss to see where it's being very prescriptive and it's where it's interfering with any ongoing negotiations. But, you know, feel free to enlighten me.
Speaker 0: So I'd like to speak. I haven't had a chance to speak yet, so I'm going to go ahead and everyone else is talking about their connections to unions. So my dad was a part of the Department of Water and Power for many, many years and retired from that. So I don't have a problem with unions. And in fact, you know, I have supported many of our employee unions here in town. That being said, we have this other thing that I think is unique to the city of Alameda, maybe is our city charter. Our city charter is very clear that the council hires the city manager, the city attorney and the clerk, period. And then the city manager, for instance, here, would work with the employees. And I don't. To me, it's very clear. I think we have just had a huge investigation about what is our lane and what is not our lane. At the end of the day, our city ended up paying $900,000 to resolve this issue. I think it's very troubling from my perspective. I try to stay in my lane. I think my lane is that I hire the city manager, council hires the city manager, and then the city manager works with the employees union or not. But our charter is very clear. We give direction to the city. Actually, we hire the city manager. The city manager then would implement any i'm working with h.r. My opinion of how this works is that then they renegotiate contracts. If there's an issue, staff can come to us and let us know otherwise. H.R. handles that. I don't think it's appropriate for our charter for us to be touching directing. I think it either goes through negotiations which is coming up or we're in negotiations already. I think that's appropriate when it goes to negotiations and we go back and forth and then we address this issue there. I'm comfortable with saying, you know, just a broad statement, but not in regards to directing the city manager of how she or he would implement our employee contracts and work with that. I think that's out of our lane. And so I and I think it is because we have, you know, these other entities, they don't have our city charter. Most places I know do not have our city charter. I think, in fact, we've just gone through this in regards to other councils can get involved in hiring of other employees. We cannot. And so I'm going to I think my position is I'm going to honor our city charter. I don't plan to support the second one because of our city charter, I think. And I want to honor that. And I honestly, I think we've just been spent the last I don't know how many months on staying in our lanes. And so I plan to honor that and not go not try to dance around it and maybe end up where it's safe or not safe. So I think it's appropriate that it goes through negotiations on this issue. I'm happy to address the for the warehouses and support that and the first resolved and maybe some general principle of that we support. And but honestly, I'm confident that we do operate with good faith all the time. So I would not want to make any statement that would suggest that we don't do that already. Member matter.
Speaker 2: I'd like to propose a motion. I move the resolution with the amendment to the further resolved statement that will read that the city that the Alameda City Council urges the city manager and appropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of Allen at the City of Alameda Post a Janice versus me Supreme Court case. I cooperating to mitigate impacts. And by engaging in good faith discussions around. Around. I'm sorry. Good faith discussions. To explain and mitigate the negative implications of the Janisse decision.
Speaker 6: Question. I know.
Speaker 3: Can I?
Speaker 0: All right, let me do member Ashcraft and then vice mayor.
Speaker 6: I was I might be able to support that. What I was going to ask, though, was if staff because I saw city attorney and acting city manager maybe furiously scribbling. Have you possibly come up with any suggested language?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean.
Speaker 5: Obviously, the city city manager can speak for herself, but we were trying to figure out a way to potentially modify this, I guess, from my own personal perspective. We could come back on the 19th, which is very quickly. I mean, I understand that a couple of the council members think that's too late, but we could come back on the 19th. We can try to wordsmith it. Now, what we're concerned about is what you've said. We are in negotiations with bargaining units now. And so we want to be careful not to get too specific. But I think we want to definitely we hear all of the council members being supportive of wanting to say that, yes, we we want to continue to have good relationships with our unions, that you are making a statement. I heard some of you say that we're going to continue on to be supportive of collective bargaining standards. We're going to do good faith negotiations. I think some of the things that I had heard before had to do with making sure that it was clear that the impacts of this decision, which has not yet been delivered, and be reminded, we want to make sure that the union representatives have the ability to convey what they think it means to their rank and file as opposed to just the employees. I mean, we could add a couple of things like that, take out some of the specificity. We could try to just what council member Matt, R-S.C., was just trying to suggest as a way to try to modify this. I'm not sure that gets at the more positive aspects. I mean, one of the ways I suppose we could do it is we could even just put a period after engaging in good faith.
Speaker 4: Discussions period.
Speaker 5: That kind of takes out some of this more specific type thing. But if there's time, the best way to do this would be to let us come back on the 19th. But if you don't want to do that, we can try to sit here and wordsmith this. Member Ashcraft Can I say.
Speaker 6: Okay. I do want to come back to media, but if the vice mayor wants to.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor and the member Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: So I just feel like we're trying to wordsmith something that really doesn't need to be wordsmith. If we're going to say that, we're going to engage in good faith discussions around, you know, around this. What specifically has to deal with is implementing membership cards in release time, because I don't know how we're going to engage in good faith discussions if we don't have release time. And, you know, as to the fact that we're negotiating contracts right now, those are future contracts. This is we have current contract that are still in effect and they're going to be in effect until December. And this has to do with an impact that's going to come into effect potentially right away. So it's in our own best interests to sit down and figure out, do we. Are we going to require a new membership card, all of those sort of details. How do we want to streamline it if people you know, how are we going to actually implement this? And from an implementation standpoint, I would think that we would want to do this and we already do it. So I guess I kind of disagree with the fact that this is somehow impacting bargaining because this is about an existing contract, not a future one. And I also, in terms of staying in our lane and what we're supposed to do as a council, we also give direction relative to the general values and policies that we're enacting relative to our staff and our employees. And so this isn't a department head position where we're directing somebody be hired. This is about taking a policy stance. So. I just I think that we either adopt it as written or we don't adopt it because otherwise we're just making a statement that really is meaningless. That's not going to do anything. And I think that there's a lot of people professing to care about certain things. But then when it comes about actually taking a stand and saying, this is what our policy is going to be, people seem to be backing off from that. So I'd like to I'd like to adopt it as written. And and do that tonight.
Speaker 0: So we have emotion already still. I'm still I appreciate that. But she, I think, might have been close to.
Speaker 6: My that was in a second.
Speaker 0: So I wasn't sure what to do with the vice mayor's comments. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 0: Well so so let me confirm that because member matter he had made a motion. Okay. And I don't think my clock should be ticking down when I'm trying to organize this.
Speaker 7: That's true.
Speaker 0: Right. Sorry about that. So I'm just trying to find it. So member matter. You had emotion. Did anyone want to second that or is that dying? Natural death? Okay. I don't hear.
Speaker 7: Is like a substitute. I do a.
Speaker 6: Substitution. I had my hand up.
Speaker 0: And I appreciate that. Actually, I think vice mayor came very close to making a motion.
Speaker 6: But that was because I ceded the floor to her and I would like to finish my remarks.
Speaker 0: Mayor Spencer. I'll go to so. So we have finished the motion from member matter and then I'll just go ahead to Nebraska.
Speaker 6: This is what I would suggest. And it is not too far off from what Councilmember Matariki said, but and I would also just remind us all that reasonable minds can differ and we can still feel very strongly about our values in supporting a union labor. But I'm trying to to take away a little of the specificity and it's minor, but I would say the second further resolve that the City Council urges the city manager and probably acting city manager and appropriate staff to work with the Public Sector Unions Act. The City of Alameda Post a Janice versus ask me Supreme Court case decision by cooperating to mitigate impacts and by engaging in good faith discussions calmer which could include implementing membership cards and release time for rank and file union leaders to explain the implications of a Janice decision. And so that is a little less specific direction. And it also leaves open the possibility that there might be more things that items that need that could be addressed.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 0: All right. I swear. Is it okay to have Vice Mayor speak you?
Speaker 6: I have a second question.
Speaker 3: I have a question.
Speaker 0: Yes, vice mayor.
Speaker 3: So my question is for the maker of the motion. When you say which could include these things, is your expectation that it that it would include those things that could include other things or that it.
Speaker 6: Says say that last part again, you're a little bit soft there and just repeat it again louder. What you just said.
Speaker 3: So my question my question is when you say it could include I can't really hear you counts Nebraska.
Speaker 6: Mutual I'm afraid. Should I come over to.
Speaker 0: If you can talk louder, then maybe she can hear you.
Speaker 6: Okay. Councilmember Avella, can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. So the wording. I simply actually took out the word around and said, which could include. And the rest is in there. Right. And my explanation is that way we're not giving specific direction to staff, but that is one of the topics we're adjusting. And there could be others that maybe aren't contemplated because we haven't seen the decision yet.
Speaker 3: So so my question is as to the intent of what we're voting on. That it's not that it would not include those things.
Speaker 6: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: No, it would be thing.
Speaker 6: Which could include. Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 7: Then you took out the word negative.
Speaker 3: Would it be the same as saying which includes. But I didn't ask you.
Speaker 6: Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 2: Oh, she didn't. And she didn't read. Negative, but it's in there still.
Speaker 7: I was speaking over malice. I apologize.
Speaker 6: Oh oh. And I was kind of trying to hurry because I'm watching the clock, too. But yes, I did it so intensely. Yes.
Speaker 3: You know, when you when you make that change, you mean including. But not limited to.
Speaker 6: Which could include but not be limited to.
Speaker 3: I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, that basically instead of around, you're saying including but not limited to those two things. Correct. That's the intent.
Speaker 7: That's you know.
Speaker 6: It's the intent. I think the wording I mean and I'll just look to the city attorney. What?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, frankly, I have to say that I prefer councilmember as the Ashcroft's version, because it isn't as directive, it says, which could include and I think the tenor of the previous resolved, along with the idea that we are supporting the unions what have you, but it isn't saying you must do these particular things.
Speaker 4: It says it could include these things.
Speaker 5: And it leaves the door open to even do other things.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: That it will help support the union's position if we say if instead you're changing it to say you have to do these things and anything else, then I think we're kind of back to where we started.
Speaker 6: Okay. So my motion stands and I believe I have a second though.
Speaker 0: Can you clarify then when she says it also means it doesn't have to include these things? I think that's right. But I think the.
Speaker 5: Intent is there, which is what the vice mayor's concerned about. I think the intent is clear in the previous resolved and and even in the further resolved that the notion is that we're trying to work with and support the unions in light.
Speaker 4: Of this this expected negative.
Speaker 5: Decision. But we're not directing what exactly has to be done to do that.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 7: I mean, one possible suggestion, because you had released time for rank and file union leaders to explain the amplifications. You could say. Include. Okay. What you said released Hammond rank and file comment. Depending on the implications of a Janus decision.
Speaker 6: Well, I believe that this resolution was actually compiled in large part with the assistance of the Army, the Labor Council. That's how and they're not similar. But but it is true that the Board of Supervisors is transit the city of Oakland to save Emeryville. And I believe the Port of Oakland either has or is about to vote on it. But the wording is just a little bit different there. I I'm I would like to see a vote on on this language.
Speaker 0: So can you clarify?
Speaker 3: Would you be.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Here.
Speaker 3: Would you be willing to delete the word hood and just say which includes.
Speaker 6: No, for the reasons that were explained before. It's it's still it's still positive. It's just not specifically directive.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, we have a motion and a second we do.
Speaker 0: So can you clarify when it says and release time for rank and file union leaders? Does the release time mean? What does that mean? Does that mean that that they they when they would get paid to go do this instead of their current job?
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 6: But for the leaders. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And how many union leaders do we have?
Speaker 5: I'm going to ask Nancy Brown, senior director, to come up and she can give you the details. Plus, she stayed here till almost midnight, so I want to make it worth her while.
Speaker 1: So we least time. I mean, we do that now for.
Speaker 5: Certain situations.
Speaker 1: And it's for our union leaders.
Speaker 5: To go meet.
Speaker 1: With the employees. I think with IBEW, we.
Speaker 5: Have two shop stewards who would get some time to go do this. We would work with Al on that and then ACA three. So that would also they would get time.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the release time currently is at negotiated though, but release time it's yet or is not is determined by usually the city manager who makes those decisions.
Speaker 1: There specific items that they're allowed.
Speaker 5: Release time on so to go meet and to confer to go negotiate and then.
Speaker 0: So do they already receive release time to do this under the current contract.
Speaker 5: They they re they do receive release time. It's it's probably a little more specific. This may be a little broader, but we work with labor to make sure to mitigate those impacts of somebody, you know, not being in the work site. So we'll work with them on that.
Speaker 0: So does this change then what we would normally do? Because this is actually my concern is I actually think that this is something that normally our for our charter but should happen is our city manager or you would be working this out with labor on your own without coming without getting direction from us. And thus, for whatever reason, which I don't think has ever happened during the time I've been mayor, you would come to us and say you need us to give you some direction. But I but I would think that doing so. So that's a a concern that I have in regards to council giving direction to the city manager of how to operate with staff per our charter, which is unique to us as opposed to you all just normally implementing the current contract. Well, one thing sounds like that's what you would be doing.
Speaker 5: One thing it's which could include.
Speaker 4: I mean, if we go with the change that's been suggested by the motion maker and seconder, I think that doesn't.
Speaker 0: Specifically direct.
Speaker 5: That it has to happen. That gives the.
Speaker 4: Flexibility.
Speaker 6: To the council I'm going to make. I thank you for all of your explanations. I'm going to make a motion to call the question.
Speaker 2: I'm second.
Speaker 7: Second up.
Speaker 6: Okay. I think we've got a two thirds vote there. Okay. It's been moved and seconded.
Speaker 0: She has to do a roll call on the motion to call the question.
Speaker 1: Councilmember, as I see. Yes. Hi, Spencer. Hi. Okay. That passes by five. Now the. Oh, yes, on the original question.
Speaker 7: Marilyn Marilyn's yes. Motion.
Speaker 0: And who made the second? Now. I remember Battersea.
Speaker 1: Council member as Ashcroft. I met Harris. Oh, yes.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer. No.
Speaker 5: Can we just get clarification on what the languages. Oh, yes, that's everything is the same.
Speaker 1: I typed it while she did it. She added acting in front of city manager and then she just changed the word around to which could include. With a comma in front of it. I have it in the resolution. I typed it.
Speaker 5: Washington.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 7: My name.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it is now almost midnight here. That means is 3 a.m. or vice mayor is. So there's a professional courtesy to her. I actually do not plan to go forward with nine, eight and nine. Tonight I will kick those over to the next council meeting. Those are both my referrals.
Speaker 6: I think that's a nice and nice job.
Speaker 3: That's much appreciated.
Speaker 0: I do want to make my nominations. She barely a I get to still do that separate so that we can proceed with that. So for civil services I'll be nominating. | Council Referral | Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting Alameda Rank-and-File Employees Post a Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) Supreme Court Decision. (Councilmember Oddie) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06052018_2018-5622 | Speaker 0: I do want to make my nominations. She barely a I get to still do that separate so that we can proceed with that. So for civil services I'll be nominating.
Speaker 6: Are you going to do council communication?
Speaker 1: Yes. She's doing this.
Speaker 0: Under council communications. Okay.
Speaker 6: And then ten days before the rest of the council.
Speaker 0: Does board. Robert and Margaret Maloy. Commission on Disabilities. Elizabeth Kenny and Leslie Morrison. Of Commission, Edward Downey. Historical Advisory Board. There is an error here. There is. There are people that have applied for the one I will be nominating, Alvin Lao L, a U, who's a licensed contractor for the Housing Authority Board. I'll be nominating by sheer added tenants. Sandra Kay. Senior Tenant. Stuart Ricard. Incumbent and library board income. Incumbent. Amber Bales. And I'm not prepared to go for planning board or record parks Social Service. I'll nominate the two incumbents, Audrey Hyman and Sherry Youngblood. And I'm not prepared to go forward with Transportation Commission at this time. So that completes. I'm sorry. I'm already. I'm sorry, baby. I'm not prepared to go forward with that either at this time. So that completes my nominations at this time now. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nomination for Appointment to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disabilities, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Parks Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05012018_2018-5377 | Speaker 2: Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council.
Speaker 0: I am Gail Payne, a senior.
Speaker 2: Transportation coordinator.
Speaker 0: For the city. This item before you is a staff recommendation.
Speaker 2: To initiate a one year pilot program for a point.
Speaker 0: To point car share.
Speaker 2: At no.
Speaker 0: Cost to the city with getting car share. And we do have two great representatives of key car share audience.
Speaker 2: And here to help with responses to any questions.
Speaker 0: That you may have, it's Dermott.
Speaker 2: Hickey and Sloan Morgan here. And would you.
Speaker 0: Like me to go through the.
Speaker 2: Description of.
Speaker 0: The pilot, or what would you like me to cover? Well, I guess I'd start with. My understanding is you'd have 35 to 50 cars. And would they be parked in designated places or where would they be parked? Okay. Specifically or just go forward. I have a couple of slides here and.
Speaker 2: I'll just move forward to the actual pilot that staff is recommending. And what we.
Speaker 0: Are recommending along with GIG.
Speaker 2: Is to launch with up to 35 vehicles.
Speaker 0: On the main island of Alameda only and not Bay Farm Island and that's up to 35. So it could be 20 probably to start as a soft launch.
Speaker 2: And providing no more.
Speaker 0: Than 50 vehicles within the main island of Alameda. And this would be anywhere within the.
Speaker 2: Public property on street parking.
Speaker 0: Within the main island of Alameda. So where would they be parked on street? Okay. So are there specific so in the report, sometimes as designated spaces. Are there actual designated spaces? Like if you go to other cities, you know, where there's designated spaces or is that what you're proposing? Or.
Speaker 2: So we are different.
Speaker 0: This pilot, we are piggyback. We are recommending to piggyback on.
Speaker 2: To the existing pilot that's happening in Oakland and Berkeley. And Oakland. And Berkeley does.
Speaker 0: Have a different type of pilot that we're recommending because we're not recommending.
Speaker 2: That the cars and stop and end a trip or the the gig members end trips at parking meters.
Speaker 0: Or at the.
Speaker 2: Parking structure. Whereas in Oakland and Berkeley, there are instances where people gig members can end trips at parking meters. And so it is different. And we did back in 2015, we have exhibit three, I think it is, that says has a policy that Transportation.
Speaker 0: Commission did approve.
Speaker 2: Back in.
Speaker 0: 2015. That does that does say that we are allowed to do that, but we.
Speaker 2: Are trying to go a little bit more cautious on.
Speaker 0: This pilot.
Speaker 2: And two staff is.
Speaker 0: Actually.
Speaker 2: Recommending not having a transactional circumstance.
Speaker 0: Here with gig.
Speaker 2: Car share for the parking meters or.
Speaker 0: The parking.
Speaker 2: Structure.
Speaker 4: Madam Mary.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 4: I was wondering if your questions are great and I saw the, the long list of the answers from MBS pain and massage. But I'm wondering for people in the audience who might not even be familiar with the concept of gig car, if maybe this pain might just give a quick overview and then maybe they would understand your answers, the answers to your questions a little more in context.
Speaker 0: So how how long is your presentation? How many pages? I just have a few slides here and so I can start off with could you just describe what car sharing is that's going through that?
Speaker 2: That's a great idea, right? That's that's basically what.
Speaker 0: The presentation boils down to. And that in Alameda, we already Alameda.
Speaker 2: Are.
Speaker 0: Already benefiting from three different types of car sharing. We have dedicated space car sharing here in town for spaces.
Speaker 2: We also have.
Speaker 0: The peer to peer car share where.
Speaker 2: Neighbors are actually renting out the cars.
Speaker 0: To other neighbors.
Speaker 2: And both these types of car share are led and operated by another.
Speaker 0: Company called Getaround.
Speaker 2: And Getaround has over 900 members, Alameda members. And this is a third.
Speaker 0: Type of car share that we're.
Speaker 2: Are.
Speaker 0: Wanting to bring to Alameda.
Speaker 2: It's already.
Speaker 0: Operating this point to point car.
Speaker 2: Share. It's already.
Speaker 0: Operating as a pilot in the East Bay, Oakland, Berkeley and.
Speaker 2: Albany. And what this is is called point.
Speaker 0: To point car share. It's also called one way car.
Speaker 2: Share or.
Speaker 0: Free floating.
Speaker 2: Car share.
Speaker 0: And what that means.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 0: Someone can rent a car here and then.
Speaker 2: Take it to Berkeley and into trip. You don't have to.
Speaker 0: Take it back to the same.
Speaker 2: Spot, a dedicated space and that spot.
Speaker 0: Here in Alameda, if.
Speaker 2: Someone were to return it here, it could be, according.
Speaker 0: To the pilot, anywhere here on our.
Speaker 2: Public streets that are unrestricted, that's no parking meters or.
Speaker 0: And no time limits. And so the benefit of this and why Alameda.
Speaker 2: And are wanting.
Speaker 0: To have car share and are signing up for these car share programs. And keep in mind get car share there's.
Speaker 2: Already 200 comedians who are going gig car show members even though we don't have gig Karcher in Alameda. So and the reason.
Speaker 0: Why aluminums.
Speaker 2: Are.
Speaker 0: Interested is that it costs a lot less.
Speaker 2: Than owning a car.
Speaker 0: We have rents that are really quite high now. We have mortgages that are quite high. And so people are looking at their household budgets and trying to figure out.
Speaker 2: How to cut costs. And transportation is a big expense. Owning a car is a big expense. And so.
Speaker 0: We are trying to find as a city transportation options other than.
Speaker 2: Driving alone and driving your own personal car.
Speaker 0: And even though this.
Speaker 2: Is still driving alone per say.
Speaker 0: When people become car share members, they're much more likely to.
Speaker 2: Reduce their car ownership.
Speaker 0: To postpone buying that additional vehicle, to give up a car, to avoid buying a vehicle.
Speaker 2: And so this really is moving in the right direction.
Speaker 0: National studies show that.
Speaker 2: You reduce.
Speaker 0: Vehicle miles traveled, reduce.
Speaker 2: Greenhouse gas emissions, increase walking and bicycling headed all in the right direction. Where we've been wanting to go as the transportation choices plan that you just passed in January, it's all consistent with that.
Speaker 0: And so that's why we are recommending it here and we are recommending to become piggyback onto the gig car.
Speaker 2: Sure, it's already in the East Bay.
Speaker 0: It is attracting rider or human members who are younger.
Speaker 2: 16 to 44 with these type. Of one way trips they tend to make it's they tend to be 15 minutes.
Speaker 0: Long and about two miles. And as I mentioned before, where on this site can you go back to that former site? Yes. So 16 year olds can rent these cars? Yes.
Speaker 7: I don't think so.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: I just ask because the slide says 16 to 29 so that maybe it's.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 2: He wouldn't do it. He just said it's the age bracket. But you're right, it's 18 to 29. Is is are 18 is the youngest that can become members of good car share.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Oh.
Speaker 2: Is that that okay?
Speaker 0: All right. So staff is recommending that we.
Speaker 2: Launch here in.
Speaker 0: Alameda gate car share and we are recommending.
Speaker 2: A maximum of 50 vehicles.
Speaker 0: We're recommending.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 0: Launch on the main island of Alameda and only on Bay Farm Island if it makes business sense.
Speaker 10: And yeah, I have that's I think I have a question related to that. I mean, first of all, you have to have a license, right? Yes. And then do you have to have insurance as well if you want to rent this? I mean.
Speaker 2: A driver's license. What about I am Sloane Morgan from gig car share.
Speaker 10: And you need insurance as well.
Speaker 2: Insurance comes with the gig car share.
Speaker 10: Okay. So you don't have to have your own insurance, correct? Okay. That's thanks for that answer. And then my question on Bay Farm. You know. I know. You know, there's the there's the park and ride lot over there by the Grand View Pavilion. And I think we're also trying to where you can actually catch the bus right out there. And there's all we're also trying to encourage folks to who use the ferry to park at the golf course. And, you know, at some point we're going to have some transit options between that lot and the ferry. And I wonder if, you know, we would consider, you know, devoting some spaces here because then, you know, if you're not driving your car to the ferry and you can drive it here and then leave it and someone else could pick it up and so on and so forth, that that's that's something we might want to consider , you know, because someone who used to live on Bay Farm people, they don't like to be felt left out. And, you know, we do have some, you know, last two mile or last three mile issues out there as well, especially with the ferry station.
Speaker 0: So this pilot program, it definitely leaves that open for good car share to that make.
Speaker 2: If it makes business sense for.
Speaker 0: Them to do that.
Speaker 2: Then this agreement allows.
Speaker 0: Them to do that. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: If how many cars, if any, in the cars. You said that there's different types of shared cars already here in Alameda. Do you know how many cars those are? I've spoken with Get Around. And what they were able to tell.
Speaker 2: Me is that they do have over 900 members that are in Alameda.
Speaker 0: And that the four dedicated spots in Alameda, they have from those four dedicated spots, 100.
Speaker 2: Trips per month.
Speaker 0: So those are four dedicated.
Speaker 2: Cars to those four spots. And with those four cars, make 100 trips per month.
Speaker 0: So that company has dedicated spots. Yes. And this company would not have any. So they would just park in front of someone's house and then leave it there for up to the 72 hours. Do they move them after 24 hours? After 8 hours? When do they make sure that that car is moved? Yes.
Speaker 2: So gig two.
Speaker 0: For them to have a successful business model, they really need to keep those.
Speaker 2: Cars moving. These are big as this is a big asset for them. And so for.
Speaker 0: Berkeley, the average time that the cars.
Speaker 2: Are in one parking spot or is 2 hours in Oakland, it's 7 hours. And so they do a gig, car share company does.
Speaker 0: Have GPS is on.
Speaker 2: Each vehicle. So they're able to track and see if a car is not moving. So they want to keep those car at that.
Speaker 0: But my question goes to let's say the car doesn't move. When do you guys come and move it? Because we have had issues in regards to, for instance, lime bikes, right? So we've had to work with that company to try to step up on their customer service. But it's a specific question. You guys come around and move that car. So I'm going to just say the car is parked in front of my house, right? The 12 hours you make sure that car is gone, 2472 went when so they were required.
Speaker 2: I'll let Dermot answer 1/2 as. Per this.
Speaker 0: Agreement, they are.
Speaker 2: Required, like any other car, to move before the 72 hours. And yet, like I said, that to be a successful business model.
Speaker 0: They really have to keep those cars moving. 72 hours comes along. Do they make sure it's moved or is it my responsibility to call the police? They have the think tag and then we wait a few days till actually gets towed. Yes, they they do.
Speaker 2: And I'll let Dermot answer more.
Speaker 8: Great question marks. Spencer and likely one of the most common questions we get Dermot with Gig. Yeah. So we are, I don't know if we're it's familiar but we're actually a division of triple-A. Just want to make sure that's clear. We are much more conservative than maybe some of the other operators you've had to work with in other industries. But just to clarify your specific question on the actual alert and how it's managed, so we have a full time fleet management team, we call them fleet magicians, and they are dedicated to operating our existing 500 vehicle fleet across Albany, Oakland and Berkeley and hopefully one day Alameda. And so within that, as far as the vehicles are located, we have GPS systems. We know exactly where the vehicles are and we have alerts that go out that's tied to also street sweeping in addition to vehicles that are left idle or what we call gigs in the wild. So on occasions, a vehicle's left a far distance from a cluster of members. In those cases, there's an alert of the 54 hours that the team has enough time to schedule and go rescue that gig and put it into a location where it's getting higher use. What we're proposing here is not to add additional vehicles and, you know, order another half $1000000 to $1000000 worth of assets for Alameda specifically. But we see the demand and the opportunity within our existing member base or members in Alameda and how the their home zone is currently located. To use that as to make the holistic ecosystem to help it work great.
Speaker 0: So OC Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: I do have a follow up question. Sure. So what happens? And the reason I ask this is because it's the question that's inevitably going to come up. And I've already seen some of the gigs around town. People are using them already picking them up. I see them at the dedicated spaces at BART and seen people drive them over to Alameda. If somebody parks, what happens if somebody parks and they block your driveway because this comes up all the time here? Who do we who who would the members of the public call? Who would they call?
Speaker 8: Yeah. So we have a 24 seven dedicated member care center and that's that's actually built into the Triple A member care centers. We have a huge amount of responsiveness as a result of that as well as like language issues and anything else like that. We're already prepared. We're very fortunate that triple-A is is our our parent organization. So with with a situation like that, we have a very strict member agreement that our members need to follow the rules of the road, whether it's ADA Access only commercial or your driveway. Those are places people should not be parking my car, their own car, a gig car. So in a situation like that, someone is welcome to actually call us. We'll get it removed if the thing gets towed as a result of it being in the space and you're in a rush to get out, we pay the bill, we then engage with the member to understand what went wrong. Maybe they made an honest mistake. Maybe their wife was giving birth and they just had to run down to the hospital. But long story short, we follow up with every single member, and if they're just being negligent, we remove them and they're not allowed to be members anymore , unfortunately.
Speaker 7: And is that number on the vehicle or would people have to go to our website to find it? How would they go about accessing that?
Speaker 8: Currently it is not on the vehicle.
Speaker 7: And so they would have to they would have to, like, look up gig through an app or they would look up online in order to get that either.
Speaker 8: Online or their welcome to the app app. But online would be the fastest way to find that. So every vehicle is a jet black Prius hybrid. And the goal there was really to be low emission and conveniently sized to park. So the logo's there. So thus far with our experience in Oakland and Berkeley, that is that has worked well. Unfortunately, we haven't had that many reports of people parking in front of others driveways.
Speaker 0: But have you had any reports of anyone parking it wrong?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then why don't you just put the phone number on the vehicle to make it easy?
Speaker 8: So it's a good question. I think it was a balance between managing branding and and how the vehicle looks. Members are like private vehicle owners. They want a vehicle to look like something that they're happy to drive around all the time so that they're able to feel like it's their vehicle. So the more the more things you put on it, the less likely a member is to potentially shed their own vehicle or or.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the cities you're currently in, do they get phone calls about complaints? I just happened to get quite a few, for instance, about lime bikes. I'm wondering if the cities that you're currently in, if they get phone calls about the cars, you know, being parked in the wrong place that they.
Speaker 8: Have relative to other initiatives the cities are working on for sustainability goals. The. I'd be happy to give you contacts of those cities so they could they could speak to that themselves.
Speaker 0: Do you know how many calls they get? Do you guys keep track of that? How many complaints we have? We do all.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 8: We do because I'm the direct point of contact as well as Sloan for the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, now Albany. So we receive them directly and we. Work with our operations teams to manage them. Right now. I haven't received it. I don't recall if I received the call in April. So just as an example.
Speaker 0: Right. Any other questions from council members? In regards to the insurance, what type of coverage is there?
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's comprehensive offensive coverage. So there's a minimum deductible to the member for, say, if it's a fender bender. I think I believe the deductible is. 750.
Speaker 0: Could you speak in the mike, please? If you're a triple.
Speaker 8: A member, it's 250. If if you're a general member of the public, I believe.
Speaker 0: I need you to rise and speak. And then Mike, one of you. All right. Sorry.
Speaker 8: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: If you are a triple AA member, you get a reduction in that deductible, putting it at $250 as your deductible. If you're not a triple AA member, it would be $750. And then just a friendly follow up. If you put in gig car share customer service, you can test it. The phone number comes right up. We're not hiding the number at all. It's right there.
Speaker 0: Okay. So is there any insurance for injuries? Someone gets injured in the car?
Speaker 2: Yes. There's comprehensive coverage.
Speaker 0: You have limits, though. There are no limits.
Speaker 2: I'm sure there's limits. I can show you the. I can get the paperwork for you and show you that. But it's what?
Speaker 0: All right. So, yeah. So at some point I'd like to share with the public or actually myself and it's probably in here somewhere, but I'd like to know what the coverage is. Any other questions? And I'm going to go ahead and call the we have two speakers. All right. Pat Potter and then Brian Maguire.
Speaker 2: Potter. I'm part of CASA Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. I'm on the Transportation Committee and I'm also part of like Mark Alameda on the board. And I'm, I'm talking about the importance of looking at alternatives to everyone owning a car. So UC Berkeley's Transportation Sustainability Research Center has studied car share and has come up with some of the advantages to it. And the Research Center was formed in 2006 to combine the research forces of six campus groups, the University of California Transportation Center, the University of California Energy Institute, the Institute of Transportation Studies, the Energy and Resources Group. The Center for Global Metropolitan Studies and the Berkeley Institute of the Environment. Since two years since RC was founded, it's been a leading center in conducting timely research on real world solutions for a more sustainable transportation future. The benefits, they say, of car sharing can include increased vehicle use and ownership. Increased transit. Ridership. Biking and walking. Cost savings to individuals and employers. Energy savings. And air quality benefits. And reduced parking demand at participating transit stations, member employer sites and residential locations. So I just want to say that I fully support a gig shared ride type of business, and I think that they would do a great job. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Brian McGuire. And then he's our last speaker on this item. If you want to speak on it, submit your slip, please.
Speaker 9: Good evening, brian werbach, mark alameda. Just to refresh and if I didn't get a chance to read this version of this out of four, but I did see it at the Transportation Commission. That commission, I believe, unanimously supported this and they unanimously supported changing the staff recommendation to include Bay Farm, if possible, in the pilot, and not leave all those residents out at the behest of maybe a couple of outspoken leaders of the Bay Firm, HRA or OAS and the Transportation Commission. Not exactly a you know, not a bunch of spandex clad, you know, cycling car share, you know, alternative transportation, you know, forefront leaders of the community. But they very much supported this and they understood the value that this could provide. And so I think there's a the point there is that there's a broad support for this from different aspects of the community. A lot members of the Transportation Commission from all parts of the island, including Bay Farm, who wanted to participate in this . This is exactly the kind of thing that we should be supporting with, you know, that we talked about in the Transportation Choices plan. It's exactly the kind of thing that when my six year old car gives up the ghost that I put a couple thousand miles a year on, I won't have to replace that and take up a parking space. You know, when I occasionally need a car, that can be our second car instead of being a two car household. We can become a one car household, hopefully. And I think a lot of Alameda families would like to do that, reduce the number of cars, if not become completely car free car lite. So we would support this wholeheartedly and we look forward to it being successful in town. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have a couple more questions. The staff and one of the questions that I had asked, I got a response that Gigas projected 108 almost $200,000 revenue from May 3rd through April 30th, 2019 revenue. How does the city make money off of this? Or is there some? I know sometimes when I look at shared something, there's like every time a ride takes place is a dollar that goes to the city or something. Is there is that any part of this proposal?
Speaker 2: I'm not a tax expert yet. Forever. All the revenues that are generated, there are taxes that are paid to alameda. So I can't speak to the precise.
Speaker 0: But have you heard of that? Like every ride, it's like a dollar goes to the city, whether it's like scooter things or the bikes. Different shared means of transportation. And is that any part of this contract based on the number of rides? Okay. The reason why that's not part.
Speaker 2: I've just never heard of it. I didn't know that was ever a model at all.
Speaker 0: Okay. Another public benefits is there. That's another thing I've heard of, of when you're sharing something that something is wrong, like for the lime bikes, bike racks, for instance, but for cars. My guess is there's other public benefits that are can be negotiated.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other members would comment?
Speaker 10: I mean, I think that the I didn't know where those came from, but I appreciate those questions. But I think they were very comprehensive and appreciate the answers. I mean, if we do some type of AQ on our website for this and I think it'd be helpful to have those questions listed. And I do think we do need to consider, you know, Bay Pharm, you know, especially those two parking lots, which I think could be a big solution to some of our transit issues over there.
Speaker 0: Is there a reason why we don't? I know you know, the line box is coming back. We're going to do an RFP and get quotes and offers from multiple companies. Is there a reason why that's not being proposed for car sharing?
Speaker 2: We are recommending to piggyback on this pilot that.
Speaker 0: Already is happening.
Speaker 2: In the East Bay. And the reason is, is.
Speaker 0: More because.
Speaker 2: The members need a place to go.
Speaker 0: And this is actually one of the.
Speaker 2: I think the first multijurisdictional our share in the country. And it is most successful when you have more jurisdictions involved because for.
Speaker 0: Example, a.
Speaker 2: Third of our morning trips go to is Bay Communities. So it's the only car share that does this and because it's all very new. And so they're the only ones who have approached us. They're the only ones who are doing it. That's why the pilot is with them. No other company has approached us or is doing it.
Speaker 0: I remember Ashcroft.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Miss Payne. And the folks from Kershaw. I am I'm very favorable to this proposal, and I'm prepared to make a motion. I will say for disclosure, I'm a triple-A member, so I get that nice VA magazine. And they've been talking about gig car share for a while. So when I heard about it first from city staff a few months ago, I said, Yeah, I know that's that's the triple AA company. And I admire the fact that Triple A, which, you know, is I don't know how many years you've had your hundredth anniversary. I think it was all about, you know, getting people out on the roads. But now their focus is also to help us reduce the impact of traffic and the pollution and the wear and tear on our infrastructure and our roads and our bridges. And I think it's the sort of thing that we all have an opportunity to do our share. I really appreciate that. In Alameda we have CASA, this great organization and and bike walk Alameda and I think this is where we really can step up and do our part. I'm always inspired to meet new residents who come in, even, you know, young families with kids. And they tell me we've gotten rid of our second car. We've gotten rid of both cars. They're they're relying on this. And I think if we make this opportunity available, that more and more people will avail themselves of it. And so I think it's a step in the right direction for our our city, for our planet. And I would like to make a motion that we authorize the acting city manager to execute a service agreement with car share for when you're point to point cars, your pilot program at no cost to the city. And I think within the agreement, there's some possibilities for one year extensions, if I'm remembering my agreement correctly. Those are my thoughts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: So I had a follow up question. You had mentioned that, and I saw in the staff report that they're going to be getting a city of Alameda business license and then you estimated what their revenues are. Are those revenues tax taxable for the city of Alameda? I think that's what the mayor was trying to get at. So can we just get that on the record?
Speaker 0: I don't. You have an estimate of revenues that the city would receive. Does anyone know.
Speaker 7: It's based off of their revenue projections? But can you just.
Speaker 2: Say I'm slowing again? Yes. I completed the business license application and I estimated the number of cars that would be here based on a just a projection for next year. And that was the amount that came out.
Speaker 0: Hundred and 89,000.
Speaker 2: $189,000. So that's what I submitted to in the business license application.
Speaker 5: But that's their standard. The company is.
Speaker 2: Based on the 189.
Speaker 5: It was aren't tax revenue or the company's revenues estimated to charge for their business license fees.
Speaker 0: Right. So I was trying to figure out there's a city make you know, how much money does the city make off of this? Because the different types of businesses are taxed differently.
Speaker 2: And I guess, are you.
Speaker 0: Expecting to make money off.
Speaker 5: Of this? That is not.
Speaker 0: Which is why I think some cities negotiate, for instance, a dollar a trip or something like that, that then there's revenue from anything from a transportation shared. Now remember matter.
Speaker 8: First of all, on a second, the motion. And then second, I want to make sure that we focus on what the benefits are. And I would I would like to. Make sure that in the agreement that we have. Some measurement of some of these benefits and also measurement of the complaints so that they can be managed because we're we're effectively allowing 50 cars that are owned by somebody else to use the public street at no cost. So. That. If it's true. And this is where the pilot comes in. And in my opinion, if it's true that it has fewer results and fewer vehicles on the city streets, then it's worth it. But if it's just adding 50 more vehicles to the city streets, it's not worth it because we're giving a company that makes money free use of our streets. So I'm willing to go further with this. If we have a measurement that we're not increasing, we're actually reducing the number of vehicles on the city street.
Speaker 0: So my understanding is it's a one year pilot. Is that right?
Speaker 8: That's what you do, pilots, is to check this out and then.
Speaker 0: So would you be willing to consider a friendly amendment of six months or a lesser time than a year?
Speaker 4: Well. Oh, well, I was going to say I would probably defer to the company about how long you would want to do a pilot to have statistically relevant information, because I would imagine that there's a little bit of start up time and as you ramp up. So I mean, maybe six months is not enough, but I would think the idea is that at the end of the one year pilot, they want to have the agreement renewed. So that could be dependent on certain data. Yeah. Performance metrics that.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: If I could just add a couple of things is that we are planning on doing surveys of gig car show or gig car share members. Exactly.
Speaker 0: Trying to quantify those benefits. And we're planning on that in early 2019. And so that's about seven months from now. And then we would come back to you all.
Speaker 2: The Transportation Commission in the spring of next year. And so and and the reason is, is that it's.
Speaker 0: Timed with the other pilots that are.
Speaker 2: Going on in the East Bay. So we're going to wrap the all.
Speaker 0: The benefits up.
Speaker 2: Together and.
Speaker 0: Not only show you the benefits of.
Speaker 2: Of this Alameda pilot, but the entire program.
Speaker 0: And matter I.
Speaker 8: So I want to make sure that it's not just planning to check after seven months. I want to make sure that we know we're starting with. As the baseline. And then after seven months, we know what the change is because we allowed these cars on the street here.
Speaker 0: And I also want to follow up. Okay. So you said 54 hours, you get the alert. What is the estimate of time that you think someone's car, one of these cars is going to be parked, parked in front of someone's house? I can tell you, I get complaints as it is currently about people that don't think that there is sufficient parking anywhere in our town. And I'm trying to figure out what is the impact and when when am I going to be getting the calls? Are you guys going to be getting the calls? And are you guys going to respond? What is the average time you think a car will be in front of someone's house?
Speaker 2: Well, our goal is that if a car's in front of someone's house, that means someone's using the car. And then when you open the app, you would see, Oh, I can take this car. So our goal is to maximize the use of these cars because they are very expensive resource for us. Our fleet team is very carefully monitoring this expensive resource. And if an if it's, you know, as our marketing team tries to build memberships so that we can make this successful excuse me, make this pilot successful here in Alameda. We also want to optimize their use. So we will if we see that there's areas where they're being used, for example, maybe in front of an apartment building where there's less, where people don't have cars. We will be watching that so that we make sure that we meet demand with supply. That is part of our goal. And we have a fleet team dedicated to that. Does that answer?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, I'm ready.
Speaker 10: I guess my question and this is why for the acting city manager and it follows up on my colleague's question. I mean, do we get any money from the city? It's a super complicated triple flip VLF swap based on is that based on like the folks that register cars in the city of Alameda. I know that's kind of a super complicated, but.
Speaker 2: I'm not an expert on VLF.
Speaker 10: As my point would be, you know if these are 50 cars that are not. Registered to residents of Alameda. I mean, I still haven't heard, you know, at what point the city's going to be taxed. I didn't hear that it was sales tax. I don't think it's VLF and I don't think it's property tax. So I mean, we are allowing our resources to be used for the benefit of a private company without any type of, you know, assistance or fee recovery like we normally get from, you know, folks who pay for their VLF or folks who pay sales tax or so on and so forth. So I guess those are some questions that need to be answered.
Speaker 2: Well, as we said before, you are getting business license tax.
Speaker 10: And how much is right. Do we know.
Speaker 2: Or will it be based on it's you know, it's based on their gross income, right? So their gross income is roughly 200,000. It would be something, I don't know over my head what the number is, but it would be based on that number. So you are getting some tax based on the business license tax and then of course, they have to have pay the business license fee, the fee to actually have a business license. So there's two. Components.
Speaker 10: Okay. It was questions that, you know, still need to be.
Speaker 2: I was also going to answer one of the other questions that the honorable mayor asked. Sorry, I didn't have it at my fingertips, but it is in the member agreement. So I was going to read what our insurance coverages for drivers bodily injury covered up to 100,000 per person, 300,000 per accident and property damage liability up to 50,000. Also, you are covered with uninsured motorist, underinsured motorist, bodily injury, up to 15,000 per person, 30,000 for accident. We also have a certificate of insurance. Where the city itself.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: So I'm inclined to support this to see how it does. I think that a lot of the benefits won't be realized in a year, to be honest with you, because as you are talking about building membership, part of it is getting people accustomed to using this other mode of transit for these short rides. And I think changing behavior takes a longer period than a year. So I don't know that the data that we collect is going to be necessarily helpful with regards to removing vehicles from the road, because I think part of what people are trying to see is, is this a dependable service that I have bought into that I will have long past a year? I do have concerns about not having it out on Bay Farm Island just because we have a number of people who live out there. We have a lot of first and last mile issues, and I think enforcement is going to be difficult. And that's really where I would like to see the feedback from staff in terms of what we're looking at is are people parking where they're not supposed to? How many calls are there? What's the response time? To me, I think those are things that we can get a handle on. And if those numbers aren't looking good, that's going to be cause for concern in a year. And I think it's also in the company's best interests to make sure that that doesn't happen because it becomes a brand issue. Right. And the cars are well branded. I also, you know, in terms of some of the things we put in the agreement about not parking in the in the garage, you know, I don't think that parking in the garage is a problem. I think parking in the garage overnight for several days or for several days in a row is a problem. Right. And so I do kind of cringe at some of those strict requirements in the agreement that I think become prohibitive, where we start telling people where they can and can't go with the vehicle and how much time they can park it in different space spaces. I think the bigger concern is longer periods of time and being left there multiple days in a row, that sort of thing. And I know that in, you know, in the in the agreement we talk about that. But I think I don't know if we can have signage or something that just lets people know, hey, don't park it here overnight. If you're going to use it to come to the movie theater, that's fine. But just don't leave it here overnight. You've got to move it somewhere else. So.
Speaker 2: Jan.
Speaker 5: If you mind, Mayor Oh, I just want to clarify that people can park in metered spaces and in the parking garage you just have to comply, just like any other cars you pay and you can't stay. If it's a two hour meter, then you can write it into our meter. So you just want to make sure the folks know that you can use those resources. You just have to act like any other car. You can't end your trip at those location right.
Speaker 7: Where you would leave it for the next person overnight and not pay.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 7: But I do think that the enforcement on that is going to be difficult. And I think that some of these issues come up. We don't always have the best well-lighted marked streets and driveways. And so these issues come up all the time. So I hope that they get worked out and they get worked out in an expeditious manner. But I do think that over the long term, the use of car shares I think is a is a good thing. This is a little different, I think, from Lime Bike because we already have other rideshare and car city car share companies operating here in Alameda. This is just a different twist on it in that there aren't defined end points. But I do hear the mayor's concern and I think it's should be well received. And I think the point of it is to make sure that this comes back to council and it's a council decision and we are engaging any one off contracts with different vendors where there's a profit to be made, where we're not putting it out to RFP. And I hear her concern on that. And I do hope that, you know, I think in this case where we have other rideshares already operating, it's it's different. So I'm prepared to support this tonight.
Speaker 0: Could you speak to that ride share that's currently offered there? I thought I heard four cars. So this is. Do we have anything of this size? This is this is a different type of.
Speaker 2: Car share that's a dedicated space. So we have four dedicated spaces in town with another company. It used to be city car share and they got bought out by Get Around. Right.
Speaker 0: And how many cars do they actually have?
Speaker 2: It's it's one car per spot.
Speaker 0: So they have four there. Four. Okay. So that's this is significantly this is ten, ten times more than just even a double, right? I mean, right. We're going from four to I'll just say 40. Okay. And I did find online of add on fees that other cities are charging. San Francisco's projecting anywhere from $0.20 to a dollar per ride. Seattle, Chicago, other cities are adding things to car sharing, like Uber and Lyft, where they're getting money per ride. And I think that that's something else that we should be looking at. And so because right. So the difference is that there will be impact to people, right? And we are offering our streets. But it's also a way that cities are using to to make a little bit of money per ride when you're making having a company that is earning their estimate 200,000 a year. So that there's other models that the cities are making a little bit per ride and we can wear and tear on the streets, all kinds of things. During the pilot, we can evaluate.
Speaker 2: That, just to be clear that Jake Carter does not operate in San Francisco. So what you're reading, I think is more for Uber and Lyft, and that's a different type of model.
Speaker 0: And that's that's fine.
Speaker 2: We can I just.
Speaker 0: Hadn't heard that right. So I continue to hear why is Alameda. Offering new things or, you know, and we seem to go back to people and say, let's pay a sales tax that's to parcel taxes. But then we have something like this where other cities seem to be more creative about another way that's a little bit per ride that we don't seem to be negotiating for our city. I don't see that here. That's something else, I think.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Oh, if I did want to make it, my understanding is that in the agreement that it can be amended or approved administratively. And so I'd just like to recommend that we make sure in the agreement that it says it comes back to council.
Speaker 0: Oh, so I.
Speaker 2: Think we.
Speaker 0: Need. I appreciate that. Thank you. So there's a motion. And second, all those in favor.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: I oppose and I look forward to not receiving any complaints. Thank you. All right. So that I'd like the next. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Service Agreement with Gig Car Share for a One Year Point-to-Point Carshare Pilot Program at No Cost to the City. (Transportation 91402) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04172018_2018-5374 | Speaker 2: Is a recommendation to accept the work of McGuire and Hastert for cross me to trade Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.
Speaker 0: And I am sorry the speaker's public. Okay. So we pull items when the public wants someone a member of the public wants to speak on it. We have. Okay. So we have two speakers, Dorothy Freeman. So you come on up and then. And Joe. But it has ceded time to her, so she gets up to 6 minutes. And then behind her is Brian Maguire. And those are the two speakers on the side of.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman, representing.
Speaker 6: The Jean Sweeney.
Speaker 1: Open Space Park Fund. We hope you enjoy this short video of the first section of the future. Four mile cross Alameda Bike Trail with the adjacent walking and jogging paths. Construction was managed by our REC, our recreation and Parks Manager Director Amy Aldridge and built by Alameda McGuire and Hester Construction Company.
Speaker 6: Due to administrative errors.
Speaker 1: Due to administrative errors, not our city's. This trail almost didn't happen. Mayor Spencer, Director Aldridge, Jim Sweeney and myself traveled to Los Angeles to appeal to the Caltrans Board of Commissioners to allow an extension.
Speaker 6: On the due date.
Speaker 0: For the grant.
Speaker 1: Needed for construction. The appeal of a successful and construction started last summer. It has taken the effort of many of us to get to this phase place today. First, of course, was Jane Sweeney's vision of the park. Then, many citizens who attended meetings to give their input into the details for the park helped complete the design along the way. Many city councils, including this one, have always supported the park and the trails. We thank.
Speaker 6: Many recreation.
Speaker 1: And park commissioners by Clark.
Speaker 0: Alameda for.
Speaker 1: Their input. Planning Board Commissioner Christopher Koster and place works for their design work and many who donated time and money to make the park special. And our Recreation and Parks Director Amy.
Speaker 6: Wooldridge.
Speaker 1: And her staff, who have often jumped hurdles and walked through minefields to make so many things happen during each step.
Speaker 6: Along the way.
Speaker 1: Recreation and Parks has been working since 2013.
Speaker 6: On this.
Speaker 0: Very large project. Finally, we would like to thank.
Speaker 6: McGuire.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 6: Hester for their work.
Speaker 1: In building this phase of the project.
Speaker 6: They have been a good neighbor.
Speaker 1: Also donating funds.
Speaker 6: To feed.
Speaker 1: The volunteers who came out last fall to clean up the south side of the park. A bit more patience is required by all those who just want to come out and use the new trails. We anticipate by late summer or early fall, after 20 years of anticipation, the park will finally be open. Open. The trails will be use the picnic grounds for families to enjoy. Outdoor gatherings will be fired up and the East playgrounds will be ready for young family members to enjoy. Board members Tim Sweeney, who for some reason didn't make it here tonight. Former council member Doug Hahn and myself applaud this first major step and anticipate the others to come. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Brian Maguire.
Speaker 5: I didn't realize I would. Dorothy was such an accomplished drone pilot. That's pretty impressive stuff.
Speaker 6: You're right.
Speaker 5: Why do you do freelance for the military or CIA or anything? It's pretty good. So I think the video speaks for itself. It's pretty exciting to see that this path is done. $3 million, I think, worth of active transportation grants or so. And what is a two thirds of a mile? Maybe, maybe a little more. And it's done. It's ready today, but we're not going to open it for another six months or so, probably. Which I think is unfortunate. I think it's nice that this is there's an agenda item on this. I was going to do a stirring up and non agenda, but this way you can give feedback if you're so inclined. It would be really nice to, at a minimum, open these gates and let people start using this path when there's not active construction going on. Like, you know, after four or 5 p.m. and on the weekends while there's, you know, lots of sunlight from now for the next few months. It would be a shame for us to miss out on basically an entire spring and summer season of long evenings and nice weather. So if there's any way you can give direction and explore the opportunity of opening the path as much as possible now so that people can start using it, people can start getting out of their cars, people can start walking their dogs, taking advantage of what's there now. I think a lot of people are chomping at the bit to get at this. So we hope that you would consider accelerating the opportunity to open the gate instead of waiting until construction was done. We think we understand the argument that has been made that there's active construction going on. But we think if this was 3600 feet of road for passenger vehicles, that was complete and ready to alleviate congestion on the island or access to amenities that there would not be any hesitation in getting this open immediately. And we don't think people walking and jogging and biking should be forced to essentially wait till the sun goes down at 5 p.m. in the fall and the night start getting cold. Days and nights start getting colder and sort of lose an entire, you know, season an entire year. While it might be a minor inconvenience for the construction efforts, but I think it's really not that big a deal to open the gate when they're not driving. It doesn't look like they're driving a lot of earthmovers back and forth and heavy equipment maybe during the day, maybe during construction, during the week. But I think there's a lot of time that this path could provide a lot of use to the community now, and we should start getting the benefits of it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That completes our speakers on this item council. Did you want to make any comments? We have vice mayor, is.
Speaker 7: There somebody from staff who could comment? On the speakers question.
Speaker 4: I'd be happy to comment. Amy Wooldridge, Recreation Parks Director. A few things. One is that which was indicated in the staff report and in Bryan alluded to, is that we have during the day we have have equipment that's actually going back and forth across the trail and it was not included in the bid that they needed to provide product protection and safety crossing and all that that you would have if you had a street in future phases. That will be part of the requirement as an existing condition that they'll have to get get equipment safely across the path wall and and while pedestrians and bicyclists and such are using it. The other issue is because we weren't we we started to anticipate and realize that we weren't going to be able to time them correctly. We have the remainder. We can't just we would require two things. So it's it's possible. But here's what we require require additional funding for temporary fencing along both sides of the trail, all the way along the trail, and to secure around the existing construction zone, because we would have theft issues which we already have with the gates up. We already have people coming in and partying and leaving beer bottles. You know, we've already had theft problems of different materials on site, so we would have to fence all of that off. In addition, we haven't finished cleaning the rest of the site. As Dorothy mentioned, we had about 80 volunteers come. It was fantastic. Do a big cleanup. There's more hypodermic needles out there. There's more trash out there. We now have piles of bay mud. That's not. You actually could see it on the video that needs to get off hold and we need to figure that out before we open the park. So there's a lot of logistical issues. It's actually not a safe place yet for kids to run around. There's things that they could find that are simply not safe and are safety hazard.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Director Wooldridge I also got a little envious looking at the the video. It's lovely. It's really impressive what has been accomplished thus far and congratulations to everyone involved. I do. I would be interested in at least if we could get an estimate of what that fencing would cost and what I would envision. I understand the when there's ongoing construction, I don't think the juxtaposition of bicycles and earthmovers is a good one, but they don't do the work on the weekend. And if there was a way that we could secure the the construction equipment, I will bet you that if we were to do another volunteer work day, you'd have a great turnout of people to help with the cleanup. And I think that one of the benefits of at least on the weekend, getting the use going would be those eyes on the street that, you know, more people out there doing positive, constructive things mean less opportunity for people doing nefarious things. So I know there's a lot of a lot of balls to juggle, but I would certainly appreciate if staff could just do a little looking into what it might be feasible. Maybe it's yes, maybe it's no, but maybe if we could give it a try. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Did any of the cast members want to speak at this time? Ninette, I do want to follow up in regards to I want to thank Dorothy Freeman for the video. And I wanted to share when she spoke about going down to L.A., that that actually was pretty much against all odds. They really do not like to give extensions. And it really did take a huge effort. I do want to commend Amy Roberts and her preparation and the work and then the team that went down. Jim Sweeney, Joe Woodard and Dorothy Freeman. I did participate with this thing was organized. So when we went down, we had work to do and then we were in fact persuasive. So thank you very, very much, because you all may not know you go down to L.A. and then there's this big room and they really do have all these roles. They monitor projects for the entire state, and they're so afraid that if they give us a concession, then every project they're trying to push through with deadlines, they'll be asked to give concessions, too. So that really.
Speaker 1: Was a.
Speaker 0: Heavy lift. So thank you very much. Vice Mayor Actually, I.
Speaker 7: Do have a couple comments. One thing is, if in future instances we're looking at doing the bike lanes, if we could look at what the additional costs would be or at least consider it when we're looking at these bids to have the crossings or to have use and what it would take, whether it's the fencing or whatever else, if we could at least have that option in the beginning to look at. I know I would appreciate it. I don't know about the rest of the council, but at least it would put the numbers out there for people to consider. And I think to Councilmember Ashcroft's point, I think it's, you know, if there's an opportunity for folks to go out and volunteer again to do another clean up, if that's something that we could get in the works, I think we should definitely talk to Bike Walk Alameda because they probably have an interest in in expediting things as well.
Speaker 0: And I would also encourage you to reach out to the Jean Sweeney Foundation group that has been really leading this charge. And I'm confident so I would also be interested in both the issues that she raised. But I do appreciate Ms.. Aldridge's comments that in the future phases she is planning to do that.
Speaker 3: So mavrodi like the move approval of the item. Second.
Speaker 0: Although I push and thank you unanimously I was five C. Five H.
Speaker 2: Recommendation to approve the implementing regulations governing a request for proposal process for allocating limited privilege to apply for a cannabis business permit and the request for proposals. If you have speakers on the speakers.
Speaker 6: So it would have been.
Speaker 0: Oh. Okay. Okay. Do we have a present? We probably don't. So we have eight speakers on this staff. Did you want to introduce the item.
Speaker 1: Getting the mayor and city council? I'm Bill's butler with the Community Development Department. At our last meeting, the city council asked staff to come back and refine the RFP. That we presented the request for proposal that we presented to have objective scoring to increase the size of the selection panel and consider changes to the selection panel and to further decide to find site control. And that's what we've done. If you have other questions.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Mayor Member Ashcroft, if I may. Yeah, I really I was just telling Ms.. Art that sometimes I have time to e-mail my questions ahead of time, but it's been kind of a busy week or two and I didn't in so really my question. But I understand we also have speakers, but my question is on exhibit three. That's the evaluation criteria.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: And the so the question is, are the scores for each category and for those who maybe aren't following along, you know, statement of qualifications, verifiable, detailed description of persons and type of resources, including financial, committed to employment, etc.. It's exhibit three are the scores for each category because these this is evaluation criteria made by a panel. Right. And you've selected you've described in the report. Good report, by the way, how the panel is who who is represented on the panel. So are the scores for each category, the average score of the members of the selection panel? Or does the panel collectively agree on each numerical score for each item?
Speaker 1: So the score is going to be the average score. Okay. And they're not going to collectively agree on the score. Right.
Speaker 6: So you just they submit their their list and your average amount, correct. Okay. That was all I had. Thank you. And by the way, beautiful necklace.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Brody.
Speaker 3: Thank you, madam. I had a quick question. So I had met with one of the folks that's interested in the lab, and they mentioned there's a July 1st deadline for the state regarding testing labs. And it looks like this proposal has. Announcement of selected proposals in letters issued on July nine. So can you kind of just fill us in on on how that might interplay with the state deadline?
Speaker 1: Well when we came to you on. RFP. We had asked because of the deadlines of the state that we not include testing labs in the RFP process. But what the council indicated is it want it to be fair and include them in in the process. So as a result of that, they're going to be delayed if they want to come into Alameda based on the process.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks for that clarification.
Speaker 6: Did you have one more question? Thank you. On the panel, you have one of the categories, Representative Health. And I notice that you have our director of the Mastic Senior Center, Jackie Krauss. So can you just explain that the health background or health connection there?
Speaker 1: Well, the city doesn't really have health individuals. And so she is covering that because she interacts with seniors on a daily basis and knows a lot about their concern.
Speaker 6: I thought that might be a thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers at this time. Okay. And Rich Moskowitz, Chris Bailey, and then Brian Brownlee.
Speaker 3: Mayor council members. My name is Rich Moskowitz. I speak to you tonight on the eve of moving forward with this RFP process. And I want you to take a moment to start with why this process is of such importance to myself and the three members of the group I represent, Alameda Cannabis Times. We as a group hold the belief that in order to show respect for our neighbors who did not want cannabis here, that the businesses that the process yield are the best businesses for Alameda, that we ensure that not only are they successful, but they actually become a foundation of our community. They do not alter the fabric of our community, but they enhance the fabric of our community. And we honestly believe that only if these businesses initially that you choose that the panel chooses are successful in that way. Are we showing respect for that 30? 2% or so of people that we like to refer to in those numbers who were probably not in favor of this process. This being said, I'd like to also thank city staff for their accessibility and for all the work and progress made since last month in creating a more equitable RFP process. I have spent some time advocating for a citizen inclusion in the name of having deep background information available to the panel and players in this 50 plus year nontraditional business. And therefore, that information about those players has not been available. Tonight, I'm here to speak specifically about three points in the regulations in front of you. First point is that about the selection panel and the current makeup as it's progressed over the last month. The second aspect is one specific line in that about information gathering, and then the last point is about the upgraded oral part of the process. So currently we've moved the process from a three person selection panel to a six person selection panel, of which five members are voting members. Well, I think that's fantastic. I'm a little bit concerned that in section F, number one, the five voting members are spoken to about what department they come from. And in the terms of sports, there is one panelist from a city department to be to be named in the future. So it seems a little bit like a sports metaphor. We have these five people making decisions, but we are only speaking to four of them and one department to be named in the future seems a little bit odd, and that is section F number I. On the regulation in front of you, I also see really quickly that my lights on, I believe I was seated three extra minutes.
Speaker 0: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Think that was Chris Ballard. She's here in the audience and put that on the forms.
Speaker 0: Okay. Got it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. So moving forward, I'd like to speak to a little bit about the background. It has been my benefit over the last three decades of my life to not only have been in charge of running several businesses, but also founding several businesses. Through that process, I have purchased millions of dollars of goods and services through the RFP process, and I fully understand the RFP process for business, if not government. So towards that end, I'd like to simply say that in business the processes are designed to get a 360 degree view. A people who will be providing services or goods to you and to make sure that those businesses and individuals are aligned with the organization's goals. Typically we shorthand this is due diligence. Now Section F, letter C specifically uses the line the panelist shall refrain from conducting outside research. And that greatly concerns me because the RFP process, the process of due diligence, is designed so that we can get the most information available. In my background, this has typically been that you put out a process, you whittle it down. At that point, you invite people in, in the case of sales, a dog and pony show, as we refer to them, you will sit down and at that point you reach out to your own personal networks, business and associates so that you can get. A true view of what is being told to you. So again, item F, number C, I'm a bit concerned that states that the panelists enact a challenge refrain from conducting any outside research. That does seem to me to be counter to the goal. Lastly, to move forward, the oral interview process is now as written in the regulation. It states that all the questions will be the same to all people, whereas I love that that is a base level of fairness from the beginning. Again, due diligence states that it's I find it very odd to say the least. And the reason why is in the oral part of the process, you really want to delve down to a level of granularity that will inform the panel members. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Accept the Work of McGuire and Hester for Cross Alameda Trail - Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, No. P.W. 05-16-11. (Recreation and Parks 280) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04172018_2018-5385 | Speaker 2: Recommendation to authorize the acting city manager to execute a cooperative agreement with the Department of Transportation, Caltrans, an amount not to exceed 284,000. For Caltrans to review and approve the project initiation document, which is required by Caltrans, determine the project scope, cost and schedule for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project and execute a contract with CDM Smith in the amount of 372,000, including contingency for engineering.
Speaker 0: All right, if you want to go first.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Gayle Payne, project manager for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project. You want me to make a staff report or. On this item. The item before you is to prepare the project.
Speaker 0: Initiation document.
Speaker 1: For this order to 1.7 mile corridor. This is a Caltrans required document because half of the 1.7 mile corridor is a state route, state route 61. That's between Webster and Sherman. And we have we're requesting a staff recommendation to execute a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to review this PID document, the project initiation document. That's the required document for state highway system projects. And then also to execute a contract with CDM Smith to prepare this pit. And keep in mind that this required document will take about a year to prepare. And what it will do is we will be able to understand what are the alternatives that we will consider for Central Avenue at Webster. So we'll have that nailed down as all the ones that will be analyzed in the next phase. And we also will do a preliminary environmental review and analysis, as well as a traffic analysis on the entire corridor, as well as the different scenarios for Webster and Central. We are looking at ways to in innovative ways to streamline this project, especially with it. Environmental Review. Since this is a really complicated project because it's partly on state run.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, I need the record to reflect that Vice Mayor Vela has stepped out of the room and the time that I need that marked on the minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: She is recusing herself from this item because she lives near the property.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we need to say that so we all know what's happening. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, remember, Vice Mayor Vella is recusing herself from this item and that's why she stepped away from the dias. Or that. We know that. Thank you. You may continue.
Speaker 1: In parallel, as we complete the project initiation document.
Speaker 0: We will be working with.
Speaker 1: Caltrans and the funding agency to streamline the project, especially when it pertains to that environmental documentation. That's the Sequoia and the NEPA that's required since these are federal funds for construction. And so we will in parallel, while we're working on the PID, we will be working on ways to streamline. This is a really complicated project. And so we do want to use best practices on how to move forward and in the most streamlined way possible. And I'm available for questions or comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Member matter.
Speaker 8: Just a quick clarifying question. Maybe I missed it, but the Caltrans work, will they approve the plan for Central and Webster? Is that part of their approval or part of their review?
Speaker 1: They will review the various scenarios we come up with in this PID phase. And so they will conceptually approve all this, all the scenarios that we will come up with to consider, and that will be considered and further analyzed in the next phase and then project analysis.
Speaker 8: But when they say when you say that they will review everything that they. Does that mean that they could say no, that that particular plan, one, two, three, three is not going to we're not going to approve that they could they eliminate. I guess I'm asking, can they eliminate a scenario?
Speaker 1: They could. Okay. It's it's hard to say at this point. They have been very amenable and it's been a while. I'm not I'm just saying.
Speaker 8: What the process. Yes. Them to remove a scenario from our list of possible.
Speaker 1: I would think that would be a possibility.
Speaker 8: Okay, thanks. That's all I need. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Member Ashcraft. So I was the one who pulled this from the consent calendar, although my question is actually somewhat similar to councilmember matter. So I do understand that a part of this is State Highway 61 and that's where Caltrans comes in. My question, I know that they the city, we have to get a conceptual approval by Caltrans before proceeding to further design, environmental review and construction. And my question is, what what further Caltrans approvals will be required? I mean, this is just the initial phase, but do will they need to sign off on further design and construction documents before they can be finalized? Right.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yes. And so in the next phase, there's the project approval and environmental documentation phase. They need to sign off on that. Then there's the next phase. The plan specification estimates, they sign off on that. And the construction, it's it's federal money, so they sign off on everything.
Speaker 6: So then just for clarification, for their work, we need to come up with $184,000. That's just for this the project initiation document phase. Can we anticipate similar numbers for the other phase? Yes. Okay. And just for the public, that might be, you know, having heart palpitations like I did when I saw these numbers. There's a whole lot more grant money out there that we were able to get. So it's but I just I wondered what we would be looking at, more approvals and more fees. Yes.
Speaker 1: And we will be looking at additional.
Speaker 6: Those are my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And we do have two speakers on this item that I'd like to call at this time, Brian McGuire and then Denise Trapani, a.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I was a little surprised to see the recusal. I didn't realize. I thought it was only if there was, like, a financial interest of some kind. But, I mean, a 1.7 mile corridor could be a lot of people that live close to such a project. But Bike Walk is looking forward to this project moving forward. We are excited to work with staff and excited that we've got funding and we're ready to take the next steps. We do think that a couple of things as regards to the description, this council gave direction to look at safer alternatives for the Webster and Central intersection . And we support that. We hope that we're not limited in when we consider our alternatives there. If the design for that intersection may lead us, especially towards the West, as we connect with different facilities towards the point to examine more than just the immediate vicinity, it might extend. And, you know, if we decide to do something like a protected bike lane on part of that section, it would make sense to reexamine from Webster to Payton School that maybe we could extend it and close that gap right wherever possible. So hopefully we we follow the follow the design where it goes and not just be focused at that corner. We do think it's a big enough project that maybe it would be worth exploring doing some of the other parts that are not Caltrans right of way sooner. We've waited a long time. We know this corridor's unsafe. There's a lot of schools that are on central west of Webster and a lot of students and families that use what we've identified as an unsafe configuration. So if there's any opportunity to start doing work on the segments west of Webster that we've got an approved design for , and we can move forward and start construction on those before 2021 so that we can start delivering some amenities and some safety improvements sooner without dramatically increasing. Obviously the staff, staff costs and efficiencies we might gain, but we think it would be worth exploring. So we hope you can consider that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other speakers on this item? I'm sorry, Denise.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thanks for giving me the time to speak tonight on this. I'm going to reiterate some of what Brian said. I first got involved with Bike Walk Alameda on the Central Project.
Speaker 0: Years ago when we.
Speaker 1: Were doing outreach for a community outreach. That's how I first heard about Bike Walk Alameda and I'm on the board, so it's been a long time coming. So we're very excited that this is finally happening and I may be mis misremembering some of this, but the whole project goes from internal all the way down around the corner to where it becomes main to Pacific. The Caltrans portion is really just Webster to Anthony all it's just the eastern portion of it. When I was looking through some of the documents for the scope of this project, what we're going to be doing with Caltrans or with the consultant, where it looks like we're doing like traffic counts again all the way back to. Pacific and fourth and eighth where we may not need to do them again. I don't know how much of that is. We're just treating it all like one project. But that's not really Caltrans jurisdiction. But that's not my my area of expertize. I just want to make sure that we're moving as fast as we can and we're not doing too much work. And if we did a bunch of traffic counts and we have approval.
Speaker 0: On designs for.
Speaker 7: Stuff.
Speaker 1: That's west of Webster. Yeah, let's move forward with that. Let's not do all the traffic.
Speaker 4: Counts and look at all the pedestrian crossings.
Speaker 1: If we've done all that, let's not do that. But that was included in the scope of work tonight for the consultant. So that's it. Thank you. Please move this forward so we can get some a safety corridor in Central. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Linda Astbury.
Speaker 1: Hello. Linda Asbury, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. We really want to emphasize that West Alameda Business Association has to be at every point of this discussion, and it can't do anything that restricts any business on Webster and Central. And I think we've been terribly outspent, not terribly. We've been in a positive way, outspoken. And perhaps there's feelings that we haven't been heard and we can't repeat that we need to be at the table at all. Discussion and total transparency. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That completes our public comments on this item Council. Did you have any more questions or comments?
Speaker 3: I'm just going to I'm going to move approval of the item.
Speaker 6: Just quick clarifying question from whoever can tell me about the repeated traffic.
Speaker 0: And member matter as he seconded it. Sorry.
Speaker 6: Is it happening or is Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: And if you could repeat your question.
Speaker 6: I just asked Miss Payne to tell.
Speaker 1: Us about the traffic count. So as part of there are no new traffic counts. And what we'll be doing is we do know that since we've done the work on the concept, there have been more traffic counts down. So we will be compiling the latest and giving it to the consultant for this next phase. That's all.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And then could you speak to the intersection of central maps through that process? But. But what's going to happen?
Speaker 1: Yes. So just as a reminder, you all we came to you to ask for approval for the concept of the entire 1.7 mile corridor. And in February 2016, you will approve the corridor the entire quarter. Except you asked us to come back with some alternatives for that Webster Central Avenue intersection. And so what we're now going to be doing with this pit phase is we're going to be coming back with with some of those alternate with those alternatives for that intersection. And we will not be resolving that. We will be just bringing it in the pit phase and showing what the alternatives. We will be considering all the scenarios and doing a preliminary environmental report analysis on that, preliminary traffic analysis on that. And then the next phase will be seeking your approval and working in this phase with. All different, the key stakeholders. So we we have one reason why we have bike walk, Alameda and Barber here is that we alerted them that this was on the agenda. And so we are working with all groups and they're the.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 1: Primary ones with these stakeholder meetings. We will also we'll have focus groups really with these primary stakeholders and also a workshop with the broader community to make sure it's transparent what we're doing with this, with these key stakeholders, and then bringing it to Transportation Commission and the City Council. So even though we know we're not going to be resolving the issue, we are going to be working through the issue to make sure that we have some solid scenarios to analyze.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Comments. Do we have a.
Speaker 8: Comment.
Speaker 0: About address?
Speaker 8: I'd love to see the scenario that comes to us out of this bid process. Yeah. Waba and bike walk alameda standing hand in hand saying, there we go. Let's go. Hey, so.
Speaker 1: Everyone here has a goal here. That would be great.
Speaker 0: All right. And all those in favor carries unanimously with one recusal. All right, so now we're and if someone could love vice mayor knows that she can come back in. Now we're on five K and I don't.
Speaker 6: Know, I did and.
Speaker 0: Never ask.
Speaker 6: Yeah. This one is, um, the recommendation to accept the Public Art Commission's cultural arts funding recommendations. And I just pull this because I think they're pretty spectacular. And I wondered if whoever's project whose this was about there.
Speaker 1: It would be Amanda Gursky, who is a management analyst with our department. She does have a short presentation. It's about 5 minutes. If you would like her to give that presentation.
Speaker 3: I'd like to waive the presentation.
Speaker 6: I it may be written consent. It's almost nine, so maybe I'm sure it's a lovely presentation. Maybe another time. Can you just quickly list for us the however many awardees are are included in there.
Speaker 0: But I have a question. Does the present the presentation has the pictures of them proposals, right?
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 0: If you could just go back to show the.
Speaker 1: Audience.
Speaker 0: Okay, I went to the public art meeting and there are hardly any people there. Right.
Speaker 1: It's okay. All right. I'm going to skip through the process and go straight to the awardees. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Wonderful.
Speaker 6: The Academy Awards.
Speaker 1: That I'll be using.
Speaker 0: Are very much.
Speaker 1: So. The first awardee at the $35,000 level is Island City Waterways. This is a biennial event, so it's every other year produced by rhythmic cultural works. And it really combines.
Speaker 7: Theater, dance and music.
Speaker 1: To celebrate Alameda history in the natural landscape. So this year's event will focus on Crab Cove and it will have.
Speaker 7: Ten performances over.
Speaker 1: Two days, including two performances that are particularly for Alameda Unified School District school groups. So the event is really meant to provide audiences with the opportunity to experience a free, interactive public art event about the history of the land that they live on and an understanding of how it was shaped by the water that surrounds it. So this is going to be held over May 18th, 19th and 20th. At the $25,000 level is the Animate Dance.
Speaker 7: Festival.
Speaker 1: Brought to us by the West End Arts and Entertainment District. So this is going to be held in October of 2018 at Alameda Point. And this is really intended to be a celebration of dance in all its forms. It'll include everything from performances by professional dance troupes down to performances by local youth groups. They'll have tribal dance classes so people can try out different forms of dance, and then a central festival hub with a play area and food truck. So it's very much a community oriented dance festival.
Speaker 7: And finally.
Speaker 1: The American landscape from sacred and profane. So this is a choral concert that is going to focus on a variety of American folk styles and traditions. It's going to include music from a number of American composers such as Paul Kihara, Sean.
Speaker 7: Kirchner, Stacy Gibbs and Moses.
Speaker 1: Hogan. And this is.
Speaker 7: One of a series of three concerts they're going to be doing in the Bay Area. I would say all of.
Speaker 1: The money that's coming through the Alameda Public Art Fund will be for the the event that will be here in Alameda. It's also going to be accompanied by a visual arts show that will celebrate the diverse traditions, landscapes and points of view of American culture. And two of the four artists included in that show will be Alameda Artists. So this concert is scheduled for March of 2019.
Speaker 3: Move approval of the item.
Speaker 0: Second, and I wanted to follow up. I know some of the money was not distributed. And if you could explain the next part of the process what's happening. I also do want to thank our public art commissioners. And are all of the artists participated in the process?
Speaker 1: So we are.
Speaker 7: So there was there were two categories that we didn't award, and that was the 15,000 and the.
Speaker 1: $5,000 award categories. And so that money remains in the Public Art Fund, and we're currently.
Speaker 7: In the process of developing a new RFP to rerelease that.
Speaker 1: Money. So we had a public art commission meeting on the fourth of this month, and the Public Art Commission asked.
Speaker 7: Us to.
Speaker 1: Take a survey of our arts.
Speaker 7: Community to find out the best way to rerelease.
Speaker 1: That money. Mainly questions about what increments should we release it.
Speaker 7: In, in.
Speaker 1: Terms of award levels. And then they.
Speaker 7: Also asked us to look a little bit about the at the process to see if there was a way.
Speaker 1: To refine our selection process so we could allow for a little more interactivity between the proposers and the selection panel.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I am adopting a resolution supporting regional measure three. The Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan and a resolution supporting Proposition 69 and opposing Senate Bill one repeal to protect local transportation improvements. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement with the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) in an Amount not to Exceed $184,000 for Caltrans to Review and Approve the Project Initiation Document (PID), which is Required by Caltrans, to Determine the Project’s Scope, Cost and Schedule for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project; and Execute a Contract with CDM Smith in the Amount of $372,928, Including Contingency, for Engineering, Planning, and Outreach Services to Prepare the PID. (Transportation 91815) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04032018_2018-5019 | Speaker 8: One of the things that some other cities have done is they've allowed for different businesses and things to petition to put these in. But I was wondering if is part of the RFP process, whoever the vendor is, and I know these obviously don't get locked up in the sense that a normal bike would get locked up with an actual physical lock, but it still signals a place to actually dock the bike. And so if they, you know, if as part of the RFP, they would be willing to fund more of these on perhaps some of our main streets where we do have our bike lanes and perhaps some on Central Avenue. We do have some shops on Central Avenue throughout town and things like that where they could put in for those and that would be funded by the company and could be a place to signal, Hey, this is where you could bring your line bike or whatever bike it is, or if you're riding a regular bike, you could use an actual physical lock to to lock it up. The other thing that had come up is I know that lime bike had done some helmet giveaways at the different high schools. You know, again, if there are through part of the RFP, they make it easy for people to actually get the helmets again. And that's something. I know that. I know those laws are difficult to enforce, but the easier we can make it for people to actually get helmets, the more likely they're going to use them.
Speaker 0: Okay. Question Member.
Speaker 2: Ashcroft So something we can have a robust discussion on this comes back on May 1st. But the there there is also a reason it's accessibility to to have dockless bikes. I think I understand the vice mayor to be saying, but in some areas where they're maybe not being parked properly, it could be a place where they're parked , but they are going to be dockless bikes because they don't.
Speaker 8: Require I'm not I'm not asking for a docking station. But the way that we had talked about this before, when we were talking about bike access in Alameda, that you could put, you know, a place, a docking station for like a normal bike, right. Where you could actually lock your bike up. You know, the the.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a, it's a.
Speaker 8: Bike rack. Well it's not, it's a station, but it's, you know, talking about. Right. But that could have the branding of whatever the company is on it or they could put their logo. And you know, part of what I've seen them do on Park Street is they've they have lined up line bikes near the bike racks that we do have out. Okay.
Speaker 2: We'll have a further discussion. But I just yeah. And we can look what.
Speaker 7: Other cities have done to like Seattle is use that thermo use, striping the.
Speaker 8: Thermoplastic striping or.
Speaker 7: Not.
Speaker 8: Actually a bike rack, but they've actually like something good area for.
Speaker 7: The dockless.
Speaker 8: Bikes. Right.
Speaker 7: To help encourage them or.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Because and just to finish my thought, the the advantage and there's pros and cons of both. But the advantage of dockless bikes are they don't take up any of the public thoroughfare right away with their docking stations. But, you know, it's good to have more bikes out there. We still on a trip over them, so.
Speaker 4: Member matters and I just want to make sure that this online by not on us by getting free use of this and I don't I really don't know I'm curious of how they really make their money because I think it's selling information just like everybody else. We get a benefit, but they should be required and penalized if they're allowing underage kids to ride. If that's on them and if they're kids who are required to have a helmet, are not wearing a helmet that's on them. So I think that's what I'm looking for in the contract and I think the rest are good ideas, but they should be on line bikes time and bikes.
Speaker 0: Me and them around here just.
Speaker 5: You can go.
Speaker 8: Oh, I was just going to say in some of these other cities, it has been on whatever the the Dockless bike company to to either put up the striping or to pay for, you know, bike racks in front of other places where they aren't traditionally. But the other the other thought that we had had we had discussed this was a concern that we had had was the liability. So if a child is injured and there's some sort of, you know, something that happens, what's the liability to the city? Are we liable? Is that going to be covered in in the in the contract and making sure because it's a it's a big concern.
Speaker 5: Everybody just be quick. And I kind of like the lime bikes. I mean, you're probably going to have a few scofflaws, but I think overall, I mean, just the idea that, you know, we can have an easy way to use a bicycle in town and we can do it in an open. And I guess open is probably the best word. You know, it's not dockless where it sounds like it's super secure. We're not trusting our residents to use it properly. So, I mean, just as an overall general thing, I like it. You know, it's nice to see people writing or writing them around. You know, there is some anecdotal because I did see one sitting outside the state building I think yesterday when I left the office. So, I mean, there is some anecdotal evidence that they're popping up in places they shouldn't pop up but.
Speaker 2: Didn't bring it.
Speaker 5: Back. I know. And, you know, as far as the helmets, you know, somebody passed around something on the Internet last week that, you know, part of the reason we have accidents is because cars are hitting people, you know, not because we have, you know, a failure of people to wear helmets. So, you know, I think we we owe it to our residents, especially as more of them ride bikes to make sure that we ensure their safety while they're doing that. And, you know, it may not be simply. Requiring a helmet or ticketing or whatever people are asking. But, you know, making sure that, you know, we we we plan automobile traffic in such a way that it doesn't endanger bike riders and pedestrians.
Speaker 0: So it is that I want to be very clear. It is California state law that anyone under 18 riding a bicycle has to have a helmet on. That's not arbitrary. That's not anyone up here asking. It is actually California state law. So I personally think that it is critical that we take it seriously and. So so that that's an issue there. I know other cities have figured out a way to charge more initially. And then if you return the bike to an acceptable location through the geofencing that then you get money back. And if you don't return it to an acceptable place, that right costs you more. And I think we should look at that type of pricing so that it's naturally and whomever is doing this right is their company. But there are things that I guess that other cities have required. Them to be creative and they can because it's there's technology nowadays. So I think that that's something we can look at. Of course, we all have seen. I'll say, first of all, I do like the idea of having more bikes available. You see many more people around. I don't know if it's any more, but there are people I know that they've had bikes stolen and they can now ride a lime bike or they don't have the means. So so you do see them being used. That being said, you also see them unfortunately. I recently came back on Bart and the Fruitvale District. There was one thrown in the middle of the walkway and you had the picture of Oakland's bikes all lined up nice and neat in their dock stations. And then right in the middle of the path, you had a lime bike that came from Alameda. And I think that's a serious problem. And Oakland is keeping their bikes nice and orderly and somehow Alameda bikes are ending up. Obstructing the walkway there. So I feel like we really do have to take this seriously. It's really not appropriate for us to be littering Oakland when they're trying hard to have their areas. Neat. So the rest of it, I think, is and therefore I look forward to them coming back. I did talk with someone from Lime Bike about can you put it in your program? Is it someone make them say that they are over 18 or if they're under 18 then say, do you have your helmet? Yes or no? And try to build it into their program. But I think it is important to put it on them if they insist on being not wearing a helmet and letting their kid ride a bike without a helmet as opposed to being on our city. The other comments, and I appreciate you taking all this in and trying to build your RFP so that we end up with responsible bikes. Thank you. Okay. Nine B, and that's number mattresses.
Speaker 4: Yes. This is a consideration of a ban in motorized commercial vehicles. This. The example was a few months ago there was black box on the West End and the complaints that I received was the robotic package delivery system was driving down the middle of the sidewalk and people were walking on the sidewalk to get out of the | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) [Not heard on December 19, 2017; January 2 or 16, 2018, February 6 or 20, 2018, or March 6 or 20, 2018] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04032018_2018-5043 | Speaker 4: Yes. This is a consideration of a ban in motorized commercial vehicles. This. The example was a few months ago there was black box on the West End and the complaints that I received was the robotic package delivery system was driving down the middle of the sidewalk and people were walking on the sidewalk to get out of the way. The robot doesn't have a license, doesn't pay a tax. You know, we're responsible for street damage on the sidewalks and the homeowner is responsible for sidewalk itself and bought boxes making money and taking jobs. So. I think we should ban them. And then if there's something that comes to us, we have the consideration to lift the ban rather than just have to react to something when it's happening. The same with the and we all it sounds like it's far fetched. The deliveries by drone. And I'd rather have them banned and then be have some future council have to be convinced that the benefit outweighs raise the risk and the disturbance then us having to react something that is hasn't been. And so it's a simple request that we consider putting this ban in place for both.
Speaker 0: So this is a referral. So yes, you want to make a motion that we take here the that the processes that the referral base.
Speaker 4: Well I can make the motion we.
Speaker 0: Because it's your.
Speaker 8: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now any other discussion? Because I can call the question this time because it's just the referral.
Speaker 5: We're moving the referral forward.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. Okay. Number ten. Yes.
Speaker 2: So we have this workshop coming up in a little over a month that we just talked about. And so I'm just wondering whether I guess we could vote to move this for the thing is, I'm aware of one one email from one constituent and just because I haven't seen something with my own eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But again, I'm also mindful of staff time. I do appreciate the rating that you gave it. It's not important, but that I just have.
Speaker 4: Relatively.
Speaker 2: It. This is one where I would probably like to hear from the city attorney's office.
Speaker 0: That will be part when it comes back.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah.
Speaker 0: Whether okay I it's part of the referral process. I mean, the stuff and I'm ready to.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think it's not farfetched.
Speaker 0: I mean, in regards to the.
Speaker 5: Drone, I mean, I think I think it's not farfetched. I mean, you hear what's going on on Twitter, in in in Washington this week. And that, you know, the White House seems to be intent on driving away the post office's biggest customer. So if that happens, they're going to do this. So we got to and if that happens and they do that, they're going to take away jobs from me to the post office or, you know, people like UPS and things like that. So I don't think it's farfetched. I mean, I, I would be willing to say let's bring back a ban, just like you're suggesting, and not really have a discussion a second time. You know, just bring back the ban.
Speaker 0: I think I'd want a legal analysis to see if we can do a ban as opposed to I mean, you could I'm okay with staff looking into making sure it's legal and bringing that up at once. But I definitely want to see.
Speaker 4: I think that's should be a quick analysis because we don't allow ups to drive their trucks down the sidewalk. Right. This is the same thing. We don't allow airplanes to fly at house level down the street, dropping packages off. This is I mean, to me, this is pretty simple. We can have a ban. But I perfectly agree with you.
Speaker 0: Having the legal analysis to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: As the non-lawyer up here, has the attorney give us legal now, what.
Speaker 0: Do you think? I think definitely, as with any ordinance we would bring forward, which would include.
Speaker 8: The ban that we would do.
Speaker 0: A legal analysis to support it with you would make it okay, wouldn't bring it.
Speaker 4: Vice Mayor So rate it not not urgent.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I, I actually, I actually do think that this is some, I think it's very timely companies like UPS that I will fully disclose that I, I represent some workers at UPS. And I do know that that UPS, among other delivery companies, are looking at having robots start delivering and having, you know, a one vehicle caravan operated by one driver who's operating a number of different bots potentially. I think that there's a number of different issues that potentially come up relative to security and safety and everything else, as well as ADA issues that come up if if somebody is coming down the sidewalk and there is a delivery bot that's been an issue in San Francisco where they've been testing them because they haven't. What that's been one of the issues because they're not in the quote unquote line of sight. So I would you know, I fully support this. I think that it's prudent to kind of say no and then look at things and see if there's, you know, if the technology is there and if we feel comfortable with everything that's happening and then making the exception. So I'd like to call the question.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, wait, there is some. Okay, so we.
Speaker 0: Already.
Speaker 5: I would vote no on that just because I don't think the mayor's had a chance to weigh in.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't they talk.
Speaker 5: For hours on it.
Speaker 0: The only thing I want. So I just want to clarify when I'm actually. Okay. Looking at changing the low urgency, low importance. But at the 18th, I'm okay. Okay, look at it then to see if we want to move it up. And at that time of staff, I'm not sure that this actually will take a heck of a lot of the time to come up with the ban. So you may have a time estimate of how much time you need to look at this one compared to some of the other issues that we give to you. Okay. So that now all those in favor I.
Speaker 2: And that with the clarification that we're keeping the rating the same as this time. Yeah. Okay. On that basis I'll join in vote.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. So that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Next item nine C. Okay. This is a referral that I had brought before. I think it was addressed this evening. However, I would like us to have at some point a bigger discussion and then vice mayor brought this up to really clarify. | Council Referral | Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for Deliveries. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Not heard on January 2 or 16, 2018, February 6 or 20, 2018 or March 6 or 20, 2018] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04032018_2018-5324 | Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. So that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Next item nine C. Okay. This is a referral that I had brought before. I think it was addressed this evening. However, I would like us to have at some point a bigger discussion and then vice mayor brought this up to really clarify. More clearly. But what our options are. And I appreciate the 20 or 30 page legal memo. I just think that that might be a little hard for many people to digest the possible, if it could be, if you all can figure out a way to make it clearer. I think that'd be very helpful. Everyone go to that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you hear that?
Speaker 0: Okay, nine.
Speaker 4: This one's not moving forward as she.
Speaker 2: Is not moving forward.
Speaker 0: Great. I just asked them, though, to I followed up with comments we made earlier because this was done before the item.
Speaker 4: I see.
Speaker 2: And that would go to the housing element report.
Speaker 8: I heard.
Speaker 2: Earlier.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: 1990. Yes.
Speaker 5: So I'll just be brief on this one. And this may be something that we put off, but I recall that when we had the meeting where we discussed the bond, there was some confusion at the end on what it would mean if we went over 11 three times in a row and whether that meant that we had | Council Referral | Consider Clarifying the Maximum Allowable Number of Units per Site and Potentially Removing the Multi-Family (MF) Housing Overlay Designation for Various Sites. [Not heard on March 20, 2018] (Mayor Spencer) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04032018_2018-5370 | Speaker 5: So I'll just be brief on this one. And this may be something that we put off, but I recall that when we had the meeting where we discussed the bond, there was some confusion at the end on what it would mean if we went over 11 three times in a row and whether that meant that we had to add one meeting. Per month, one meeting or some other number of meetings. But I also know that the clerk is working on bringing back an item to discuss the whole issue that our subcommittee council member as the Ashcraft and I worked on. This is why we did this together. So, I mean, it may make sense to bring this back as part of that discussion, given that I don't know if we're under the gun now because we make it done before 11 and then the clock will be again starting at zero. And then it may not be an issue until after we or if we adopt any any changes. So I'm happy to defer this, but I will let my colleague who jointly authored it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Member I.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah. And I'll just chime in that. I mean, it was almost sort of a placeholder, but coming soon. Ms.. Speiser, do we do we know when we're going to? That's okay. I'm not rushing you.
Speaker 1: Well, I wanted to. I needed to get the comments back to you, Councilmember Ody, and then give you guys a little time to review it. So it won't make me first, but it to be fine for me.
Speaker 2: I don't think this is one that has us on the edge of our seats, because.
Speaker 1: I think we could.
Speaker 2: But what I would say is that it was a joint effort of the the Open Government Committee. Councilmember Odie, myself, the city clerk, was very helpful in city attorney's office also. And I think we've got some pretty good proposals coming to you and this may actually be moot. So I would suggest that we just table this one for now, if that's agreeable with you. Mr.. COUNCILMEMBER.
Speaker 5: Perfect with that.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Well, I'd like to speak to it, though, in regards to the Open Government Committee. I was able to attend their meeting and they did have a lot of it's, I thought thoughtful actually discussion and then their recommendation. So I think that they're doing a great job and I'm looking forward to having the issues that they raised come back to us.
Speaker 5: And we we basically took what they did and what we did and we kind of synthesized it together and hopefully.
Speaker 2: You guys.
Speaker 5: Will like it. If not, we'll see you all and do what you want.
Speaker 0: So when it comes back to us, though, will we see separate but open government did by itself and then the council comments. Thank you. Okay. So then that completes the referral part. Council Communications member already. | Council Referral | Discuss the Sunshine Ordinance Requirement in Alameda Municipal Code Section 2-91.13(f) regarding Increasing the Number of Regular Meetings of the City Council. (Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_03202018_2018-5288 | Speaker 1: All those in favor. That motion carries unanimously. I see. And that's the legislative agenda. And I pulled that because I'd like to consider under transportation. We have a support pedestrian at the second to the last bullet point. Support pedestrian and bike safety. Access improvements throughout the emphasis enabling to get residents to get to BART and I think I'd like I'd like to add and ferries to BART and ferries and other methods of commuting. I think the ferries is significant in regards to how we're trying to facilitate the last mile. So I'm suggesting we add AB and ferries. And then I have one more change. I had asked at the last meeting that we add statewide cannabis banking services and it was added under revenue and taxation. And but I'd like but I'm fine keeping it there, but I want to add it under the public safety and Homeland Security , where there we have protect local funding authority and in the implementation of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. And I'd like to add there, including statewide cannabis banking services, because to me it really is a public safety issue, not so much revenue and taxation. So those were my two suggestions on that. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 6: I, I have no problem adding mayors to suggestions. One other piece of legislation that has recently been taken up by the legislature has to do with transparency in medical costs and insurance costs. And I think as an employer, that's something we should be supportive of because that will help us with our costs. So we could add that.
Speaker 1: Under Health and Human Services. Yes.
Speaker 7: Member Ashcraft. Thank you. And so I believe staff may already be pursuing this, but this is some pending legislation. AB 3037 sponsored by David Chu of San Francisco, would recreate a version of redevelopment to set aside billions of dollars in property taxes each year for local economic development and affordable housing. And so under redevelopment, I would like us to to be sure to pursue supporting that pending legislation.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure about pending. I'm I'm not actually sure. But pending legislation that is.
Speaker 7: Well over the year. I think if you read the I think it falls well within this staff report because under redevelopment there at the top of page three, it says support legislative efforts commonly referred to as redevelopment 2.0. So provide a funding mechanism and other strategies to promote economic development.
Speaker 1: I read that laudable.
Speaker 7: And middle, I know, but the public might not have in middle income housing programs. So I'm just saying let's support that.
Speaker 1: Place.
Speaker 6: Where it seems like that's currently listed as as a bill that we would be supportive of. And I think you're just giving a specific bill.
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's recently come up, so I want to make sure that that's covered.
Speaker 1: Okay. So with Davis, because this has support the implementation of state housing bills and so usually something new.
Speaker 7: And different.
Speaker 1: Structure, what the terms.
Speaker 7: Are that.
Speaker 6: It's a different section. It's under the redevelopment section.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That was already. Yeah that is.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: That's right. I think it's I think it's in compliant. She just listed a specific bill title.
Speaker 1: All right. So then with those, come back to us with those suggested changes and then on consent again.
Speaker 4: Or we going to improve.
Speaker 6: It with those changes.
Speaker 4: We want to.
Speaker 1: Make.
Speaker 6: I'll make a motion to approve the legislative.
Speaker 7: Agenda.
Speaker 6: Legislative agenda for 2018 for the city of Alameda with the amendments by.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 6: Council tonight.
Speaker 1: All those in favor. I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. And then I also pulled five f.
Speaker 2: Adoption resolution confirming a ground Lester's consent, an estoppel certificate authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of the ground Lester's consent and establish it and some arena doing business grammar. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Approve the 2018 Legislative Agenda for the City of Alameda. (City Manager 2110) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_03062018_2018-5094 | Speaker 0: All those in favor I hear is unanimously.
Speaker 1: Now b3b is a recommendation to accept the fiscal year 20 1617 audited financial statements in compliance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our our speakers. Kevin Kearney, our auditor.
Speaker 3: Mayor, City Council. Jeff, nice to see you. Just wanted to talk briefly about the, uh, the catheter that that's being transmitted tonight and just make a couple of points that I think that just to be clear of a few things. Regarding the financial statements. The financial statements are a snapshot in time. It's indicating the assets, the liabilities at a particular time and the results of operations at the end of a period. In this instance, it's June 30th, 2018. And over the years, there's been different items have been included in this snapshot. And gas by the government accounting standards. Boards of pronouncements have mandated over the years various adjustments in what actually goes into the financial statements. And some of the items now that are in the financial statements due to recent pronouncements are the net pat, the net pension liability and the OPEB liability. And on page 52, you can see the amounts. And the total is $266,000,267 million. And these were approximated by GASB 73 and 74. And in my discussions in the current audit with the outside auditors, there's going to be an additional change to the OPEB liability commencing next year. And the liability that's about $39 million right now is going to be about $100 million. And this is as a result of Gatsby 75, and that's on page 53 in the audit, if you if you want to check that out. So that's going to be some additional liability that's going to hit our balance sheet. And then in my discussion with the outside auditors, I was asking him if there are any additional Gatsby's that are, you know, on the horizon that, you know, that he would thought would be, you know, kind of big deal, you know, not ones that where there's actually going to be, you know, an impact to our financial statements. And one of the things generally the way Gatsby works, they they start out, they solicit opinions, they come out with a pronouncement in it and it hits the footnotes first. And then there's a run up period. And eventually it actually becomes a number in a financial statement. And in my discussion with the outside auditors, one of the things they were talking about is the recognition of deferred maintenance and the quality of your infrastructure. Now that's much like the the pension liability and OPEB. You know, several years ago they weren't a part of the financial statements, now they are a part of the financial statements. And he was confident that at some point in the near future, this additional liability is going to hit the the financial statements. Well, based on the you know, the last meeting in the presentation by staff, $293 million of infrastructure that's been estimated that eventually will I'm just going to keep trucking that'll that'll eventually hit the financial statements at some point so there's going to be another liability that's substantial that's going to be a part of our financial statements. And I think it's important for you, the counsel, to be aware of these, you know, possibly pending pronouncements, because it certainly would, you know, affect probably your decision on certain decisions that are, you know, fiscal in nature, where you're going to be considering expenditures. And for the public, I think it's particularly important just just to know that we have this liability that soon going to go on the financial statements, much like these other ones that I've mentioned before. So the other point that I think is important on page ten, when you're talking about unassigned fund balance, $26 million. Well, that that I mean, I think that's it's a nice number. It's been lower. It's been higher. But. There's no recognition of $293 million, certainly based on committees I've been on over the years. Fiscal sustainability. Regarding the pension and the recent consultant's report that indicated that the pension liabilities are going to be increasing substantially in the next couple of years. In my mind, although it's not committed today, again, this is a snapshot in time today that is every bit true. This this is unencumbered. But next year, the subsequent year, when you have to start recognizing additional liabilities, you know, it might be $0.26 or it might be 26 million. It just it just depends. And I just want everybody, mainly the public, because you guys are aware of this, that there are this fund balance is for this snapshot in time, not tomorrow, not now. It was back in the rearview mirror. So I think it's important that everybody realize that, especially when you're in, you know, your charge now is to maneuver through budgets with very, very severe liabilities. And if somehow make this thing work and it's then, you know, it's not a task that I that I envy and I and I wish you well. And I'm confident you guys will do a great job. But I really want the public to understand where we stand. So when somebody says, oh, we have this big fund balance, you know, just take another step back and realize what that represents. And so finally. For the, I guess, the 27th year in a row, we've received a certificate of achievement from the Government Finance Officers Association, and that's a part of your packet as well, and that's on a Roman numeral x 515 and that was for the preceding year. And in talking to the outside auditors and staff, we've submitted for this this current fiscal year. And so I'm going to be very confident that it's going to keep a perfect record going. And then and then finally, I just would like to commend the staff for the outstanding effort during this particular audit. And I want to commend our finance director, Elaine Adair, who up until basically the 11th hour was here trying to pull these numbers together and just doing a real bang up job before she went out on maternity leave and talk about somebody that, you know, had definitely some other pressing issues and really, you know, put her nose to the grindstone. And I think that we're lucky to have somebody of that commitment to the city working on behalf of citizens. I'd also like to thank Edwin Godwin, who stepped into her shoes and did a wonderful job and, you know, is wearing about 15 hats in the finance department and also the staff back in the day when the the staff was located in a little bit different area, there was a lot more people in there working. And over the years, because of various reasons, there's a lot less. And they're really having to do a lot of double duty. And I commend them for doing a wonderful job. And also, I'd like to I'd like to thank Jill, our city manager, and Liz, our assistant city manager, for having to pick up the slack in areas. You know, they're not the finance director and they were doing double duty as well, being a really integral part of the audit and making sure that the timelines were followed. And I commend them as well and thank you very much.
Speaker 0: I wanted to give Council the opportunity to ask any questions while our auditors here. I do have a question for a couple. So if you could just do the highlights of the, um, the amount of the unfunded pension liabilities.
Speaker 3: Well, if we look, if we look on page 52, you're going to see that the, the net pension liabilities, 227,000,320, let's say 227,324,000. And I can't read my writing at the end, so it looks like 871. And then the OPEB is 39 million 668 326. So again, that's at that snapshot in time at 630.
Speaker 0: And do we have an estimate of the deferred maintenance that's.
Speaker 3: Well, the deferred maintenance doesn't appear in the financial statements because by pronouncement it's not required. So not not only is there not a number, there's not footnote disclosure. And that will probably be something that Gadsby is addressing as we speak. And at some point in the future that will definitely be a part of the financial statements.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you very much. Okay. On this item, then, I'd like to follow up with questions. The staff. So the 227 million for the unfunded pension liabilities of. Do we have a payment plan of how we're going to be paying for that?
Speaker 5: Yes. It's we've had a work session with this council, and the council has shown a lot of foresight and funding as much as possible to get that down the council to date. Last. Fiscal year, they committed about 15 million to the unfunded liability that has saved us about a million annually in our CalPERS payment. And then coming forward, when we do the midyear, we are also, because of the council policy of 50% of any surplus is proposed and directed to go towards this unfunded liability. And so when you see the mid-year, we'll have an estimate and then at the mid-cycle we will put that money into the CalPERS unfunded liability and continue to draw down and. Flatten the curve. So if you remember, we had a bell curve of our payments going forward and our payments to CalPERS are going to increase exponentially and then especially in the next 3 to 5 years. And so what we're trying to do is put as much money up as soon as we can to bring that bell curve down at a flatter level. So it looks like out of the 15 million that we've given, we have savings over that time period of 150% of what we put in approximately. And we'll be talking to the council about that.
Speaker 0: In.
Speaker 5: Midyear.
Speaker 0: In regards to the Bell Curve, what was the highest amount that we will have to at this point estimate that the city will have to pay?
Speaker 5: It's, I think, 34 million.
Speaker 0: Four for one year, 34 million. And what year is that year you call?
Speaker 5: I don't. It's pretty far out. Like. 2020.
Speaker 6: Probably 2025.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And when do you anticipate coming back with the update on this?
Speaker 5: We're preparing it now and it will come at the next meeting. Next council meeting.
Speaker 0: Oh, next council meeting.
Speaker 6: I was coming for mid-cycle.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Midyear.
Speaker 0: Okay. So midyear. So very not yet.
Speaker 3: Remember addressing and can you also give the rundown on the OPEB? Because in 2015 there was a contract agreement that had public safety employees paying in ahead of time to the operating room. We're going to we flatten that curve by was it $30 million or is that still on track there?
Speaker 5: There was a contribution to that OPEB as well. And it went from just two or three years ago, a 0% funded to now I believe it's in the 12% range of being funded. So we have made a significant dent in, you know, the last several years and that will also be coming to council.
Speaker 3: And my last question is a technical question. Mr. Kennedy mentioned that Gatsby's currently sorry, Kevin. Kevin mentioned that Gatsby is going to in in his auditor's estimation, going to be requiring this on our financial disclosures, the deferred maintenance. Is there a way? Because I think that's a good thing for us all to know what what the liability is and the public to know is there a way that we can do that without being required to do it? Including yes.
Speaker 5: The council can make that.
Speaker 3: So we can do something about that.
Speaker 5: In talking about that, probably at mid-cycle mid-cycle.
Speaker 3: We can talk about.
Speaker 5: That which is not the next meeting, but.
Speaker 3: Or it's.
Speaker 5: Coming July one.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'd like us to bring that up so that we get ahead of the curve.
Speaker 5: And we started collecting that data with that for the infrastructure form that came before council. So we already have an initial number for that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Just one follow up. So you will also come back then with the estimate of the deferred maintenance when you can not come back at the next meeting.
Speaker 5: I don't think we can't bring that at the next meeting, but we can do that for mid-cycle, which would be coming to council in May.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we need a motion to accept that report. Second, all those in favor. I. I. That motion carries unanimously. I will now adjourn the Joint City Council FCIC meeting, and now we will open the revised regular City Council meeting. And the agenda was revised on March 5th. For those of you that aren't aware of that, so you'll need to pull that up and get the latest version if you don't already have it.
Speaker 1: Roll Call council members as you're here. You're here they are. Spencer here I present.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Agenda changes. Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I would like to move up item six be since we continued the Greenway Golf lease from last meeting and I believe we have a number of individuals who are here again tonight. | Joint Consent Item | Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. (City Council/SACIC) (Finance 2410) [Not heard on February 6, 2018] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_03062018_2018-5222 | Speaker 1: Recommendation. Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with mercy on Don Logan Architects in the amount of up to 1.6 million in fiscal year 20 1617 renewable annually by the city manager for up to four additional years for a total compensation of 1.6 million for architectural engineering services, the design of the Seaplane, Ferry Lagoon and adoption of budget resolution.
Speaker 0: So I pulled this item because isn't this part of the project of, say, that we're going to be voting on later this evening?
Speaker 6: It is. So he wanted to go forward even before Saturday because we're trying to expedite the contract to.
Speaker 5: Do design of a portion of the the ferry terminal that has a long lead.
Speaker 6: Time. And we have the opportunity to have some.
Speaker 5: Savings by going forward with potentially with the Port of Oakland. So we wanted to get that moving.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: Madame Mayor, I know we're not supposed to respond to public comment, but perhaps.
Speaker 0: Felt that, yes.
Speaker 4: Perhaps we could continue this item too after the we are hearing the side matter tonight. Perhaps we could continue this item until after we've made the decision.
Speaker 0: On a later stage, and I would be agreeable to that. Remove it later. And the agenda for this evening after A, B and C, right?
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 0: Uh. Okay. Well, after being at the Derby.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 4: The new be the new the new six.
Speaker 0: All right, so we have a motion. I'll second that. All those in favor by my motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 1: A5f and adoption resolution adopting an agreement for participation in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. And we do have a speaker on this item. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Marcy Wong Donn Logan Architects in the Amount of up to $1,604,676 in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Renewable Annually by the City Manager for up to Four Additional Years for a Total Compensation of $1,604,676 for Architectural and Engineering Services for Design of the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal; and
Adoption of Resolution Increasing the Capital Projects Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Project (91814) by $1,604,676 from the Base Reuse Fund and Tideland Trust Budgets for Fiscal Year 2017-2018. (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_03062018_2018-5213 | Speaker 1: A5f and adoption resolution adopting an agreement for participation in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. And we do have a speaker on this item.
Speaker 0: Okay. And this is Miss Gabby Dolphin. I met a mayor's council and city staff.
Speaker 2: It's a little sensitive.
Speaker 0: I just noticed.
Speaker 9: That there is.
Speaker 6: A bracket, the word fire after that statement. And I don't know if I just don't know enough to know.
Speaker 0: Anything about.
Speaker 6: The details of this, but I do feel that this might be an opportune time to mention Operation Urban Shield, the agreement to participate in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. While recommended and understood undersigned by our County Board of Supervisors.
Speaker 0: Appears to be a thinly veiled.
Speaker 6: Hand-Off to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to handle our emergency coordination program. I have absolutely no qualms with coordinated efforts in the face of natural disaster. And though there has been none to date in the Bay Area terrorist attack, however, it is incumbent upon all jurisdictions to look independently at what this association with ac0m means.
Speaker 0: Vis a vis the Alameda County.
Speaker 6: Sheriff's Office and his flagship program, Urban.
Speaker 0: Shield. Urban Shield is a wargame police training simulation.
Speaker 2: That used.
Speaker 0: To take place.
Speaker 6: Annually in Oakland, but was moved as.
Speaker 0: Of 2015 to.
Speaker 6: Pleasanton after growing public pressure.
Speaker 0: Against.
Speaker 6: Increasingly militarized police actions against that was shown nationwide and showed a disproportionate impact on the black community. Oakland is not the only city to decline participation in urban shield.
Speaker 0: The event was.
Speaker 6: Urban Shield was and is hosted by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and is going to be held again in 2018. In addition to the simulation of disasters, there is a vendor show where companies market high tech weapons.
Speaker 0: And gear to.
Speaker 6: Police from around the world. The community is concerned with the lack of accountability and with a disregard for community community concerns. One of those one example is Urban Shield 2012. Sheriff Ahearn staff tested an unarmed aerial drone in front of television crew, setting off a.
Speaker 0: Heated debate.
Speaker 6: Over a then stalled plan to purchase two drones for the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. And that was 2012 and 2016. However, the headlines Red County Sheriff Quietly Expands Drone Fleet to six. This suggests to me a certain kind of arrogance and attitude. Now, mind you, I'm not against law enforcement. We need our elected officials from Board of Supervisors to City Council to provide checks and balances to the law enforcement arm of local government.
Speaker 0: We need the.
Speaker 6: Kind of oversight that ensures our sheriff's office shares the same values that we do as a community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Remember Ashcraft as so as to not mislead the public about what this particular item is about. I wonder if we could ask either Fire Chief Edwin Rodriguez or Captain Sharon Oliver, whoever member I would like to actually go. I thought you had a question. I guess my question is, if we could ask one of them to clarify. Thank you. Let me go first to our city manager and let her respond or however you like to handle it.
Speaker 5: So Urban Shield is a program that our police department does training under, and this item is about a agreement with the county. That is pretty routine. We put it on the consent calendar because there's no funding allowed and it's updating it with.
Speaker 0: The fire department.
Speaker 5: Right. With the fire department. So our fire chief can elaborate.
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. Remember, as a council, I'm going to have our press officer, Captain Alter, answer that question for the public comment.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Captain Oliver.
Speaker 6: I mount a mayor, House members. So the agreement fits into the.
Speaker 0: Standardized emergency management system.
Speaker 6: That we work under in the state of.
Speaker 0: California. And it simply is.
Speaker 6: Saying that we agree to work in a chain.
Speaker 0: Of command up and down for.
Speaker 6: Communications. So the city communicates with the operational area, which is the Alameda County OS Office of Emergency Services, and that happens to live in the sheriff's office in Dublin. So it's just saying that we are going to work with them to get resources and share information in a disaster.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 4: I'd like to make a motion.
Speaker 0: Second. All those in favor of my motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. That completes our consent items. So now we are on six e.
Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance approving a 15 year lease amendment with an option for a ten year extension between the City of Alameda and Greenway Golf Associates for premises located at Chuck Creek Golf Complex. The Senate requires four affirmative votes. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of Resolution Adopting an Agreement for Participation in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. (Fire) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_01162018_2018-5079 | Speaker 1: in order to convey the property to c, p b i Admiral's Cove, LLC, Habitat for Humanity and the Alameda Housing Authority. We do have space.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So, Kelso, I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. Austin Tam, Dorothy Freeman and then Joseph Witter.
Speaker 2: Oh. Good evening, members of City Council. You know who I am? My name is Austin. Tim. I voted for some of you in in in the past. I am speaking on behalf of the p. The for seniors and disabilities committee. And as as a registered voter and as someone who lives with a disability, I am a I stand and I stand in full support of north housing, especially because seniors and disabilities, among many other people, need a roof over their head and affordable housing. And this is one way you can this is one way you can advocate if you support seniors and people with disabilities as well as everyone belongs. As as as as two of you were present yesterday for the MLK event. I think we should just not walk the talk. Walk the walk, the talk, the talk. And. Thank you for your time. And I again, I stand in support of north housing. And I am. I hope that you do the right thing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Dorothy Freeman. And then Joseph Whitaker.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman. The planning board and staff recommended against removing the.
Speaker 0: 435 unit cap on north housing.
Speaker 4: Those who say it was illegal to do so are incorrect. A group of units can be removed from the housing element as long as the unit numbers and acreage can be assigned to another parcel of land.
Speaker 0: That was not.
Speaker 4: Part of the 2012 housing element. Side promoted provided such units and acreage. There was nothing illegal about imposing the cap.
Speaker 0: Some of the council members.
Speaker 4: Stated the cap needed to be removed because of the housing crisis. Removing the cap actually makes the housing problem worse and not better. Presently, the offer to rehab 146 units into a much needed three and four bedroom units that would be available within approximately one year will do more to help the housing crisis than waiting 3 to 7 years.
Speaker 0: On another.
Speaker 4: Construction project. Not a very.
Speaker 0: Smart choice, a council member.
Speaker 4: Said, and I quote, I don't want by voting.
Speaker 0: For the cap to put roadblocks in front of someone that's.
Speaker 4: Coming in who's willing to rehab and have housing in a year.
Speaker 0: End quote. How can retaining the cap put a roadblock in front of Carmel's plans to retain the 146 units?
Speaker 4: It doesn't, but removing the cap can.
Speaker 0: Carmel Properties bought the federal property, assuming the combined.
Speaker 4: Developments would be 435 units.
Speaker 0: And that property is not and that company is not interested.
Speaker 4: In removing the cap.
Speaker 0: Carmel has.
Speaker 4: Agreed to install infrastructure for only 435.
Speaker 0: Units. Carmel has already.
Speaker 4: Stated that the city mandated.
Speaker 8: Infrastructure.
Speaker 0: Cost has placed a financial burden on them.
Speaker 4: But not to the point of making.
Speaker 0: Them pull out of the deal.
Speaker 4: Why would they reconsider then sense you have increased the value of their acreage well well.
Speaker 0: Beyond what.
Speaker 4: They paid the feds for it.
Speaker 0: Removing the cap can.
Speaker 4: Definitely put a roadblock.
Speaker 0: In Carmel's plans by offering them a windfall that will be hard for the board to ignore. The land will be more.
Speaker 4: Profitable to sell than to rehab the existing units for.
Speaker 0: Rental. The Housing Authority.
Speaker 4: Has nine acres for development at 15 acres per unit per acre.
Speaker 0: Their land has their plan has been to build 90 low income houses without the cap and allowing market rate.
Speaker 4: Homes at 30 units per acre and.
Speaker 0: 20% low and moderate.
Speaker 4: Unit density bonus.
Speaker 0: The number of low income.
Speaker 4: Units would actually be.
Speaker 0: Lower than the nine plan.
Speaker 4: Today, plus several years of delay.
Speaker 0: Staff recommended retaining the cap and holding the unit numbers above 435.
Speaker 4: To use when.
Speaker 0: The next.
Speaker 4: Housing element is issued in 2022. A smart.
Speaker 8: Plan for banking.
Speaker 4: For the future. By removing the.
Speaker 0: Cap now, you have removed the possibility.
Speaker 4: For negotiating a better plan in the future. When you have, what you have now is uncertainty.
Speaker 0: For all involved. The desire for possible high density market rate housing will take years to bring to fruition and has possibly put roadblocks in front of Carmel's willingness to rehab the 146 houses, housing units and all the.
Speaker 4: 90 low income units. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Joseph Woodard. And then Katie. Derek. And Tony Grim.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Paul Foreman, a member of the Alameda Citizens Task Force, has written you a letter, and he has also written a summary of that letter, which I'm going to read. At the City Council meeting of January 2nd, 2018, the three city council, three city council members who voted against retaining the cap on north housing and all of the community speakers who supported the same raised the point that we have a critical need for affordable housing. A.C.T. fully supports the need for this housing, but submits that the retention of the CAP would actually increase the chances of developing additional affordable housing. Our reasoning for this conclusion follows our inclusionary housing ordinance, when combined with the density bonus law, gives the city only 12 and a half percent of affordable housing, leaving 87 and a half percent to be eaten up by market rate housing. Thus, we would need to construct nearly 8000 new living units to meet our current housing element goal of 975 affordable units. This is a goal we will never come close to meeting in our current housing element. The new anti NIMBY laws preclude any negotiation for a higher percentage of affordable housing than required by our inclusionary housing ordinance . The suggested north housing cap of 15 units per acre by setting a very restrictive objective density standard, creates negotiating room for the planning department to push developers to offer a much higher inclusionary rate in order to achieve a waiver of the cap, perhaps as high as the 25% rate applicable to the adjacent Alameda point parcels. While North Housing is only 130 acre plot, it would have the potential to significantly increase the affordable housing potential of the same. In summary, notwithstanding all of the Council's stated concern about the critical need for affordable housing, the current path will leave us consistently far short of our affordable housing goals while crowding out affordable housing. With market rate housing, there are no easy solutions, but the North Housing cap presents a strategy that may at least make a dent in the problem.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next speaker, Katie Derek and then Tony Graham. And then there's Varella.
Speaker 8: Good evening.
Speaker 2: My name is Katie Derek. I'm the.
Speaker 8: Development manager at Operation.
Speaker 2: Dignity.
Speaker 8: I'm here to thank the Council for its support of affordable housing development at the North Housing site under item five.
Speaker 2: Kay. This housing stock is urgently.
Speaker 8: Needed in Alameda. For more than a.
Speaker 2: Year now, Operation Dignity has partnered.
Speaker 7: With the city to provide.
Speaker 8: Street outreach to people who are homeless. In this outreach program, we currently work with more than 60 individuals in Alameda who are without shelter. Many of them are long term Alameda residents.
Speaker 2: Who can no longer afford.
Speaker 8: Housing here in their community. As the housing crisis in the Bay Area continues, it is.
Speaker 2: More important than ever for local jurisdictions to build affordable.
Speaker 8: Housing now so that Alameda and all its residents can continue.
Speaker 2: To thrive in the years to come. So thank.
Speaker 8: You for your attention and your leadership in making affordable housing.
Speaker 2: A reality for all. Alamitos.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tony Graham. And then this really. And then Irene Deeter and then Doug that I am.
Speaker 8: I'm speaking on behalf of the Alameda Renters Coalition Steering Committee. We endorse the position taken by renewed hope at the last meeting.
Speaker 0: Namely that the 435 unit cap.
Speaker 8: On this proposal is against the city's housing element. We urge you to.
Speaker 7: Support this proposal as an important step toward alleviating the housing crisis. A vote against the cap is a vote.
Speaker 8: Against affordable housing.
Speaker 0: Liz Rella and then Irene Dieter.
Speaker 2: For the. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: Hi, I'm Lazaro. I'm executive director of Building a Future for Women and Children. And I'm here to thank you for removing the CAP last meeting and supporting affordable housing. We are one of the partners with the Housing.
Speaker 7: Authority and this.
Speaker 8: Project will not only alleviate.
Speaker 7: Much of the house of a do our part in alleviating the homeless crisis.
Speaker 8: We can only do what we can do. We can't fix the state of California and the affordable housing crisis, but we can we can go one parcel at a time and make a difference.
Speaker 7: And this is our chance to make a difference.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Irene. And then Doug Biggs and then Gabby. And if you want to speak on slide and please submit your set. Hello, Mayor and council members.
Speaker 8: I'm Irene Dieter, and I'm a member of the Open Government Commission. I'm here tonight to talk about the public notice that was in our newspapers. It was incorrect, and I think it should be corrected.
Speaker 0: I realize that the purpose of the notice was letting people.
Speaker 8: Know about the final passage tonight.
Speaker 0: And that the.
Speaker 8: Zoning ordinance change removes the cap. However, the notice went on further to say that Carmel Partners requested that the cap be removed. That is not true. Carmel Partners.
Speaker 9: Did not.
Speaker 8: They made that clear at the last meeting and so did city staff. So I'm not sure why that was in the public notice. I'm not sure how to remedy the situation. The only thing I can think.
Speaker 0: Of is, is to republish it.
Speaker 1: But I don't.
Speaker 8: Think that any of you would want a historical record that is incorrect. So I decided to bring this up tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Doug Briggs and then Gabby Dolphin.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Doug Briggs and the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative and one of the partners along with the Alameda Housing Authority, to create 90 critically needed units of housing, or at least 90 critically needed units of housing for homeless here in Alameda. I want to thank you for the initial passage of the ordinance to remove the government overlay for the North housing property. I also want to make clear, I know there's been a lot of interpretations of this particular from speakers earlier.
Speaker 3: In the evening.
Speaker 5: You were not and you are not tonight talking about retaining a cap. There is no cap in existence once the true overlay went off. Some of you on the council I know have indicated an interest in imposing a new cap on affordable housing. I'd ask that you not do that. Not having a cap on, you know, releases the shackles on us that would prevent us from designing both a financially effective project and a strong community project. I had the opportunity to spend the afternoon here in the council chambers with a number of members from a variety of congregations, the faith community here in Alameda to talk about ways to help end homelessness in our city. Overall among every single congregation representative here. I know some of them are representing churches that some of you go to talk about the moral obligation that they have to treat the homeless like their brethren and provide housing for them. And so I would ask you tonight to do the morally right thing. And when you vote to approve the second reading of this ordinance, you make it a unanimous vote in favor. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker on this item, Gabby Dolphin.
Speaker 7: Hi, Madam Mayor. City Council. Good to see you guys again. Hope you're all well. Happy New Year. I too. I want to thank you so much. I know how much work this whole housing issue is for you guys. And you really you really pulled it a long, long ways. And to me, it's just a sense of sometimes you just have that jump and last meeting. It's like you made that commitment. I do hope you stick to it. I attended that same meeting that Doug Biggs just referred to, and it's nice to know that Alameda is discussing having what amounts to like a oh, just like a little drop off point to catch the human beings who are being pushed out of our system. It's called a warming station. I don't know if you've heard about this, but there's talk about creating one here in Alameda on the coldest, wettest nights. Alameda does. And I learned, too, that most of the homeless come from Alameda. They are our community can go there when it's really, really tough and get warm, get dry, possibly get a change of clothes and then they will be out and and they've got a great organization that way. So I, I really hope that we don't need to make they don't want to make that a permanent feature of Alameda . I really hope we don't have to be a catch bay basin for the the situation we have rent wise and affordable housing wise. The last thing I wanted to say was I'll just kind of cut through all the details and the facts because I don't know all the details and I don't know all the facts. But I heard and I spoke this past Martin Luther King weekend about something I had seen on Facebook. And it said, and I do believe we are in a serious housing crisis. And the seriousness of it is when you see human beings under our freeways and sleeping on the streets that I know, I ask myself, Gee, what would I do during, say, slavery or the Holocaust or the civil rights movement? What would I do? What I would do is what I'm doing now. It's in our action. It's not our words. And I think the project is well enough defined and nicely managed and ready to go. And we'll be able to provide some housing for some people and start to really start to relieve the pressure. But the momentum will have started. That's an important thing too. Thank you all for the work you do.
Speaker 0: Thank you. She's our last speaker. If you'd like to go first, remember. Mayor.
Speaker 4: Mayor. Thank you. Thank you to all the speakers. Everyone coming out a second time. I was reflecting as I was listening to the speakers that. There are a lot of ways to oppose a project or a decision. And in this particular case, I think we do need to consider very carefully, because it is true that among the Mercury units we would be providing, we're also providing through the Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity, very well needed units for formerly homeless individuals, for people in low income categories. And I am certainly heartened to know that AC key supports increasing the number of affordable housing units in our city because they have not always supported increasing the number of housing units. But if I had to decide whose remarks I would adopt and in follow, it would be the women from Operation Dignity, the development manager, Katie Derrick. We will hear more about Operation Dignity when we get to our regular agenda item six A where we are going to, I hope, approve the needs statement for housing and community development for the CDBG grant every year. And you will see when we get to that item that at the top of the list is providing housing for the homeless, for people who are on the edge of homelessness because they fall into such a low income category. So we've heard the argument that removing the cap, which came off automatically when we removed the government overlay as we had to do by law, is somehow going to reduce the number of affordable housing units that will ultimately be provided. I, I don't agree with that reasoning. And again, I'm, I am more attuned to the people who are, if you will, working in the trenches, Operation Dignity, Building Futures. And we need more, not less, of the kinds of housing we're hoping to provide. So I am ready to move forward on this. We we can't you know, you can personalize. It's like this every time with my microphone. You can't even personalize an issue by talking about statistics and numbers in this category, in that category. But when it comes down to it, it is, as I think most often said, the person sleeping under the freeway or not even under the freeway when the city manager and I it's been about a year ago now, partnered to help with the countywide homeless count. But in Alameda we learned to recognize where people were sleeping in cars. And there the homeless are hiding in plain view if you know where to look and what to look for. So I think that whatever we do is in some ways a drop in the bucket, but it's something. And as Ms.. Varella said, we can't solve the whole state of California's housing problems. But the five of us are responsible for making policy in Alameda, and I'm fully prepared to do what I believe is the right thing and approve the second reading final passage of this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Number matter SB.
Speaker 3: I think it's unfortunate that that. When the G overlay was taken off that automatically the council voted to have 30 units per acre replace 15 units per acre. I think it was completely strategically and urgently needed that that 15 unit per acre restriction on the part that's going to be developed by the Housing Authority. And up and the Habitat for Humanity, those are the actual affordable units in this in this equation as it stands now. That that needs to come off and needs to be at 30 units per acre. It's unfortunate because when people talk about when a private property owner gets this property, we just took away the one thing that we had to bargain with and think about it for a minute. That site, a 800 units. 25% affordable. Was the trade off for this? It wouldn't have been. 25% of those units weren't traded to from north housing because there's going to be something less here. And developers provide more affordable units when they want something that when the city has something that they want, we can trade with. And we gave it away without a commitment for affordable units. So when someone says that we have to take care of people, people who are have disabilities, who are aged, who are low income, we need leverage to do that. And I submit that we need that leverage. When the plan comes, it is going to require something more than 15 units per acre and we say, okay, you want 30 units, staff is going to work with them and say, this is what you need to do to get the council to get us to give a recommendation to the Council on the Planning Board to change 15 to 30. So I would say I would like to see the resolution and the ordinance replaced. Remove the g over the g overlays remove replace it with 15 units in the parcel that is going to be privately owned and g and make it 30 units or they want the parcel that we know from the housing authority and from Habitat from humanity is going to deliver us affordable units. Then we can start negotiating on how to get affordable units out of the other half of the parcel.
Speaker 0: Staff couldn't even speak to these comments. We've had the suggestion that using, you know, from the council member matters in regards to what staff does to try to get a higher percentage of affordable housing. Could could one of you speak to that?
Speaker 9: Well, I think what that council member, Matarese, was talking about was. Using, not taking off the cap on the private property. And when a project comes in with the new development. So right now, it's a remodel. But if a if the castle is sold in the future, a new developer comes in and it's still at 15 dwelling units per acre, that new developer would come to the council first the planning board, and say, I would like additional units up to 30 dwelling units per acre at that time. Staff with the planning board and the planning staff would say, if you do that, then that is an increased value. And out of that increased value, we need additional community benefits. And depending on what the Council's direction is right now, it's affordable. Housing is the number one value that the council has been asked for, has been asking for. And so staff would say we want an additional higher percentage of affordable housing. It might also be additional transportation benefits for the community and might be better public access. It could be a whole bunch of different items that the community benefits from.
Speaker 4: Imagine a member.
Speaker 0: Addressing.
Speaker 3: Just one thing. Just. And we all know how much it costs to build affordable units. And if anybody doesn't know, look at Sherman and Buena Vista. 31 units, right? $18 million. That's almost $600,000 a unit. And this is being built by the housing authority. So we know it's expensive. But when you add 15 units to 15 units and get 30 units, the value of that land just increased without giving one thing.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 8: It's interesting because I kind of raised that point the first time we heard this and we heard from Andrew and Enrico, and they said that it was possible but very difficult to do because they would have to figure out the subdivision. I did specifically ask about that the first time around. So I appreciate Councilmember MODERATOR bringing that up tonight, but I also spoke with staff about it and it seems like a lot of hoops that we would have to jump through and a lot of time delays. And, you know, you also mentioned the costs of building affordable housing. So much of that cost is time. Time is a resource coming before council, coming before planning board, negotiating with staff as we see that time progress. We don't see things get built. City's a prime example of that. Yeah, we got a number of affordable housing units and tonight we voted to match the funds in case we get to the point where we can actually break ground. But we don't have those units. At the last meeting when we spoke about this issue. I said I wanted to remove administrative roadblocks to getting affordable housing. And I mean it. And I think we do it parcel by parcel. I think we have an opportunity here to do it. I, I understand the ability to negotiate. We've negotiated the max out on a number of projects and we don't really have anything to show for it. The Domani project we got the affordable housing. Thankfully, it's been a number of years since we've heard that project. We don't have the other units online. You know, I think when it comes down to it. I want to listen to our affordable housing providers. And they've spoken and they've spoken in unison on this and made a point collaborative Operation Dignity, the Housing Authority. And I want to respect that. I also think that there is a huge delay in terms of what happens and the amount of acrobatics that would have to be done in order to accomplish that verification, in order to negotiate just a few, you know, a few more things which may in the end, completely stall the project. We could love the project to death. I think we've seen that time and again. I don't want to do it. I'm in support of moving forward in terms of where we we were at the last council meeting and what we voted on. And I also think it's disingenuous, frankly, to say that Carmel Partners was bidding on the property, knowing that it was going to be capped. They knew that the government overlay was going to be removed. They didn't know whether or not council was going to then reinstitute a new cap on the property. Anybody bidding on it knew it was going to become private property and the government overlay was going to disappear. So I think in that regards, it's a little bit again, it's a little bit different from site, it's a little bit different from some of these other projects. I think we need to learn from the mistakes that we've seen. So I'm ready to move forward on this.
Speaker 5: We're already thinking as well as the city manager, so the clarification of the hypothetical was that Carmel could do this renovation and then in some undetermined years out in the future, they could decide to sell it to somebody else who would want to tear all that down and then build something else. I mean, is that the hype on that?
Speaker 9: Yes. I mean, that's how I understood it. On the private property, not on the housing authority. Castle.
Speaker 5: I mean. That's. Okay. I'm not quite sure how. I'm not sure how realistic that is. But I always appreciate my colleague, Mr. Matt Orestes thoughtfulness in his comments and his approach to these issues. I'm going to respectfully disagree on this. The one thing I was surprised since we voted on this, that how many people came up to me and said, thank you for that vote and. That kind of blew me away because I maybe I do the wrong thing and never hear that enough. But, I mean, people were just genuinely appreciative that we took that step to take a stand and and support more housing in Alameda. So, I mean, that that's something that that stuck with me over the past couple of weeks. So I plan on supporting as well. And I've actually like to motion or make a motion that we approve the item.
Speaker 4: Second, before.
Speaker 0: I'd like to, because I haven't been able to speak.
Speaker 4: To, I just was grabbing the chair. A follow up on something, the city manager member Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I'd appreciate if I could do that if you could do that after I have the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Because okay. So I wanted to follow up in regards to these questions. Is it possible that Carmel Partners could decide to sell the property and not rehab the units at this time? Is there anything that actually requires them to build a rehab? I don't believe there's a restriction.
Speaker 9: It's private property. Once it's conveyed from the Navy to Carmel. And as a private property owner, they could sell it or remodel it or both.
Speaker 0: Okay. So. So they could in fact, not be given that the cap appears to be removed, will be removed, then they can reassess where they get the value of this property and decide then of if in fact they want to proceed with rehabbing units that would be online sooner rather than later. Or because the value the number of units is would go up from the 15 units per acre to 30 units per acre and greatly increase the value. If that were if the item, if the property were to be sold and that is within their purview, then to make that decision to.
Speaker 9: So because it's 30 units per acre, they have a right to build 30 units per acre instead of the restriction of 15. So, yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So rather than rehab the units, they could actually decide a different business plan moving forward because they would and they would end up owning the property as opposed to the Navy.
Speaker 9: Yes. But it would start with a new it would be a new project. So I'd go through the normal process of going to the planning board, having community input and review, and potentially coming back to council for a call for a review or appeal.
Speaker 0: Right. But there's nothing that would legally bind them to have the units as opposed to selling the property or they themselves deciding to go forward with a different business plan.
Speaker 9: Right. Nothing.
Speaker 0: All right. And if, in fact, they ended up with a business plan that maximized the number of units without in fact, they have more significantly more retail value to them as a private developer.
Speaker 9: You mean is there more value in higher density?
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 9: Generally that's the expectation from developers.
Speaker 0: Okay. And can you explain I know when we had them up the last council meeting, there were multiple community benefits that staff worked with on this project to obtain for the benefit of our community. And could you outline what those community benefits were?
Speaker 9: There. The two primary benefits are connection Singleton and Moseley that connects an area. No one basically adds access to Estuary Park, which was just completed. It also upgrades or cleans out the storm. Water puts in a lot, so high tide doesn't back into the system and upgrades the storm drain. There's a lift station for sewer that it would have to look at. We are also talking even today about having mostly be a straight street that goes through rather than trying to have it go around the existing sewer lift station. And so that is another component in the terms that we're still talking to them about. But from a planning point of view, I think it's critical to have a a straight street and also has street lights that they're putting in there, undergrounding the utilities and others.
Speaker 2: Providing infrastructure for the housing authority.
Speaker 9: And providing, yeah. The streets that go through and and utilities for the housing authority as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if they decided not to go forward with the rehab of the units, would the community receive all those benefits?
Speaker 9: Yes, they would. If you're assuming that they would build new that would.
Speaker 0: Receive at some point the property gets sold to a different developer to go forward or to them to come forward with a different project with the community receive.
Speaker 9: The community would probably receive more benefits than if it was a remodel. Right now what we're looking at is what the invitation for bid and what was required for the obligations. And that's what we've been looking at. If a new project came in and we had a higher density, we would look at it just like we look at any other North Waterfront housing project where we ask for additional transportation and asked for additional affordable housing. We could ask for a number of different community benefits if there was a bigger profit margin with the developer, and you get that from having the higher density.
Speaker 0: But would they have to agree to it since they already have? It's a.
Speaker 9: Negotiation. Yes. So it's a negotiation back and forth with the ultimate approval being either the planning board or the city council.
Speaker 0: Okay. And we're on Jane Sweeney Park. My recollection is there was money provided from Tim Lewis developers.
Speaker 9: And Lewis developers as part of dole money donated, I think, $2 million into Jane Sweeney Park. And there has been other contributions.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you. Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: I wanted to go back and thank you, Mayor, and came back when you were talking about what would happen if the.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 4: Know, it's okay and. Every new developer brought back the Carmel Partners property. So. I mean, the city council still would have some say over what happens and what we would want to ask for, even if it did go to another another buyer. Isn't that correct?
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 9: It depends if. With the 30 dwelling units per acre. And the developer came in and did everything along the lines of what the zoning allowed and was permitted. Then it would just go to the planning board and design review. Of course, the council could call it up for a review or it could be appealed, and that's when the council would see it, unless there was a zoning change, general plan amendment or something else that would trigger having to come to council.
Speaker 4: So it could still come back to us, I think. But then the advantage of advantages of new construction is that when we do have requirements, when you're building new to go in and we do all the infrastructure and.
Speaker 9: Right. But the advantage to the remodel and the current project is that we get housing units that are not ultra luxury units and we get them at.
Speaker 4: Very soon there's a proposal and we get them sooner. And I think we can get a little hung up about who's making what profit off of land sales. But using the city example, I mean, I think it's something that should concern all of us because we're now midway into January, we have an April deadline for the developers to come back. And they've been pretty quiet. And I, I think we do need to keep an eye on the situation at hand and what we have within our within our grasp now. So and also the 25% affordable housing requirement at site, and I'm fully supportive of that. But wasn't that like this was before your time? But I think that was a requirement of the Navy.
Speaker 2: As I recall, last year.
Speaker 4: And that is the settlement. Right. Settlement, yes. Okay. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 8: I have one question and then I would like to call the question, since there's a motion in a second, has criminal partners indicated to you that they plan on building on completely redoing their plan and building 30 units?
Speaker 9: No, their plan is to remodel. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I'd like to call the question. We have a motion. I made a second.
Speaker 0: Okay. So all those in favor of calling the question I, I, I'm going to oppose because I didn't get to speak to it. So all those in favor.
Speaker 8: I, I.
Speaker 4: In favor of the motion. Correct? Correct. Yes. Yes, I.
Speaker 0: Pose.
Speaker 3: To pose.
Speaker 0: I propose. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So it passes 3 to 2, correct?
Speaker 0: Correct. Motion carries 3 to 2. Bathroom. And I will now call for a recess.
Speaker 4: You finished the confession?
Speaker 0: I see all council members here. I don't know. I'm only vice minister. Far as I know, everyone is here. All right, so let's go ahead and resume the meeting.
Speaker 3: They need a bathroom break.
Speaker 8: No, she's just going to raise it.
Speaker 0: So what are the rest of the. If everyone could take your seat.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't admit it.
Speaker 0: So we just had a couple of council members walk out. So we have to wait at this time for them to come back in, have some staff with one of you all could make sure they're aware that I have asked to resume the meeting. And they were here a moment ago.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: The unintended consequence.
Speaker 2: Well, I've always. Really?
Speaker 9: It was.
Speaker 2: Some things we can't control.
Speaker 3: But when something lose, thank.
Speaker 2: We're learning that every.
Speaker 0: All right. So just so you all know, we're going to go back to five H. I have had a request from counsel, our city attorney, to go back to five h. Yeah, our city attorney. To return to item five h, which is the adoption of the resolution approving parcel map number 10275. And I'm going to ask the clerk at this time what, you know, where either council members are. They were in the room when I called for the meeting to resume.
Speaker 1: They said that they're coming right back. They're using the restroom in the hall and coming right back as soon as they're done.
Speaker 0: They said, So can we continue this part of us?
Speaker 3: Madam Chair, I'd like to wait till they get back.
Speaker 7: Any three at the dias.
Speaker 0: Does anyone know what happened to member Odie?
Speaker 1: That where we've.
Speaker 0: As far as I know, they're in the in the hallway. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we just had a member of the community go out into the hallway to ask them to return to the chambers. Work. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting Section 30-4.17C “G Special Government Combining District,” and Amending the Zoning Map to Ensure Consistency Between the City of Alameda Municipal Code, Zoning Map and the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the North Housing Property Located on Singleton Avenue on the Former Naval Air Station in Alameda in Order to Convey the Property to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC, Habitat for Humanity, and the Alameda Housing Authority. [The Proposed Zoning Amendments, which Remove the 435-Unit Housing Limit, Would Not Result in Any New Environmental Impacts or More Severe Environmental Impacts Than Those Previously Identified with the Adoption of the Community Reuse Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2009 Addendum, and the Housing Element 2012 EIR Addendum]. (Community Development 209) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_01162018_2018-5017 | Speaker 3: Good evening. My name's Anthony Brown. I'm Operation Dignity resident, and I've been living at APC since March this year. Shortly after the water crisis, I had developed a severe illness of couple facilities and liver and kidney problems. At which time I took part in a community canvass and survey and I got to meet over 140 of my neighbors. Of those neighbors were residents from APC, Vxi and Lindsay. Housing in the back of APC joined with Western Service Workers Association. We held a house meeting and for a continue a weeks of pantry and gathering, collecting data on information on tenants, addressing their issues from the house meeting. Out of those tenants, about 20 or so live in the housing and another 34 were families with disabilities from APC. The issues that we're having there is there's been a lot of non safety and maintenance issues that have been brought up to housing authority ignored and are the tenants are afraid. They have been retaliated against. I have a friend here today who's looking to be homeless due to retaliation eviction because my group, Western Service Workers Association went and advocated on her behalf due to a maintenance issue that actually caused her to go from having bronchitis to a lung disease that's irreversible or curable. Of the tenants that I actually have access to 120 phone numbers that I called on a regular basis weekly to ask them about their issues. They haven't had weatherization, high electric bills, gas bills, and these are low income workers and families with disabilities. We'd like some protection out there in a way to help to to so that we can advocate for each other without having to worry about who moved out in operation. To me, where I live. Every apartment has been restructured. Every apartment I have wood floors where I live. Everything's good. We they take care of us. I actually have managers I can go to to talk about my health, whether mental, emotional or physical. And right across the street, I have my neighbors who can do none of that. They don't see case managers. They don't even know their case managers, and they can't stand up for themselves. I've been holding hands with the with my community there. And there's no one that can stand with this where they're issues I'm taking care of. I'm a veteran, but it's really hard when I look right across the street and I have friends who are getting put on the streets who used to work for APC, who now have no place to live. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for your comments, staff. Could you circle back at some point with that information of of any concerns for safety concerns habitability and also in regards to the water situation, at some point we were supposed to get an update of of the breakdown of who, in fact, suffered injuries and all of that, who all was impacted out there. And that has not come back to us. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. And I look forward to getting the details from staff. And then our last speaker is Andrew's. Thank you. But evening mayor and City Council members and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Nai Andrews and I am.
Speaker 8: Here on behalf of disabled.
Speaker 0: Residents of Alameda Point that are being.
Speaker 8: Evicted unlawfully in retaliation for reporting.
Speaker 0: Uninhabitable living conditions. And we.
Speaker 8: Need immediate intervention.
Speaker 0: By the Mayor and City Council. I lived with a mouse infestation in my unit for two years. Mice took up residence in my stove, resulting in two stove replacements. I was cooking on the stove contaminated with hundreds of mouse droppings that exacerbated, excuse me, exacerbated an existing lung condition, causing me to be hospitalized for six days and diagnosed with sarcoidosis.
Speaker 2: I reported a leak from upstairs into my bathroom.
Speaker 8: In.
Speaker 0: July.
Speaker 2: Of 2017 that was.
Speaker 0: Neglected by property management, resulting in my.
Speaker 8: Entire.
Speaker 0: Ceiling collapsing, nearly collapsing on me, and exposed me.
Speaker 8: To mold for several.
Speaker 2: Weeks.
Speaker 8: After reporting these uninhabitable conditions. My rent was refused and the eviction process was started.
Speaker 2: And I was also told that I was playing victim.
Speaker 8: By Doug.
Speaker 2: Beck's.
Speaker 8: I was actually I am a survivor of domestic violence, and I endured that for over a year and a half.
Speaker 2: At.
Speaker 0: APC with no intervention by property.
Speaker 2: Management, no.
Speaker 0: Assistance.
Speaker 8: I will be locked out of my unit any day now. This eviction will cause.
Speaker 2: Irreparable.
Speaker 8: Harm. I have nowhere to go and currently.
Speaker 0: Am on general assistance due to disability. I have been alienated and ignored by property management, services and case management. That APC does receive.
Speaker 8: A substantial amount of funding for.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your time. Thank you. I'd like to ask our city attorney in regards to me the point collaborative. What? Is it possible for this to come back either with data or what can we do in regards to council, regards to the moratorium on unlawful evictions at actually evictions at AMI two point collaborative. For us to have the opportunity to review this, this is actually something I have heard ongoing that I've brought to staff's attention that we have issues raised out there and the repairs are not made. And for from my perspective, this is a serious matter because this is in fact some entity that is supposed to be working with our city. This is not a private developer. So what can let our options? Can this come back? But.
Speaker 7: Well, I can just say that and I don't think the city managers heard anything. And I don't know if Nannette is still here, but we can certainly reach out to the Alameda Point Collaborative Management and find out what the situation is. I don't know if the Housing Authority has heard anything from them, and I personally have not heard any complaints specific to Alameda Point Collaborative, but they just haven't filtered to me. So we can reach out and find out what the status is.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is in regards to an unlawful eviction, in regards to alleged retaliation can so if I if council was interested in having a moratorium on those evictions, I mean, is that something that would be the pathway to do the.
Speaker 4: Mayor's.
Speaker 5: Agenda item?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I was going to say, I, I, I'm satisfied with the answer the city attorney has given us. I think we need to move incrementally and having her look into it would be the first step.
Speaker 9: And we'll we'll reach out to the last two speakers. We have their contact information we just got and see what we can do. Specifically.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Nine.
Speaker 5: I'd be like to hear more.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Okay. So that completes our speakers on the public comment non agenda items. And now. Okay. Now we're on the first referral nine, a.
Speaker 1: Considered directing staff to draft an ordinance requiring the licensure of tobacco retailers, including a ban on the sale of menthol, cigarets and other flavored tobacco, and enacting an annual fee. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of council members matter.
Speaker 5: Yes. I'll just be brief. The whole idea behind this is to keep tobacco out of our kids. Our kids from smoke starting to smoke. And the best way to do that is to stop these flavored tobacco. I mean, I have pictures of them. They look like candies that you would get, you know, at least when I was a kid. This one is even called Sweet Swisher Sweets. So, I mean. Any normal kid would look at this and say, sweets, you know, and then it's not candy, it's it's addicting tobacco. So in order to do this, I've been working with advocates Adrina Chen, among others, and they suggested that first in the foundation, like the tobacco retailer license. And there's a list of of different things we could do once we do have a tobacco retailer license. As far as regulating that, these products don't get in the hands of our children. They're listed in the in the referral. And I know if Serena just mentioned this to me today, that we don't even have to pay for the development, that the attorney general has grants grant money available. And I think she can share that with staff at another time that, you know, we could actually get financial assistance in doing this. So those are my brief comments before we get to public comment. And I know that, you know, back when he was here the first time on counsel, my colleague Mr. Matarese was starting to work on this. So I'm honored to be able to work with him on this and we'll give the floor to him.
Speaker 0: Amber Matter SC.
Speaker 3: Thank you for recognition, Madam Chair. Yes, I agree with my colleague, Councilman Brody, that the primary purpose is to make sure that we limit the access to to of tobacco, to children and make it less attractive. And also to look at how we control some of these enticements and of. Given tobacco's very addictive nature and its huge public health consequences, I think. This is something I really want the council support to direct staff to bring us an ordinance that starts with the framework that's given here in the referral.
Speaker 0: Right. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. And 2 minutes for each Marlene Hird, Gordon and then Philip Gardner.
Speaker 3: Okay. Evening, mayor and council members. And it is Marlene Hird. I'm the president for the Miracle Youth Club. I was a member of the College of Alameda this club. I'm asking you to support this. We don't want our kids getting addicted at an early age. The other thing I meant is our board of trustees sent you a letter asking your support as well. I want to read one thing in the letter. In the letter it states according to.
Speaker 2: California Health.
Speaker 3: Its survey results from Alameda Unified School District 2016 2017. 42% of 11th graders believe that it is either.
Speaker 2: Very easy or fairly easy to obtain. Cigarets Oh my God.
Speaker 3: That's what they believe. We need to do it. 11th grade students use electronic cigarets and other vaping devices. In the final quote, the majority of 11th grade smokers reported continued smoking between ages 11 and 17. Councilmembers, please ask, is it worth it in Oakland? Just is. And that's going to go into effect this year. I'm asking your support. Please pass this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker Gordon. And then Philip Gardner.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of the council and public. My name is Bob Gordon, an ally of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition. And as was just stated, our young people are so important, so vulnerable.
Speaker 5: To the tobacco interests.
Speaker 3: That addict them with candy flavored poison that's so attractive. And addicts our young people. Now, one of the provisions that our tobacco coalition respectfully asked you to consider would make it so. Tobacco retailer licenses are not granted to pharmacies. And you may not know, but 14 California communities have already done so, starting with San Francisco in 2008. So besides San Francisco, the other communities that have legislatively eliminated sales of tobacco from all drug stores and pharmacies are. Richmond, Healdsburg. Hollister, Berkeley Unincorporated. Santa Clara Unincorporated. Contra Costa Unincorporated. Marin Unincorporated. Sonoma County, Los Gatos, Fairfax, Nevada. Daly City and Palo Alto. So there's a lot of precedent for this. Now, why work on such.
Speaker 5: A policy in the city of Alameda?
Speaker 3: We know that our young people frequent local drug stores, and when they arrive at a front counter of a drugstore with their purchases, they often see that huge wall of tobacco and all the candy and fruit flavored and menthol advertising that's associated with it. So community members and their elected officials do have the power to decide that local pharmacies will not sell tobacco and therefore the power to change what a pharmacy is for a whole generation of Alameda, young people. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. To harbor diphtheria.
Speaker 5: Hello.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Philip Gardiner. And then Theresa.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Dr. Philip Gardiner. I work at the. Tobacco Related Disease Research Program for the University of California Office of the President. I have for the last 20 years, I'm also the co-chair of the African-American Tobacco Control Leadership Council. And we've essentially been taking on this fight for a number of years to get flavors out of tobacco. I mean, essentially, you're putting sweetness and poison. And I want to encourage the Alameda City Council to take the bold step of removing them would have flavors in tobacco, for they mask the harsh tastes of tobacco. They allow people to start sooner. We have data that shows that kids between the ages of 12 and 17, over 80% of them begin with flavored tobacco products. This is even more true in the African-American community, where some 95% of youth in that age range start with menthol cigarets. Look, menthol allows you to inhale deeper. The more deeper you inhale, the more nicotine you intake, the more nicotine you intake the degree to your addiction, the harder it is to quit. And unfortunately and disproportionately, African Americans, poor people, women and other groups die disproportionately from tobacco related disease. Unfortunately, this has been the case for some time. I want to encourage you to join other cities around the Bay Area that have taken this step. Oakland. Richmond is taking this up actually next week. San Leandro is restricted flavors. We want to encourage them to include menthol. We want you to include menthol. I would even suggest and we were able to do this in committee in Oakland and if we get a chance here to do a full presentation and actually go over, I like to report on to the docs. That's I'm a scientist. So when you see Science Report, it helps. Let me say that you're going to hear a lot of stuff about it's going to harm people's livelihood. I would suggest it's not about retailers revenues. It's about children's lives.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Theresa Harbaugh and then Kwasi and then Vivo.
Speaker 10: Hi. Good evening. I want to express to you that. Banning does not work. I oversee 19 stores right now or a major C store company. We have been under San Francisco's direction. We have been under Contra Costa County's direction, having stores crossing borders. So the one store here has dropped in revenue and sales. Our store just outside those limits has increased tremendously. And they aren't underage sales. None of them are under age cells. The company that I work for has zero tolerance. We do training over and over and over again. We do not sell to underage period. The statistics show that most kids that get cigarets are getting them from a family member. They are not coming from the local drug store. They're not coming from the local liquor store on the corner. They're not coming from 7-Eleven. They're not coming from one of my stores. And Contra Costa County has. We have a very, very proud record that we have absolutely zero in that county of underage sales. And that was for last year, and that was county wide. So I haven't pulled the statistics for over here, but I'm pretty convinced they're going to be very similar. It's not the banning of it that's going to help. It's the education behind it. It's controlling the parents. It's controlling the family members. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. At 11:00, we need a motion to continue past 11:00 requires three votes is and we have ten plus speakers remaining. It might actually be closer to 50 with the motion.
Speaker 4: Just for clarification, this is only to hear 990.
Speaker 0: 989 being correct. A second all those in favor I oppose.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 0: And so motion carries 3 to 2. So we will continue questi and then vivo. So that motion was 3 to 2. And you all get 2 minutes up to 2 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Kwasi. I'm here on behalf of the African-Americans Birth Control Leadership Council and. I'm sure that there's nothing I can say that you are or already haven't heard or don't already know. But speaking from personal experience, I've seen what tobacco products do, not just to black youth, but to black people. It's killing us and. I know that you being in position of power, you sitting in those seats like you have the power not just to make change, but to save lives. And that's literally what your vote has the potential to do right here, right now. And it's so discouraging that there's even a conversation whether or not to sell deadly things to people. Right. I just want to say my piece and say that I believe that you are make the right decision. I believe that you have an obligation to make the right decision. And I hope that you do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bebo. Then Rosalyn Moya and Rachel Grant Lazarus. Or Lazarus. Sorry.
Speaker 8: Good evening, city council members. My name is Vivo and I'm a member of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition. Cigaret lighter cigars with kid friendly flavors such as mango and chocolate can be found at any convenience store in Alameda, priced at $0.99 or at most, a dollar 54 packs of 1 to 3 or more. In 2015, a survey of over 40,000 high school and middle aged, middle, middle and high school age students nationwide showed that the cigaret smoking rate was 6.7%. But when cigaret use was included, the rate shot up to 11.12% to 11.2%. So what this means is there is a large amount of teenagers smoking cigarillos and or using tobacco, the tobacco leaf wrappers to create marijuana cigarets otherwise known as blunts. Over 100 studies have shown that increasing the cost of tobacco products is successful in reducing the amount of underage smoke, underage smoking and the smoking rate of young adults . As you may know, Haywood and Queen City have adopted a minimum price of five.
Speaker 0: Five, five for cigarets.
Speaker 8: With the idea that this will result in higher prices. But what has happened is that the stores in these cities have started selling packs of five for 90.
Speaker 0: $0.99 or a dollar each.
Speaker 8: Here are some examples of colorful packs of Cigarets was purchased in Union City for $0.99. Here we have.
Speaker 0: Wild berry squeeze.
Speaker 8: Here we have strawberry cream. And here we have Wild Berry Cherry. Armed with this information, the city of San Leandro chose to address this concern recently by adopting a tobacco retail license that includes a requirement that cigars be sold in.
Speaker 0: Packs of five.
Speaker 8: And for a minimum price of $7 before you use the language that San Leandro used in this ordinance. Lastly, New York City, Sonoma County and other communities have also adopted minimum prices for tobacco products. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Roslyn Moya. Then, Rachel. Then Kelsey Norman.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Rosalind Moya. I am a resident here in Alameda and a member of the Alameda County Tobacco Coalition. And I'm here to urge you to protect our youth from tobacco influences, from flavored tobacco, from coupons meant to protect us, protect them from cheap tobacco. And just have I urge you to have a strong TRL here for the city. I just got married and I want to have a family here. And so this is something that I it's very important to me to protect our youth and the next generation. So I want to show you something. This is a sour patch, Candy. This one's an actual candy. And this one right here is E-Liquid. It's an easy juice. It's used for e-cigarettes. And so I just want you to kind of notice some of the similarities there. This one says Can be King batch. And it's not just, you know, once a candy one. This one has 100 milliliters of nicotine in there. And just besides the looks, I also asked them how this tastes, and they said it tastes kind of sweet and sour and it has that fruity smell. I bought this about two blocks away from the high school over here, about a block away from here. And when I bought this, they didn't ask for I.D. and I gave cash. I don't know. The city gets money from this. I didn't get a receipt. And the you know, it's a little strange, but the person that was very friendly was very helpful when I asked for about information about this. It's hard to tell who has nicotine because it doesn't say nicotine anywhere in there. It's all the way in the back at the very bottom where it says this has nicotine and it's just kind of. Thank you. Interesting.
Speaker 4: You can can you picture for us? Can you possibly send them up here? And we promise to give them back to you.
Speaker 0: Rachel, thank you. And then Kelsey Norman, if you all could line up, I'm going to start out the names because we need to move it along. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening, counsel. My name is Rachel Gratz Lazarus. I work with Alameda County Public Health Departments Tobacco Control Program. I'm also an Alameda resident and the mother of two young children here in Alameda. As a public health advocate and a parent, I am deeply concerned about the impact that flavored tobacco, especially menthol, has on the health of our children. These products are clearly marketed to young people as starter products, which is why the FDA banned the sale of flavored cigarets except menthol in 2009. We know that tobacco poses a serious health risk, but tobacco companies have everything to gain from addicting youth. And tobacco companies admit that the base of their business is the high school student. According to City of Alameda.
Speaker 2: Youth.
Speaker 8: Decoy Operations in 2012, out of 45 tobacco retailers sampled nine of them, or 20% sold tobacco products to minors. These are products that kill when used as directed. While store owners may be doing their best to comply with the law, the reality is that tobacco products are making their way into the hands of youth. Exactly as tobacco companies intended. Tobacco companies have historically targeted youth, communities of color and LGBTQ communities with highly concentrated menthol cigaret marketing, which is a major driver of today's tobacco related disparities. For example, it's not an accident that 95% of black youth smokers, 61% of Asian youth smokers, and 58% of Hispanic youth smokers smoke menthols. The health of our children needs to come first. Across the country, local governments are standing up to put the health of their residents above industry profits. Locally, Alameda can follow in the footsteps of Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and San Francisco, which all restricted the sale of flavored tobacco through a tobacco retail license. We know that tobacco retail licenses are an effective and sustainable policy solution to decrease access to flavored tobacco and to prevent youth from experimenting with and becoming addicted to these deadly products. Regarding e-cigarettes, they are not approved by the FDA as a smoking cessation product, and research has found that many people who attempt to quit.
Speaker 0: Kelsey Naumann I need to move along. I'm sorry. Kelsey Norman Lee Mighty Rodriguez and then Jose James.
Speaker 8: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Kelsey Norman and I'm a part of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition. I'm here today to talk to you about flavored tobacco products specifically related to youth. A lot of the previous speakers have mentioned some things, so I'm pretty much just going to talk for a few seconds. Flavored tobacco products are increasingly popular among youth. I know that you've heard this before. The sweet flavors and the cheap prices and the packaging are very appealing to our youth. These flavors, like we said, grape, strawberry, chocolate, cotton candy, these mask, the tobacco's harsh taste. And it's encouraging these young smokers, too. These tobacco companies have everything to gain from addicting young people to start flavored tobacco products. Studies show the earlier you start smoking, the easier it is to get addicted, the harder it is to quit.
Speaker 2: The best way to prevent tobacco related.
Speaker 8: Illness and death is to keep youth from starting to smoke in the first place. Creating strong laws that protect youth from accessing these flavored products are crucial to preventing a lifetime of tobacco addiction and ensuring that all of our immediate children get to have the long and healthy lives that they deserve. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The mighty Rodriguez and Yazzie dames. And then ride abdala.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. My name is Lee Mario Zegers, and I am a member of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition. I am here to voice my support for for a referral to develop a tobacco retail license ordinance that includes restricting restricting the sale of menthol cigarets and other flavored tobacco products in the city of Alameda. The tobacco industry spends around 1 million per hour, over 95% of its total marketing budget just to push tobacco products at the point of sale in convenience stores. Knowing that almost half of teenagers visit a convenience store once a week and that teens are more likely to be influenced to use tobacco products by tobacco marketing than by peer pressure. It is disturbing to see that the industry aims to make such products easily accessible to youth and distort their perceptions by making tobacco products seem popular and acceptable. Yes, the California State Tobacco 21 law already passed, but this ordinance would provide a more comprehensive approach to reduce youth smoking by addressing youth tobacco influences and the retail environment. The U.S. Surgeon General reports that tobacco industry advertising and promotion caused youth and young adults to start smoking. And nicotine addiction keeps people smoking past those ages. This issue significantly impacts the health of the youth residing in Alameda, and I urge you all to make a decision that will protect their life. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jazzy James. And then right out, Dollar.
Speaker 3: Mayor, vice.
Speaker 5: Mayor and council member. I'm a retailer here in Alameda. I don't believe that this will stop. I think it would create a black market, which is scary. I've seen in other cities and states and it creates a lot more problems. You know. And they already changed the law at 21 and prices of cigarets are over ten bucks now packed. So I see a lot of. You know, even grown ups, Quentin And everybody's who were into like cannabis and other stuff. But I don't believe that. Taking away menthols from retailers is going to stop. Anything I think is.
Speaker 3: Going to create a black market, which, again, I've seen and loved. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Right. And then Bob.
Speaker 3: Good evening, madam. There.
Speaker 6: Madam Vice Mayor and members of the Council. I'm a retailer here.
Speaker 3: In the.
Speaker 6: City of Alameda. I oppose this measure for multiple reasons. One is that there's going to be tax dollars lost for the city. We as a city will lose tax dollars. All it's going to do is it's going to send our our residents who come to purchase from the city of Alameda to other outside cities to purchase whatever tobacco products that they want. As far with regards to the flavor tobacco that you guys have been given by some of the other attendees here today. What needs to be known is that their tobaccos comes in different milligrams and they are clearly labeled. I know maybe the package that you received this evening.
Speaker 3: It wasn't as labeled.
Speaker 6: That well, but more often than not, the packages are labeled a lot better with regards to the flavored cigarillos that Councilman O.D. brought forth. What we have to realize is that a lot.
Speaker 3: Of those the youth are not smoking the tobacco in the.
Speaker 6: Product. What from personal view that I've seen myself.
Speaker 3: Is that the.
Speaker 6: Youth try to purchase these, those.
Speaker 3: That do try, or people who to purchase.
Speaker 6: These try to purchases to get rid of the tobacco that's in it and use the leaf for cannabis. Now, with regards to cannabis.
Speaker 3: We've heard rumor allegedly that Johnson and Johnson is one of the people who.
Speaker 6: Are pushing for this initiative. And the reason why they're pushing for pushing for this initiative is because they've got involved in the cannabis industry and it's a way to deviate potential customers for themselves away from tobacco towards cannabis. I'm not against cannabis, especially in the medicinal field. It's done a lot of help for especially for people who are suffering from cancer. And my own father is a cancer survivor. So there's that. 16 senators, their state level, has refused to address this issue in the form of SB 1400.
Speaker 0: You Bob Secon. And then and second. And then Serena Chen.
Speaker 3: Yeah. SB 49. That was a common. You know, Sacramento, out of 17 senators, only one senator who bring it in, he's the one who was in favor of it. It didn't even the second senator, even for the motion. It didn't go into voting at all. So they were trying to do the same thing. Right now, 23% of California. They have this kind of theater going through the city councils and county governments and 77%, they are not in it. Last month they tried this in San Jose. This is not. It's so controversial. We don't want to get into it. Alameda County. They said, no, we don't want to get into this. Now, our neighboring city, San Leandro, I have seen this in San Leandro. They didn't do anything with the menthol cigarets. They did. Flavored about. But I understand that single. We don't want to sell it. Then in Fremont, Hayward, Union City, Newark, all those cities there sit with the retailer and we make a program and it is working there. It could work here. But if you push us all, this is the way it goes. It's not going to work. Please. We are we as a retailer requesting you involve us in this, we can sit with you and we can go with it. Okay, let's do this. Let's do this. You know, that's all I can say. And. And our school turned out like for one for us. We don't have any for one care. These are our schools. We depend on them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And second. And then Serena chan.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Freedom of choice. Approve legal adult product. Do we want to sell to minors? No, we don't want our children. We don't want our grandchildren doing it. Where is the facts? Where are the statistics that the convenience stores are selling it to the minors go on the Internet. It's adults. It's parents. It's their uncle who are giving them this product. It is not us. Get the facts. Black market on the Internet. 56.8% of the cigarets and tobacco that is used in the state of New York is now coming. R is being used from the black market. And if you think that's not coming to Alameda or here, hey, the $2 tax, $0.75 of the $2 tax that hasn't even taken place for a year yet goes to education of the youth. Guys give it a chance. We only went to 21. It's only been a year. The tobacco tax, $2 only went into effect last year. We don't want the miners. Sarina chan is going to speak after me. She was at a San Leandro event where she talked to children who told her that they are not buying the product from from large stores. They're getting it from adults. And this was brought up in a San Leandro council meeting and I do on product a property in San Leandro also. And we own a business right here in San Leandro in Alameda. Guys, we do not want it. We don't want our kids to do it. But you know what? All they have to do is go to Oakland. Oakland didn't ban menthols. They're going to buy it in a smoke shop. Who has the highest rate of selling? Cigarets.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Marina Chan. And then Paul Cummings. And then Lizzie Viljoen. And then Mrs. Shabazz. Hi. Good evening.
Speaker 8: Not good morning. My name is Serena Chen. Not to be mistaken for Selina Chen, your new city attorney. District Assistant City Attorney.
Speaker 7: The topic of tobacco control was like.
Speaker 8: The Star Wars trilogy. You have a good movie, and then you have a movie where the Empire Strikes Back and then it all resolves itself. So in terms of the good.
Speaker 7: News, yes, the state of California raised the minimum age of sale of tobacco products.
Speaker 8: To 21. The state of California defined.
Speaker 7: A broader realm of tobacco products to be tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. That's the good news. And they did this because they know that almost no one gets addicted before the age of 18. We know that 11,000 California youth under 18 become daily smokers every year. They're getting their tobacco somewhere and they're using those starter products that you have in front of you.
Speaker 8: So that was the good news that they passed these laws. The bad news is.
Speaker 7: That.
Speaker 8: Unless there's local enforcement, those laws mean nothing.
Speaker 2: So. That's only a very short part of the story, because the last part of the story.
Speaker 7: Is I have some really good news for you today.
Speaker 8: The attorney general has announced he has $30 million a year to disseminate to local law enforcement to reduce youth access to tobacco. And it'll be an RFP process which will be released sometime this month. You'll need community supporters to say that we will support you and help you to do this. And basically, cities will have to have a plan on how to reduce youth access to tobacco. And this $30 million fund will be given to disburse to local law enforcement, cities and counties who choose to make that decision to control tobacco. I've emailed that memo to all of you from the attorney general. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Paul Cummings. And then Lizzie Belton.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Paul Cummings, and I work for Alameda County Public Health Department. I'm the tobacco control program director. And thank you for discussing this this evening. So tobacco retail licensing is something that local jurisdictions can do, and it allows for a couple of things. One is it allows for local communities to decide.
Speaker 3: The standards that they want from.
Speaker 5: The retailers that sell.
Speaker 3: An addictive and deadly product in their communities.
Speaker 5: And as as Councilmember Otis said, there's a long list of those that that could be considered, and it's worth a community discussion to decide what the city of Alameda might want.
Speaker 2: The other thing.
Speaker 5: About tobacco retail licensing is that it allows a local jurisdiction to hold the retailer accountable.
Speaker 3: So state law when a. A minor is excuse me.
Speaker 5: When a clerk sells tobacco to an underage person. The clerk is cited under state law. And if that's as far as anybody can help be held accountable with local tobacco retail licensing, you can hold the retailer, the store owner accountable, and you can have graduated sanctions if a store were to violate multiple times. So it allows for for more control at the local level. And penalties can be decided.
Speaker 3: As you know, as as the community and, you know, maybe with input from retailers.
Speaker 5: Decides this fit. So there's a lot of things.
Speaker 3: That that.
Speaker 5: Are valuable for the city of Alameda to discuss around this. And thank you very much for considering.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Lizzie and then Rasheed and then Paul second.
Speaker 1: Hello, counsel. Sorry, I have laryngitis, but I really wanted to come out tonight because I'm a resident and I'm a mother of a little three.
Speaker 8: Year old boy who's at home in bed right now, who's.
Speaker 1: Going to grow up in your city, which I'm really excited about, but I'm really not excited about.
Speaker 8: The idea.
Speaker 1: That we would move forward without protecting those children from the marketing of really deceptive products that are meant to hook our kids on a deadly product. I think a 20% selling to minor rate on that sting that was mentioned to you is appalling. I'm here also on behalf of the American Heart Association, and I can tell you, as a staff member for the American Heart Association, I sent you all a letter from our president, who's.
Speaker 8: A local.
Speaker 1: Cardiologist. Tobacco control is one of our biggest priorities, and that's because the tobacco industry kills nearly half.
Speaker 8: A million people every year and they have to replace.
Speaker 1: Those dead bodies. With young people who are going to be lifetime smokers. And we know that because they've said that in their papers and they've said that flavors are their major way of doing it. I don't know what other evidence you need. How many more Alameda teenagers need to get hooked on these products before you limit access? And in terms of whether there might be a black market, I'm really afraid that Alameda might be the black market, that where people were coming over from Oakland and San Leandro were there. It's already gone into effect. And the councils there heard the same lines. And I'll just say to you. Let's make sure we're at peace with our neighbors and protecting our children. And and finally, I just want to say that it's really important to go home at night. And I think this is just a referral for a thing that we can have a further discussion later about the details of all of it. But I really encourage you to put our children above tobacco profits. And any argument that at the bottom of it, when you think about it, is about the profits of the tobacco industry
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Rashid. And then, Paul, if you want to speak on this item, please submit your is.
Speaker 3: Ah. I'm so sorry. Pardon me. Second hand. They no joke. I was five years old the first time I smelled smoke. I coughed and I choked. Who'd imagine that one day I'd talk? I didn't get it from a black market, but still I sparked it. I fired up like I seen in Jet magazine or film. I passed it to a friend and he started coughing up phlegm for fourth graders alone, smoking cigarets. Passing it around, seeing who could blow that smoke the best. I was. Those minty flavors brought fire deep within. I was hooked to nicotine and I wasn't even ten. See, on the West End, with the exception of Luis. I was nine years old, buying cigarets from every store. Truly. They claim no tolerance for selling to children. Maybe times have changed. I pledge no snitching, so I'm not going to call out their store names. Here's the deal. From the factories to the field. They used to make us make it. Now my people are addicted. They used to make us pick it. And now my people are addicted. The tobacco harvest. When I think about it, I think about Bogie's finest R.i.p Jarvis.
Speaker 2: R.I.P. Laura Vargas.
Speaker 3: Millennials Die In Cancer Related Deaths. Newports ain't cool. They've taken our last breaths. They concerned about their livelihoods, but we concerned we dying in the hood. I know you concerned about I know they concerned about their private wealth, but we're concerned about the community's health. Draft ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Paul. Second. And then he's our last speaker on this item.
Speaker 3: And with Rasheed, I'm not going to snitch. And I'm not a professional, nor was I paid to be here like a few of these other people in the if you want, you could watch from Cedar City. They say the same thing, but they just put Alameda in the place of whatever city they're saying. So my first concern is that what's going to happen is everyone's going to buy it on the Internet. Is that Internet stuff? There's no regulations. There's nobody checking it. At least we're checking it. I'm not selling to a ten year old. Do you think I'm going to sell to a ten year old? Come on. Number two, if we did sell and we do a violation and you own a C store, two violations, you lose your store. You think that I'm going to risk losing my store over $20? $10? Come on, let's be real. And if you ask anybody about the black market, like the guy in New York who got killed in the protests or happening, he was actually selling cigarets outside of a store. The fine by the police department, if you ask them, Max, is a small infraction, $50. So what's going to happen is we're going to have people going store to store, store, get a ticket, go on from a store. It's not even a parking ticket. Fine. Okay. Also, the c. Alameda is getting tested. We pay fees. We paid to the state, the fda. The last check was in august. You can look on the website, we have a 95% compliance rate. We are not the problem. As he said, he was passing his cigarets to his friends. Thank you, sir. Also, last thing, we pay for secret shoppers. We have to check and we have to type in an ID agent date before we sell people. San Jose, third largest city, not even going to address it. They have housing issues, other issues. You're going to create traffic. People are driving all over the bridges. And while I drove a Honda, I'm not that wealthy. But if we do something, let's compromise. If anything, that's Korea workshop. Nobody here from the anti-tobacco, they just want everything gone. I believe that we have an age. We're grown, we can make decisions, we drink flavored beer, we drink everything. Do it like Hayward, do it like Fremont, Pleasanton, some other cities that are, you know, they think about it. Let's not just jump into it. Maybe take a year, look at the data because all the data is expired, it's obsolete. None of it works because at the end of the day, not even one year has passed since every initiative has gone into place.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. He completes our public comment on the item. And at this point, vice mayor.
Speaker 8: So I just got my voice back today. I've. I'm sick. Which is why I did not vote to continue this meeting. I'm going to keep it short. I don't have a problem passing this. In fact, tobacco's the only product that we know kills that we were selling lawfully to people, which is bizarre to me. My grandfather died of lung cancer. He started smoking before he was ten years old. Smoked marble, reds. Most of his life stopped when I was a kid. My mom has asthma as a result of it. You know, I hear our retailers and what they're saying, but I also think that this is kind of the public health cost of this is is abysmal in terms of what it's doing to our community members and that there's a reason that we have a lot of different ordinances in place. I do think it's going to become problematic as we see cannabis coming out and the use of some of these products relative to cannabis. And I also, you know, I understand the request for a licensing process. My only concern is I'd like to know how many other licensing fee structures and other things we have coming before staff. And what department I'm looking at Debbie Potter. I have a feeling it's, you know. You know, I don't know what department it's going to be hitting, but I I'd imagine our city attorney's offices and community development are going to be impacted by this. And so, you know, we have a number of other things that are in the pipeline, and I'd like to get an assessment of where this would go relative to that. And we you know, we just reinstituted. We're going to hear it on the next agenda item, a fee for the the rental housing. And that's something that took a long time to put into place. And there are still issues that need to be worked out for it. So, you know, I'd like to know where this would fall into that and what the actual timeline would be in terms of what the staff report is and where it's going to be housed and how many how many man hours are going to be associated with it and all of that, because I think, you know, and obviously that's going to be included as part of the staff report if if council decides to move forward. But I think that to me, that's an important kind of calculation in terms of where this all goes. And you know, in terms of the labeling and stuff, it's a completely separate issue. But, you know, and and I know that there's been talk about what we should have this housed in smoke shops if we're going to ban it and ban it. If if if you're saying that there's no flavored tobacco, then there should be no flavored tobacco, period. Because just what you're doing is you're creating mini monopolies and you're allowing people to whole different, you know, sell different products. I think it's gonna be very hard to enforce.
Speaker 0: A member.
Speaker 4: Ashcraft. Thank you, Mayor. I'm actually prepared to direct staff to draft an ordinance as stated here. But there are a couple of things I would like to know. One is I and I would actually leave it to staff to come back to us to tell us where in the matrix of all of the items that we have thrown their way, this could this could fit. And I don't think it needs to come back instantly, because I do think we have some other extremely pressing items, especially around housing and homelessness and avoiding homelessness, some of which involve the same department. And the other part is the enforcement piece. And good news from Serena, if she's still here, that the attorney general has identified $30 million. But I'm also well aware that our police department still isn't fully staffed. And so I would want to also hear from Chief, from Larry about how I mean, it's money to hire an additional officer is only part of the problem if you've heard some of these discussions. So any any ordinance is going to have an enforcement mechanism, and we need to just take all that into account. But I think the the speakers, all of you are very are very compelling. And I did speak on the phone today with Mr. Second, their son, and I understand the concern of the retailers. But if this were a scale on balance, the the health and well-being of especially of our young people is so much more important. And I would hope that your livelihood does not depend on whether or not you're able to market these products. I hope there's other things you're selling that bring in profits. And and it's not an exact analogy, but a year or more ago, the retail chain, including pharmacies, CVS, announced that it was stopping the sale of all tobacco products. And I think it got some major pushback from the tobacco industry at first. But last time I checked, CVS is still up and running, but you don't see cigarets or tobacco products when you go there. So again, I would I would support the directing staff to draft this ordinance and ordinance to come back to us. But I would leave it to staff, including the police chief, to talk about everything that's required. It looks like the city manager's reaching for the microphone, so maybe she wanted to comment on.
Speaker 9: Both the vice mayor. Both of you have asked for staff resource discussion and some of the things that are ahead of this is minimum wage, the climate action plan. We approve the scope, but we still have the plan itself to do, which is a major effort for safe buildings, heritage tree night sky tax on cannabis, which has a time constraint on it. The Airbnb. Which was a low priority though. Shrub homelessness policy and inclusionary. And so all of most of that falls under community development, which means they also have rent control and cannabis on top of that. And so staff resources are tight. But if there isn't a time constraint on it, because this was labeled as important, not urgent, we can figure out the process. And maybe what we'd do first is come back with some questions for council, just like the community development director Debbie Potter did when she started out with the cannabis as here are some questions for the council and then get direction rather than coming back with a. Ordinance that we have done in a vacuum without council input.
Speaker 0: Member Mattress.
Speaker 2: 30.
Speaker 5: I was. Maybe he could. Leadoff hitter. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. I don't really have a lot to say.
Speaker 0: I. But I would like the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'm not.
Speaker 0: Mentioning that.
Speaker 5: I'm not mentioning anything. I mean, I draft this referral, so I'm not going to say too much about it. Although Malia said, man hours, we have women hours. So we're going to be efficient and work harder and.
Speaker 4: Person.
Speaker 5: Hours and get paid half as much. Unfortunately. You know, when we talked about this, my colleague and I and we debated about the urgent versus not urgent, and I understand the the workload that staff has. But, you know, there are other resources. There's the attorney general grant, which we just heard about today. There is Change Lab Solutions, which provides free technical support that's paid for by taxpayers or at least taxpayers who buy tobacco products. So we there are ways to do this that are not as staff intensive. But I do agree with the approach because we will need a little more extensive public hearing than just a referral. And, you know, there are some questions that need to be answered and there's some direction because I believe, you know, I listed a lot of the the options and included in the in the attachments, you know, other different model ordinance provisions. So, you know, I think that they all deserve and merit a discussion that would have to take place before we go through and actually come up with an ordinance. And then we'll have a first reading, second reading and so on. So understanding that, you know, we we looked at this, you know, hopefully when we do a priority workshop because I think, you know, obviously some of those have been in the queue longer. But, you know, in my mind, some of this is more important than a lot of those because, you know, there are statistics that I'm sure the advocates can talk about of how many kids are going to become addicted in the next year or if it takes us two years to do this, or how many people are going to die because of this. You know, one of the one of the commenters in the public, it mentioned this is the only product that if it's used as intended, you know, it ends up killing people. So, I mean, I don't want to wait too long, but I understand the constraints of of staff resources.
Speaker 0: Member matter. I see.
Speaker 3: Yes. And just to tail on with Councilman Brody, we did talk about the priority rating. This is important. But it's less urgent than neighbors. Our neighbors who live on the street. It's less urgent than the issues around rent control. And there's a time timing around cannabis, although I disagree that's more important than this. So I think we should give staff direction. We've given them a hint on where it sits in the priority list with this The Matrix here, if that's agreeable to the rest of the council. I have confidence that the city manager will work with the staff to put it in its proper place. And I like the approach of getting input. Questions to the community and questions to us so that when the audience does come back, it's shaped at least by some sort of pre discussion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I am a cancer survivor and I have spent many, many hours at the cancer center. I also am a woman of color, and I'm very familiar with how youth get cigarets. And I also like to make data based decisions. I am concerned about. I am concerned about this approach, but I have researched and I think it's important to have a data based discussion is that education is critical. And I would we have looked at issues in the past where we've had input from our youth, and I would like to have input from Almeida's youth in regards to where they are purchasing Cigarets as my concern with the cannabis discussion of illegal sales, unregulated sales. My research in regards to online sales, which is a growing avenue of where people buy these items, is in fact that they are not regulated, that they come from outside of the United States. I am very concerned about. So so personally, I think it's critical that any any decisions we make. Keeping a look at where the statistics of almeida's youth, where the city of Almeida's youth are purchasing. If it is from if they're getting it from a family member, then and in fact, if in fact the best way to reduce youth smoking is through education, then I think that I would want to look at partnering with the school district and approaches like that as opposed and in regards to the ban. I think historically our country has found that a ban can result in unintended consequences. I strongly support what our state did in regards to increasing the legal age to purchase. And and at this point, we do not have that data as in fact, we all know it's only been a year and a half since that happened. I think it's important we see that data and. And if in regards to the data, 95% from our retailers. That is very, very high and it's different from the 80% and older data. So I think it's important that any decisions we make be based on the most recent data and not data from the past. Because I think it's this issue is so important. We need to know with better confidence, from my perspective, of what is our best approach to reduce access to use. And I'm concerned that this may unfortunately as well intended as maybe not not not achieve that result. So I do have I would like to see much more data and in fact, work with the school district and the youth in this community to figure out our best approach moving forward. And I'd submit it's not the city by ourself that it really is working with our school district and our youth in this community. That being said, we have.
Speaker 5: I'll make a motion for the referral with the consideration of the comments by all my colleagues.
Speaker 3: All second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: I thank you. All right. So the next item is nine.
Speaker 1: Be considered directing staff to determine whether council can enact an ordinance to pass through a portion of the housing program. Rent fee to tenants. Clarify the city's collection efforts for landlords who do not pay the fee by December 31st, 2017, and clarify that the fee may be passed through as part of the rent increase. This idea was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Requiring the Licensure of Tobacco Retailers, Including a Ban on the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes and Other Flavored Tobacco and Enacting an Annual Fee. (Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie) [Not heard on December 19, 2017 or January 2, 2018] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12192017_2017-4997 | Speaker 0: Zoom our closed session. You want to report out for us? Yes. Regarding the.
Speaker 1: Anticipated litigation.
Speaker 3: Direction was given to staff.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will now adjourn the special closed session. And now we will start our special joint meeting of the City Council and successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission, S.A. CIC. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Speaker 4: The United States. Think. It is all very.
Speaker 0: Roll Call council members.
Speaker 1: As the you're here.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 0: Here Mayor Spencer here present oral communications and on agenda.
Speaker 1: We have no speakers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have a motion to accept a consent calendar so moved. All those in favor I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. I will now adjourn the special joint meeting of the City Council and successor agency of the Community Improvement Commission. | Closed Session Item | CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code
Number of cases: Three (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12192017_2017-4970 | Speaker 0: I actually plan to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory, if you would. Yeah. So is there anything else any other council members wanted to share at this time? Okay. I do want to make ten A is consideration of mayor's nominations to Commission on Disability and Housing Authority for you all. I'm sorry, we have a meeting going on. Still, if you all could talk outside. Thank you. I'll be making the Nominations Commission on Disability Jennifer Rohloff and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Brad Weinberg. And then now at 1230, I will adjourn the city council meeting. And I'm sorry, actually, we're going to rise in memory of Mayor Ed Lee. As we all know, he passed suddenly. He honestly was an amazing mayor to work with. I we all reached out, worked with him personally, huge personality, very endearing, and one of the most personable people you will have ever met. So that being said, if you could all join me in a moment of silence in his memory. Thank you very much and goodnight. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations to the Commission on Disability and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12052017_2017-4721 | Speaker 8: As we look at the planning side of this, it's important to look at all components at the very bottom level, how you manage your technology, the infrastructure, which is all the network, the desktop, everything that delivers that technology you have to look at as well as you have enterprise applications that are really strategic because those are applications that everybody, all the departments should be able to leverage. And then you have, of course, a bunch of department applications. So as we went through this process, we kind of looked for weaknesses throughout this because a weakness in any one component of that can dramatically affect all users. So it was important to have that kind of holistic view when we did the planning exercise. I think it's important to note that the complexity that you have here at the city is pretty consistent. We've we've now done 75 California cities, many of them of similar sized years. You're not unique in that way. In fact, as you advance with more technology, the complexity is likely to even get a little a little more intense. So I think at this point, I think your your environment is pretty consistent. Perfect. One of the keys to doing it, strategic plan is really getting alignment because at any point in time, trying to keep up with technology is very, very difficult. It's expensive. And so what we want to do with the strategic plan is understand where you're at today, have a realistic and objective understanding of that. We also want to understand what the demands are. What do the departments need in order to improve service, streamline their business processes? And then what we want to do is try to figure out the alignment of that. The idea that you'd have the budget and technology resources to achieve perfect alignment over the planning period is probably a little unrealistic, but you have to kind of go through that process to understand what that gap is, and that's what this slide really goes to. The other really important part about this slide is the strategic plan is more than just about hardware and software. It's about people and it's about processes. Sometimes you have technology that's just underutilized. That's not leverage. We wanted to factor that into the plan so you don't just start throwing out technology when it's more of a process. People issue and maybe training and other other strategies might employ that technology more effectively for you. So again, we kind of looked at all those components. Technology guy can't figure out how to work the remote. Look at that. This next slide, we kind of refer to this as our Spider Graham and Carolyn. Talk about this. There's a lot of work that went behind how we plotted. What you see here is the six dimensions that we looked at which really aligned two best practices for I.T. management and service delivery, specifically oriented towards public agencies. We went through all of those dimensions, and then what we did is went through a series of analysis. And then we came to what we thought was kind of an appropriate rating for that. What you see on this diagram is if you're on the outside of this, you're largely a reactive organization. What that means is you're you know, you're pretty much taken issues, fixing issues, taking issues, fixing issues. You probably aren't doing enough planning. You're probably not thinking enough about, you know, disaster recovery, business continuity, because you don't have time to do that. You're just trying to keep the wheels on the car, so to speak. The orange is the proactive. What that means is that you've got some best practices in place. You are starting to plan, you're starting to manage that delivery or you're managing your service levels with the departments. And then what we've got is, as you move in towards the center, is the really high value. What's important about this chart is not all public agencies necessarily want to drive to that green because there's a cost to doing that as you implement technology and the practices around it can get very expensive. So what was important is kind of figuring out where is the right place for the city of Alameda? Where does the value and benefit really make sense? As you can see from this chart, the cities largely kind of in a reactive, proactive, and there's already been some steps to take care of that. There's some governance activities to help with the alignment in the service delivery. You're already taking steps on your helpdesk, so you're already starting to implement some of that. One of the items up on the infrastructure side, which is one of the dimensions that we really heard a lot about and it's mentioned in our plan and we have a lot of discussion about was the fact that you really run all of the city on a single network. You've got an electric utility. The security requirements around the electric utility is significantly more than what a typical admin network would be. And so what happens is that that impacts your your city, the rest of the city department users, because they have a higher security standard than what their peers might at another city. So we've made some recommendations for try to alleviate some of those pain points and improve the ability for staff to be able to access the network remotely wireless. And those type of initiatives that under a single network running all of your utilities is problematic. I won't go through all the SWOT analysis here. A couple of highlights I want to talk about. One is the staff is really committed to figuring out how to use technology. And, you know, that's that's not a given. Everywhere we go, sometimes people are kind of against technology and like the way the old way things are done. We didn't hear that people are really excited about trying to figure out how to leverage technology. It generates a lot of opportunities that we identified in this from a weakness, a standpoint is, you know, you've got an I.T. organization that's really kind of trying to turn and reinvent itself to start following best practice and get the tools in place, get the technology in place that they can actually meet the service requirements that the departments are asking for out of them. And then also on the on the threat side is really one of the things. There's two things we look at. One is just the physical security, and that's something that we've made some recommendations on. The other is security in general. You know, you don't have to pick up a paper or turn on the news to understand the the threat of hackers and vulnerabilities that you have with your network and your network security. It's something you just have to continually evolve on. And so while I think you're in a pretty good security position today, you can't really lie down on that. You've got to keep keep actually being very vigilant about that and continue to evolve your processes to keep up with the threats that are going to come to the city from outside.
Speaker 5: Quick question, Amber Ashcroft possibilities and threats in the lower quadrant there. What is TCO.
Speaker 8: O total cost to operate, which is the total cost to run that technology.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 0: So this next slide, that is a visual of the meeting, the city wide meeting that we had where all city departments participated. It's color coded. So you can see the responsible department there. It's kind of hard to see. So the next slides actually are readable. So the city got together and we really talk about, okay, where do we want to be as a city we're in, as an organization, and what are our options? So the first columns are actually all the in-process projects that are underway right now, and then the rest of it is our 3 to 5 year roadmap. And many of the projects that are up there are multiyear projects. So for instance, the H.R. Payroll financial system replacement is a two to 2 to 3 year implementation timeframe. So I'm not going to go through all of the in-process projects right now. But as you know, fire has implemented voce, which is our EOC system that once we activate the EOC, this is a system that will be using and they continue to tweak it. We've have the city website vendor has been chosen and a new city website is planned on being in production either spring or some summer of 2018 . And this will help the public actually get, you know, better information. And it also let the city push information in more timely. Some of the other in process, Terry, mentioned Wi-Fi and VPN access. That is in process right now. Right now, the only city building that has a Wi-Fi option for public and a secured option for employees is here at City City Hall. So we're planning on implementing Wi-Fi throughout city buildings. And then Rick and Park. I wanted to note that they actually went live this Monday with their new system active net, and that helps them with their, you know, program registrations and everything. So that was a good implementation recently. So as I mentioned on that exercise, where all the city departments got together, we we realized that the biggest benefit that most city departments will realize is replacing the h.r. Payroll financial system. So in 2018, $200,000 has been allocated to actually hire a consultant and we consulted with next level to do an H.R. finance needs assessment and meet with all the city departments and see what we want in an ERP system. And that work is being taken on right now, and they're actually going to help us draft our RFP and do vendor negotiations in 2018. We requested 1.5 million to be allocated to the actual replacement of the H.R. financial system. And that was actually a unanimous vote from all city departments. That was the voice of the user that that was the biggest benefit that we all felt would be realized by the city is replacing that system. And then another 1.5 million has been allocated in 2018 and 2019 for these different projects. In order to be able to create an administrative network. We need to do a fiber infrastructure review and see where the conduit is throughout the city that we might be able to pull new fiber to create that administrative network, which will then allow us to go into a smart city initiatives and possibly offer public Wi-Fi traffic management , those types of smart city initiatives, the electronic content management solution. As I mentioned, each department approached technology independently. So we have multiple implementations of laser fish, which is our document management system, but they were all implemented in different ways. And so that the funding is going to go into a like a comprehensive document imaging type solution. And then out of the citywide department meetings, there were three projects that are they don't have any funding allocated to it yet. And one is establishing the administrative network. Once we have the fiber infrastructure review, will be able determine the cost for that. And then the centralized address repository came up. Right now we have multiple address repositories. The cost to that is either, you know, from nothing to 25,000, so that we can consolidate all the different addresses that we work with throughout the city right now. And then Fire is requesting to replace the records management system because it's not meeting their needs, and that's estimated at 25 to 30000. As Terry mentioned, this is a visual of it specific operational projects that my department is going to be performing over the next 3 to 5 years. And as Terry mentioned, we've already started. We're establishing a service management system. So basically a helpdesk tracking management so we can track trouble calls and do some trending and be more proactive and better serve our customers. And then also on there, along with some other valuable operational type changes, is we're really focusing on our, you know, developing business continuity and disaster recovery of critical systems, identifying what those critical systems are to a city, which ones can never be down. And if they do go down when our, you know, recovery time should be so and that's all internal to it. So as you can see, we have a lot of good opportunities ahead and a lot of good work and that we're looking forward to. And we appreciate your interest in the technology strategic plan. So if you have.
Speaker 2: Questions on the questions of council members, could you reiterate or explain the public wi fi and then also the 911? But that really means okay. Is I did bring a referral supporting public wi fi wasn't here to actually vote on it's my understanding that council did support it. So maybe you could expand how. But but part of the process it will be.
Speaker 0: So in order to provide public free public Wi-Fi, it has to run on something. And so that's what we're looking at. You know, what are our options? Can we run it on the city's fiber network? If we establish it, we could, you know, target even key areas like down Clark Street and Webster Street. First, we need to make sure that we have the proper fiber there, that we can offer free public Wi-Fi in those zones that you want to create.
Speaker 2: The staff will be looking at it to set this next year. What is your timetable?
Speaker 0: Yeah, well, that's in the wild 2018 19. Okay.
Speaker 2: I think it's at 70.
Speaker 0: And then let me just find my notes on. So e911 that's upgrading our existing software and using state of California funds. So that includes enhancing horizon prefix. So no. That I'll have to check with with police. I don't really have any more information on it. 911.
Speaker 2: Anyone here in the room that has information on E! 911? I happen to see our police chief back there. He might be able to help us out. Thank you, Chief, for Larry.
Speaker 7: Eric Council members. Paul Larry Chief of Police. So the E911 system essentially is something that allows us to determine the location of a91 caller using their cell phone. That's basically it. Before E911 one, if you called 911 from a landline, which is still the case today, then your address and the name of the person who subscribes to that landline show up on screen so that if you're disconnected and the dispatcher still knows where to send the patrol officer, the 49.1, if you call it from a cell phone, the CHP answered that somewhere in their dispatch center up in Vallejo, and then they would have to determine where you were, what city you were in, and then call that agency, keep you on the line. So there was a very circuitous route for that caller to get through to the agency that she needed, where he needed to talk to that is taken away with the E911 one system. It's not perfect, but it's way better than what we had prior to it.
Speaker 2: And do we have that currently or we do okay. Because it was listed as an initiative like we would be getting it.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: We certainly do have that.
Speaker 7: Enhancing the existing 911, but we already have it and have had it for years.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I think that completes that item. Thank you very much. The next item was five.
Speaker 5: I emotion to receive on all moves that we receive. And that was partly because that was an excellent report. I'm sorry we kept you up there on crutches for so long, but thank you so much. So I will move that council. I received the Information Technology Strategic Plan.
Speaker 2: Second, I was in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. And then five I had pulled and we do have some speakers on it, but I had pulled it because I had reviewed with we had quite a few emails received from the public on this. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Receive the Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP). (Information Technology 2611) [Not heard on November 7, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12052017_2017-4955 | Speaker 2: Second, I was in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. And then five I had pulled and we do have some speakers on it, but I had pulled it because I had reviewed with we had quite a few emails received from the public on this. I reached out to a couple and we were able to meet because I was concerned that the language really wasn't as strong as I think is appropriate. And I looked at, for instance, with the members of the public that when we discussed it, the city of Berkeley had this additional language, which is what my proposed revisions come from the city of Berkeley's resolution. So I'm going to go. So that's why I pulled it. The proposed revisions were added by our clerk. Thank you. And so I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers that are here on this side. And we have three Tony Serna, Anita Reese, and then Gabby Dolphin.
Speaker 3: Thank you for hearing me tonight. My name is Anita Reese.
Speaker 9: I'm a long time resident of Alameda and have been volunteering with Citizens Climate Lobby for the past couple of years. CCL lobbies Congress to act on climate change by legislating a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels.
Speaker 3: At their source.
Speaker 9: Then returning 100% of the revenue to our households to help offset costs and stimulate the renewables economy. Carbon fee and dividend is elegant in simplicity. Transparent to public scrutiny and clear in its signals and benefits. Municipal endorsements give us individuals a more forceful voice to express our political will to Congress and tell our representatives that we want to want action now to mitigate climate change. Over 1000 supporters, including several of our neighboring cities, have endorsed a carbon fee and dividend resolution. Already, 31 Democrats and 31 Republicans in Congress publicly support and campaign for this plan. And we are getting close to having the consensus we need to introduce legislation which can be supported on both sides of the aisle and be effective even during this challenging political time in Washington. I'm proud that our city is taking this step to endorse a resolution supporting carbon fee and dividend. And I encourage the Council to vote in favor of a strong resolution. Endorsing this resolution tonight will send almeida's voice loud and clear to Congress and tell them that we, the special island town in San Francisco Bay, support climate action now. Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Council Member Ashcraft and all the council members and staff for working on this story. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Hi, my name is Tony Sana and I am also with the Citizens Climate Lobby's Alameda chapter and one of the co-leaders there. And I'm just here to encourage the council to support the resolution calling on Congress to enact a carbon fee and dividend. Such a policy would help protect Alameda from the worst of climate change while creating jobs, improving our health and ushering in a clean energy future. Congress needs to hear a clear call from Citizens for Climate Solutions, from all citizens, but especially from business leaders, faith leaders, community leaders, and from cities across the nation. And I hope you will vote to support this resolution. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And Gabby Dolphin, and she's our last speaker on this item. If you want to speak out, please submit your set.
Speaker 3: Good evening, City Council. And Madam Mayor. And Madam Mayor, thank you so much. I cannot tell you how grateful I am to see coming out of this August body some movement around the climate change issue and hoping and knowing that that voice is going to be heard by our amp and people. I'll be real short about it. The people I'm with, Alameda Solar and with Alameda progresses and we believe we're in a full blown climate change emergency. And some of us feel that we have to mobilize on a World War Two level to ratchet back our use of fossil fuels, much as we had to ratchet up our efforts in order to fight World War Two and contribute to that effort in that victory. So there there is an emergency going on and we need to respond accordingly. And this it's not going to solve it, but it certainly is a huge step forward. And if Alameda can sign on it, will a anchor this attitude and this commitment within the city and also announce it elsewhere? And I always feel that when one city moves in a certain direction that is so positive like this, that it'll help others move in that same direction. So again, I thank you, Mayor, and I thank you city council for entertaining this. And I certainly hope that it does pass. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, I'd like to make a motion for the, uh, including the proposed revisions to the resolution.
Speaker 5: About second and third.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: A quick question. Thank you. What's the process on this? Because I remember when we we did a resolution or we urge Congress to pass a resolution about an investigation. You know, we addressed this to our congressmember, Barbara Lee. I mean, what's the process that, you know, I mean, we just send a read, we pass this, and then.
Speaker 2: They just.
Speaker 6: I mean, what?
Speaker 0: Just just curious. Send it to our our congressman.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: Proactive Senators, Senators.
Speaker 2: And anyone else. So honestly, I have suggestions of who all you want us to Senate to just let us know. We're happy to send it off.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other questions?
Speaker 6: And then we were moving on the revisions that you proposed in the yellow line?
Speaker 2: Yes, that was for my motion. I'm hoping that.
Speaker 5: It just means.
Speaker 2: That all of us and I. I, i. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Counsel and community. Okay. And five K was pulled. So I believe that completes our consent calendar now. All right. So now a six hour regular agenda item six, a. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of Resolution Urging the United States Congress to Enact a Federal Carbon Fee and Dividend. (Public Works 4205) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12052017_2017-4968 | Speaker 2: Oh, and we have about seven speakers on this. You want to speak to a referral or introduce it?
Speaker 0: Um, you know, I think at least I'll speak for how this came about for me. And I've spoken with staff and also members of the public, but I think that there's you know, there's been a lot of conversation and questions being raised about different things. And my intent is really to allow for council to have a conversation because of the Brown Act, we can't all speak on these issues. So to be able to speak about the issues and the concerns being raised to also review. With staff, the concerns that have been raised and then, you know, see how we want to move forward on it and within the confines of the city charter and and also clarify just who has authority for what. Because I think that part of it is people don't know who to speak to and what the extent of our authority is. And that has been something that has been frustrating to me as a council member, but also I know to members of the public and and to staff.
Speaker 2: And I just want to add, I want to thank Vice Mayor Lee Avella for working with me on this. And the community has expressed concerns for a long time. And I wanted to bring the referral because there seems to be a disconnect between the communications that come to council members and myself on this issue and what is happening with AMP and AMP. As much as it's not as much as it's not the city. It is, in fact, the city. So people know we have our own utility for a reason. We want better service, not the same. We want better. If we were going to offer the same or worse or fewer options, we wouldn't need AMP, my opinion. So I think it is important that our utility be responsive to us and it seems like we've got not necessarily the communication or the response that I would like. So that was part of it. And then part of it is that our city manager is a voting member on the Privy Council is not. So my other part of this goes to is there a way for council to give any feedback? Is it possible to have the city manager report to us and regards to upcoming issues that she will be asked to vote on and get any feedback? Is that does there have to be a firewall between us so that we're getting emails, we're trying to find out what's happening? And yet she's part of the group that's voting unanimously, as my understanding, to, in fact, support AMP's policy. So that goes to, you know, to figure out what we can do. And this is similar to what the vice mayor is saying. Who has the authority? What authority does council have on this when we're trying to be responsive to our community and it's like super like not it seems impossible. So that's why I wanted to do the referral. I was very happy to work with vice mayor on this. Likewise. Thank you. And so then I'm going to go ahead and let the speakers and I want to give you all honestly and opportunities to speak here, too, so that we can figure out how we're moving forward. So I appreciate you all coming out here tonight and staying so late because that goes to show we know it's important. Christopher Raby, Shelby Sheehan and someone said in time to her and then Lisa Zapata.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 13: I'm Christopher Raby, Alameda, a native resident father of two. And I'm here tonight to inform you about the serious threats to public health and safety caused by AMP Smart Meter program and why it must be stopped. As you may know, smart meters transmit wireless information about your electric usage to AMP, but you may not be aware of as the hundreds of scientific studies that show significant adverse health effects with exposure to low levels of non-ionizing microwaves currently approved and used in wireless communication. This research has also demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF, including single and double stranded DNA breaks, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress, protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumors. Many scientists, researchers, public health officials and agencies conclude that EMF standards established by the FCC are outdated, as they are based only on the heat effects and not biological effects of non-ionizing EMF microwave radiation, which are scientifically, scientifically demonstrated at levels hundreds of times less than current safety exposure limits, and thus current standards are inadequate to protect public health. In 2011, the World Health Organization designated wireless communications as a possible carcinogen. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics asked for a reassessment of exposure to RF limits and policies that protect children's health throughout their lifetimes and reflect current use patterns. In 2014, the California Medical Association adopted a resolution to reevaluate wireless standards, coming to the conclusion that existing public safety limits for microwave MF devices are outdated and inadequate to protect human health. Smart meters emit RF radiation much more frequently than the 1700 times per day AMP claims. Independent testing has shown that a single smart meter emits RF radiation between 9000 and 190,000 times per day. When you put five or more smart meters together, it results in a continuous stream of pulsed RF radiation 24 seven that can be detected more than 20 feet away and travels through walls and points to put a bank of 13 of these meters on the outside of my kids bedroom wall within six feet of their beds. This will transmit RF between 117,002.4 million times a day and expose my children to a constant stream of RF radiation anytime in their room. Essentially microwaving them while they sleep or play or whatever they're doing in there. Since the current opt out plan has no option for people in my situation. I have asked the Public Utility Board to make an exemption to their opt out policy. So if one person wants to opt out in a multi-unit building, the whole bank can be analog meters with no fee. It's been two months. I still haven't heard from them. I have, however, received a $125 opt out fee on my latest electric bill, which is, by the way, is wrongful use of force or fear and fits the legal definition of extortion as defined in the California Penal Code, Section 518. Aside from these issues, smart meters are also known to raise bills, explode and catch fire, and they violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution as they are unwarranted surveillance devices. In light of this information, I ask that you do anything within your power to stop amp smart meter program and to work towards the long term goal of the complete and permanent removal of all smart meters within the city of Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Shelby. And she someone to chime to her. So she gets up to 6 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Oh, hi. So some of what Chris said, I'll be saying as well, and expanding on a little bit and making some recommendation. And I think Julie saw me at the last meeting.
Speaker 2: And if you can speak clearly into the memory.
Speaker 4: Okay. Okay. So just let me start. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and for taking the time to consider our concerns about the Smart Reading Program in Alameda. My name is Shelby Sheehan. I am an all nighter resident. My background is in public health. I have a master's science from UCLA in Environmental Health, and I'm a doctoral candidate in environmental science and engineering. I'm here to express my concerns about the health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation from smart meters and the compulsory smart meter installation program currently underway in Alameda. I previously submitted a letter to all of you about this issue. In it, I include references and additional links to support the statements I'm making before you tonight. I would like to use this time to summarize that information and reiterate my recommendations for the Council to give to AMP regarding the Smart Meter program. Please feel free to use my letter as a starting point and I respectfully request that you continue to do further reading to educate yourself more fully about smart meters and M-F radiation health concerns. My first recommendation is for a complete moratorium on meter installations. 5757 other counties or cities in California have already done this. For example, Marin County, the cities of Piedmont Local, Richmond local as well, Santa Phil and Sebastopol, among others. These moratoriums were adopted to protect health, safety and welfare of the residents. Alameda should follow suit. Make no mistake, this is a huge health and safety issue. Smart meters constantly emit EMF radiation that interferes with a biological functions and makes people sick. As Chris said, for example, it can cause significant acute problems such as debilitating fatigue and severe neurological issues, worsening of mental health disorders, neuropathy, and tonight, among others . Just as important, MF radiation can cause cancer. This fact is recognized by many prestigious and well-known organizations, including who that Chris mentioned and a multitude of scientific and academic organizations. All recognize the acute health effects and cancer risk from units. Most vulnerable are those that already have health problems or other sensitive populations. Included on that list are people with multiple sclerosis, autism, children, and those with cancer, just to name a few. Sensitive populations. So what is the risk associated with iems from smart meters? It is common knowledge that cell phone use, among other things, should be limited to do it due to an increased risk of cancer from EMF radiation. For example, the manufacturers say that the radiation from a smart meter is minimal, equivalent to that of a cell phone. But in real life, there's overwhelming evidence of a much greater risk. In fact, Dr. Dietrich Heart, who is an M.D. and a Ph.D. and an expert in MF Radiation, calls MF Illness the health crisis of our time. Many experts in report after report and study after study, including those published in peer reviewed journals, which is the highest scientific standard there is as well. Laypeople who videotaped the levels of radiation from smart meters in actual use demonstrate that the risk is much higher than industry states. Based on real life data. The actual risk of cancer from smart meters is 100 times that of a single cell phone. That is two orders of magnitude. It's clearly a significant risk, especially for sensitive populations and should be alarming to us all. Therefore, a moratorium on smart meter installations is warranted unless and until the known health risks are addressed. My second recommendation. With or without a moratorium is about the opt out. As Chris said presently, you can opt out of getting a meter, but it costs $125 initially and then $10 a month after that, which is prohibitive to a lot of families and discriminatory and illegal in my opinion. Furthermore, the ability to opt out sunsets after two years, which means after after two years, you can't opt out anymore. They take that right away from you and they are going to force a smart meter on you. But. And it's absolutely unacceptable given the known health risk concerns. Therefore, my second one, my second recommendation is to eliminate the opt out charge as well as a sunset clause. My third recommendation is about the issues in multifamily units. Again, I'm I'm marrying what Chris said in multifamily units. One could have five, ten, 20 or more smart meters, all constantly emitting huge amounts of EMF radiation, causing an incredible increased health risk associated with so many in one place. Many are place right outside bedrooms, a role. Children are sleeping. No one should be forced to have their children exposed to such high amounts of radiation. Therefore, because of the aforementioned known health concerns, I recommend a rule that if one resident of a multifamily unit wants to opt out, then the entire building must be exempted from all smart meter installations. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to put the health and safety of Alameda residents as the top priority by directing AMP to one halt further installations of smart meters until safety can be established to eliminate the opt out cost and the sunset clause. And three discontinue installations on multifamily units if even one resident opposes them. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is the Potter. And then Gabby Dolphin, another Curtis.
Speaker 0: I am. They've said a lot of the points that I wanted to make, so I'll just go on with my personal points. I've been a resident in Alameda since 2002. I was really surprised to find out that there was no way that I was going to have to pay to opt out of something that clearly has health hazards and is. Is it trespassing technology? It really. I just felt bullied into having to pay. I can't afford this opt out fee and I shouldn't have to afford this opt out fee. As a single mom, it's just ridiculous. And it's appalling. So as well. Personally, I am immunocompromised. My son. I don't want him playing by that. Technology. It's right in the children's area. My husband has passed away from cancer. This is something that clearly has health hazards and should not be. It should be with caution that we. We. Take this technology and it seems like it's being forced upon us. And I. I just really resent that. And I.
Speaker 3: Love Alameda. I love.
Speaker 0: Living here. And I've even considered moving away. And I don't want to do that. I really enjoy this community that we have. I believe that there should not be an opt out fee, that this is extortion and it. I've already sent notices of liability to Nicholas. Michael Picker and Barbara Lee and Senator Feinstein. And I am going to go forward with this. If I continue to feel like I'm being bullied into something that clearly is hazardous and is illegal. So I would hope that you could put a moratorium on this. I would appreciate it.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Gabby Dolphin.
Speaker 3: Gabby Donovan once again, High City Council, August body and mayor. What's being said here is really pertinent at this time. I don't have a specific statement about smart metering. I want to say, though, that I have been working with AMP and Pub for a while, a few months and the pub board and AMP have they've really looked to change, to open up, to be more available to the community. And for that I'm really, really grateful and I really think Nico's over there because he's new here and he's stepped into not a minefield, but good lord, we're a new community to him and times are changing. We've got a lot of serious issues. But my concern again has to do with the structure of communication in the governance of this municipality. And if I were to take a huge step back and look at the large picture, we have the pub board, big business, and sitting on the pub board is our city manager and I'm only using concepts, not names. This is not about UGL, it's about roles. City managers. We've got big business in bed with our government. And and the reason I bring that up is that I feel there's a real difficulty penetrating through pub and amp in so difficult. I don't even know what questions to ask. So what I did was I submitted a four year request to AMP and they very graciously gave the information I requested. But the idea being that it should have been available to me and it should be communicable and not communicable, that's a disease. But to communicate about it, but to know beforehand what's going on with AMP, I honestly don't feel that these people are coming to you for help. But what I understand when I read the city charter and I did when I first started talking to Frank about looking at the climate change thing again, I interpreted it to be mean. See that the city council had far more weight and influence because you are our elected officials and you carry our word to staff and to pub and that's not happening. What happens is they listen, listen, listen, listen. Nice, good idea. And boom, we go straight forward with street smart meters or. I can understand the joy, but I don't see any joy in the fact that AMP is going to be a huge new revenue stream with this new killer technology business that's going in. And I do believe I saw a little bit of glee that, you know, there's going to be a big revenue stream open up because they're going to be taking electricity. What about solar? What about wind? What about geothermal? I didn't hear any talk about that alternate energy. We have a huge business coming in that's going to suck up energy was the word used. So my concern is. I know we're constrained by our charter, but surely we can give more thought to it on how we communicate and how we open up about this issue, in particular energy, the changing energy landscape, the desires, desires of the people of Alameda. And having pub and amp work with us. Not well, you know. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Heather Curtis and then Nancy Gordon. And if you want to speak on some time, please submit your slip. Morning. And there, Curtis, that quite morning.
Speaker 0: I've been a native here for 50 years, and I cannot be as articulate as these wonderful people have. But I have grave concerns, not only about well, mostly about the health effects, whipped, sorry, surveillance and the gathering and selling of my personal data. I've heard some people say now that big data is the new big oil. Chairman former Chairman Wheeler, there's a video going around saying, you know, we're going to roll out the 5G. It's going to make us billions. We don't care who regulates it. No scientific studies being done. So we've got huge issues with this. Hacking vulnerabilities, fires, especially increasing during power surges, inaccurate billing issues, and again, the 29 sun set for the opt out. I can also not afford the opt out fee. I paid over $500 for three years to puny to keep a smart meter off of my home. At which point, after three years, emails were released between the PGA executives and the PUC, showing that they were very much aware of the liability and health problems with smart meters and they had to quit charging us for them. That's all available on stop smart meters dot org. So I should not be forced to put a dangerous device in my home. Not on it, because this technology and frequencies are coming into my home or have to pay an opt out fee to prevent one from being installed. We also do not want I do not want any, am I? Meters. Which is what they're substituting advanced meters in some cities and regions saying that they're are not smart meters, but they really are as dangerous. And just a little bit about me. I have an older flip phone, which I only use for emergencies. No cell phone, my cable and for my computers and my phone is hard wired. I haven't ever had wi fi in my home and I even got rid of my microwave once I started doing my own research in due diligence on how dangerous these technologies are . So and I think at this point, I hope if 5G is rolling out, this will become an agenda item because that's much worse than what we've got now. So I respectfully request that you, as my representatives require amp. AMP you be to do your due diligence by reviewing all of the independent studies that are out there. We can't rely on industry. They're covering all of this up and they're very much aware of the health dangers of this wi fi, smart meters, all of them. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Nancy.
Speaker 0: I hope you do the right thing.
Speaker 2: And she's our last speaker on this item.
Speaker 9: Thank you, mayor and council members. Yeah. I would also like you and I corroborate what they say. I agree. And I'm a Spanish major, so I don't know all that scientific stuff. However, about eight years ago, when my two oldest granddaughters were little, they're ten and eight now. I attended I happened to get a call from a former flight attendant friend of mine and she said, you've got to go to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and listen to these experts about EMF and damage. So I went and after that I signed up for the Commonwealth Club and I had a lot of information. These are people from not only the United States but in Europe and I believe it. I gave the notes to my son and his wife, but I believe that in France they were forbidding cell phones for kids under 12. I mean, there are developing brains and things like that. I probably already have fried my brain with cell phones and wireless and everything like that. And sometimes I can feel I used to be able to feel pains going through my head if I had my phone and that was even with a landline starting. But some of us have businesses where we can't really avoid all that. It's supposed to make it easier. But there was a lot of information. And now it's coming out on the Web sites that people have mentioned and that they've given you and their letters. I'm unsure of how it invades privacy. Again, that's not my field of expertize at all, but I trust the people who've done the research. I also watched a very informative video of a retired and highly experienced and respected fire chief about the Northern California fires and references to smart meters. It's is pretty bizarre and kind of scary. Very scary. And now we've got new fires. I'm just wondering if there's a relationship between the drones and. Smart meters. Who knows? I did hear about from my body worker who on Grand Street. She's a doctor. She gave me the Web site for special plugs that I can plug in. Is supposed to kind of neutralize EMFs in my house. I mean, I can't test it myself, but I'm starting to plug in me, and I give it to my son in his family. Let's see this supposed to filter out some of that. I mean. I'm probably older than. About everybody in this room. And when I was a kid, my parents kept saying, Nancy, don't sit so close to the TV. And then I used to stare at the microwave. I like to watch stuff happening until I heard, Oh, that's not so cool to do. So some things we learn. By accident. Other things we learn by like don't put Tupperware, don't heat your stuff in Tupperware in the microwave. I mean. So far I'm still alive, so kick in and try to kick the smart meters off my property. I happened to go out my front door and here was a guy from AMP. And anyway, I don't want to get the opt out fee. A lot of assumptions are being made and. Their health hazards up the ying yang. I don't want our young people to. Have the repercussions of all this going on. And I think it is big business and reminds me of the competition with Comcast days. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. She was our last speaker. So there's a referral. Um, did any council members want to make comments or.
Speaker 0: And yes, Niko Pro is here too, if you want to ask questions or he can maybe answer some of the.
Speaker 2: Did you want to share any information?
Speaker 7: Good evening again, Madam Mayor. Council members. A couple of things I wanted to just touch upon specifically related to the sunset provision, which are current rules and regulations specify that everyone has to have a smart meter starting in 2019. We have an item going to the board for our Monday meeting to lift that provision. It's actually been something we've been talking about for a couple of months. We're going to bring it to the board around January, February, in light of the concerns have been expressed. We brought it forward. We're also going to be including a low income provision in there as well. I will say that speaking to this and some of the other provisions about the charges as a municipal utility, we are subject to different rules and laws than P.G. and he is we have to provide the service at cost. So even though there's a perception that the cost might be significant, we are really constrained in terms of our flexibility to make adjustments to those charges. Regarding the city charter provisions, I would turn to the attorneys to address that. I will say that, you know, there is this process to to approve the smart meter program was a long process starting way back in 2012. It really picked up steam around 2014, 2015, 2016 with multiple items going towards the PUC discussions. Not specifically focused on this issue, but it did come up. We did do our due diligence. We go out and we talk to other utilities. We're not the first one doing this. There's currently about 90 million meters out there right now and growing, probably covering about 70% of the utilities out there. Everybody in Alameda has a smart gas meter currently. So we're we're not really at the leading edge of this. But, you know, we do recognize some of the concerns are Web page has included information on this. We did update some of the information with much more detailed analysis that some of the speakers did touch upon. But as far as the emissions associated with the meters, these meters meet all standards and we go by the standards. If there are some changes based on new scientific developments. We do monitor those and we will make adjustments accordingly. So we're very proactive about that. But so far, the regulatory agencies, the FCC, there have been no no new standards that have been promulgated. And as far as the testing goes, our meters remain well below the regulatory standards.
Speaker 2: I have a question. We heard about a more moratorium in other cities. Are you familiar with other cities adopting a moratorium on these?
Speaker 7: I'm not very familiar with with other cities adopting moratoriums.
Speaker 2: Okay. And you did say that there's going to be apparently some low income discount or something. Could you say specifically what that is?
Speaker 7: Our current low income discount is about 25%. Exactly 25%. We went to the Peavey. A couple of months ago to change the eligibility requirements because we felt that the income levels weren't keeping up with the pace of of how expensive it is in the Bay Area. So that captured more customers. And certainly anybody who meets those eligibility requirements will also be able to take advantage of that discount as it applies to the opt out fee.
Speaker 2: So is that already occurring? So people can go on the website and get the information about the income levels? Are is that already there?
Speaker 7: The income levels are available. The item is going to the pub on Mondays.
Speaker 2: So this part is also going to the p this part. Okay. I don't understand that. Okay.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: All right. A member.
Speaker 6: Just a science question, because I wasn't a Spanish major, but I was not into science. So we did this referral on like city Wi-Fi. And then the one woman's comment about how everything she has is hard wired and no Wi-Fi and so on. I mean, I don't know what what is the difference in like I guess what is the word a mission if we had a city Wi-Fi versus what what these smart meters are emitting? I mean, is it the same? Is it more? Is it less? I mean, maybe if you don't know, you don't know. And that's perfectly understandable. But just curious.
Speaker 7: I mean, we I can't speak to that. I don't know what the what the emissions levels would be for a city wi fi. I mean, we do know that based on the testing that's been done, you know, these are far more of an issue than our smart meters. And there's other things out there as well. I mean, there's cell towers, there's microwaves, there's a lot of different contributing factors. So when we go out and we do our testing or analysis, we try to do it in as clean environment as possible in light of the fact that everybody has wireless routers in their houses, they have cellphones, they have the microwaves. There's it's really ubiquitous. So it's very difficult to kind of and I think in that particular issue, you'll run into the same situation because there will be interference from many different sources as well. So it'll be hard to tell exactly what that number would be for a a citywide wireless system.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: So. So this is a referral.
Speaker 9: So they want to hear.
Speaker 7: From.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, if it's Assistant City Attorney Alan Cohen could also address the issues about the the difference in legalities with the pubs authority in the City Council.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Members of the city council, Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney. I wanted to address the jurisdictional question about what council's authority is with regard to the Electric Utility Council's authority is very limited. And in fact, the charter in Article 12 gives the pub exclusive jurisdiction to manage the utility, to control and operate the utility, determine what services will be provided and how those services will be provided. That the Public Utilities Board in this area supersedes the Council. The council can't direct the Public Utilities Board on how to operate or implement its policies. The Council's role with regard to the Public Utilities Board is limited to appointing the members who who serve on the Public Utilities Board. But as far as the policy decisions made by the Public Utilities Board in the area of smart meters, the council does not have a role. Individual council members, just like any other member of the public, certainly could have the right to come to a public utilities board meeting and express their concerns. But the charter's very clear on this issue that that the people of the city of Alameda, when they passed that charter provision, gave the pub exclusive authority to manage the utility. And I'll also address the the issue of the city manager's authority in this regard.
Speaker 2: Before we move on, could council give feedback? Without giving direction. Is there a way for us to weigh in at all?
Speaker 7: I think the council could weigh in as individual members, but the council as a body could not pass a resolution or enact legislation basically directing POB to take specific action or even commenting on what what the council thinks that as a body the pub should take with regard to a particular matter, because that would constitute interference in the authority granted to pub by the voters.
Speaker 2: Okay. So is there a mechanism where that we could receive the agenda in advance and give feedback somehow without going to the council meetings or the pub meeting?
Speaker 7: I mean, I think I think absolutely. I think the mechanism, the agendas are made public, just like the city council's agendas and how council can get put on the mailing list to receive the agenda. And if council individual council members have questions or concerns, you can certainly speak to the individual public utilities board members, including the city manager. There is there is a there's always a segment on the agenda. Actually, at every pub meeting where the city manager updates, the Public Utilities Board, updates the Public Utilities Board on particular concerns of the council, things that are going on that are under the council's ambit so that it would be perfectly appropriate for you to express your opinion to her member matter.
Speaker 1: Could this Council make a request for information from the the. The MP. On some of the information that's been talked about tonight.
Speaker 7: I think the council could request information. I think the council could, for example.
Speaker 1: To be specific. We've heard from members of the public about safety concerns from emissions from these smart meters. We've heard from the director of the of information comparative of the emissions to a cell phone. What I'm interested in is seeing this verification of these assertions. If we have an issue and I'm perfectly fine going as an individual and talking to people, understanding what you just said, what I would like to know. Scientifically what the situation is also was asserted that there were fires related to the. So we've got a bunch of smart meters out there. How many fires have we had related to them? So, you know, I'd like to get some some verifiable information from what I've heard just verbally today. I'm not asking for it now, but I'm asking the attorney if we could request it as part of this referral.
Speaker 7: I think you can request it informally as individuals. I don't think the body as a whole could could pass a resolution saying we want this particular piece of information. But the council has expressed each of you has expressed some concerns over this. And I think we could advise Jill, the city manager, could advise the public utilities board of those concerns and pub would would.
Speaker 0: And this council and every citizen can ask for information for, you know, any department. And so I think.
Speaker 9: What.
Speaker 0: We should do with that information is make it public both for the council and the public.
Speaker 2: But you know, like.
Speaker 1: And just to finish that is in the end, I think we have to do to to evaluate our risks are based on science. And, you know, when I heard about the citywide wi fi and then this, you know, it's just like. Okay. Give us some information, because if on one hand we're saying we're going to wi fi have the whole city wi fi enabled, and then on the other hand, we don't want a smart meter that may or may not. Again, I haven't seen the publications that have been peer reviewed be be better or worse than this. We don't know. I can't reconcile those and we can't keep pointing to Washington that they ignore science and we ignore science ourselves. So I want I want peer reviewed. Information as an individual, but I'll take that offline. It sounds like we can't do that as a body.
Speaker 2: That's correct. That you cannot we could not give that.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes. I think I think the idea is that information can be obtained and provided, but the council shouldn't be asking.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I would like copies of the information you sent to member matter. I see. And I think other councils may want copies. You should be able to give us all copies and then buy.
Speaker 1: Everything everybody else has.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You can give us all copies of We Ask Questions of Vice Mayor.
Speaker 0: So I have three questions really. And they really go, I think, mainly to Mr. Cohen. So my first question is one of the things in the charter has to do with City Council's ability to make decisions relative to litigation as it pertains to AMP. Could we. I think the underlying concern and what I've heard is also the liability aspect relative to potential litigation. So could we request information relative to our liability exposure?
Speaker 6: That is it.
Speaker 7: Litigation is one of the areas that the council and pub share authority. Only the council can can authorize us to initiate litigation or, for example, to settle a lawsuit. So we certainly could provide that information in closed session. But the Public Utilities Board would also have to be. You have to be a joint session. They'd have to be invited to attend. But first they would have to be in order to get into closed session to provide their advice, there'd have to be a very realistic and significant exposure to litigation. And I don't think we're at that point yet. Well.
Speaker 3: Let me just add that part of anything any decision that a body makes, it does risk assessment, and that that goes with.
Speaker 9: The pub's.
Speaker 3: Authority on policy decisions and understanding the utility operations, new things that are going on in the world of the utility and making some decisions about risks. They have budget, they put together budgets, all of those kinds of things. So, I mean, you could argue that everything really has a potential of some litigation at some point. But I think what Mr. Cohen is is getting at is if it gets to an actual real lawsuit or some claim, then that's when the city council has authority.
Speaker 0: So going back to that question, does the city risk manager, who does the assessment of the risk? Because you're saying that there's a risk assessment that.
Speaker 3: Well, I think any decision that gets made, you try to determine I mean, you do it sitting up here as well. You try to determine what the potential downside could be of any decisions you make. And I guess that's what I was I was taking from your question about risk.
Speaker 2: Assess my my.
Speaker 0: Questions, I guess a little more nuanced and I'll be a little more specific. I think we've heard from some people that they're claiming certain they're making certain legal claims. Who does that assessment and at what point does it come to the council and what would we be considering?
Speaker 2: Well, let me start, I think.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let me just preface this, because I think part of the concern, at least from our end or my end, I don't want to speak for my colleagues, is where we have this kind of split role with an appointed body. And I know it's a little different because of different legal restrictions that exist surrounding municipal utilities. But at least for me and bear with me because I'm a new council member, I'm trying to understand where our role lies. I mean, when you talk about potential litigation, Mr. Cohen just said it basically needs to be real. There needs to be something filed. So my question is kind of what's the lead up to that? Is there is there another assessment? I'm sure there's another assessment done, but what's the lead up to that?
Speaker 7: I think in terms of whether or not we have the authority to come to you and bring you in on a matter that involves part of that in a manner that involves significant exposure to litigation that comes from our office. This assessment is has a lawsuit. Clearly, if a lawsuit had been filed and we determined that the lawsuit was not meritorious and or we wanted to provide you with advice on that lawsuit, we would be we would do that in closed session with public and with the counsel. And counsel would ultimately have the authority to direct the city attorney in terms of the strategic handling of that lawsuit. Beyond that, I would say that sort of the day to day policy decisions are rest with the Public Utilities Board and AMP. I think it's perfectly appropriate for counsel to to to speak with the city manager and say, look, I want information in this area. And the city manager as as counsel's as one of the representatives on PCB will certainly convey that information to pop into AMP. And, you know, when the counsel asks for information, you know, it's kind of hard to say no. So, yeah, of course, we'll we'll provide.
Speaker 3: That to you. If I can just add, I think part of what I'm hearing is really a health risk. Mm hmm. No municipal body is in an Alameda.
Speaker 2: Or I would I would.
Speaker 3: Posture anywhere is in a position to determine what a health risk is. There are agencies that that do that. And I think what what the AMP executive or general managers is saying is the industry standards. And I know that's what you were trying to get at councilmember matter I see is the industry standards have not shown there is this connection. I understand the concern of the people who spoke today.
Speaker 9: But the the.
Speaker 3: Health the health assessments that are done by agencies charged with and and with the experts who can address those issues have not shown that this is a problem. And I think AMP can share that with the council to show that. And so there's no risk that connects to the health that would justify a claim.
Speaker 7: So I'll add to that one one piece, if I may. I mean, the the body the body charged with determining whether or not transmissions are legal, not legal, whether or not they create a health risk, whether they're safe for the public. Is the Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission sets emission standards. And, you know, I can let Nico speak to this, but but based on the evaluations that AMP has done, the emission standards on these smart meters are well below well below the standards set by the Federal Communications Commission.
Speaker 0: And so for that reason, it's your belief that there is no liability, legal liability, if if the technology were to change or studies were to come out that were different or the standards were to change, we would be doing another liability analysis from that, and that would be something that would the council be included in that decision relative not to the health risk, but to the legal exposure? Because my understanding is we that is what's within our jurisdiction.
Speaker 7: It's I was going to raise the objection of incomplete hypothetical.
Speaker 0: But not to cross-examine.
Speaker 7: This isn't the proper forum for that.
Speaker 0: Trying to understand.
Speaker 7: If if there were a lawsuit filed if a and we felt that the lawsuit had some merit and that there was some liability exposure, that it's at that point, you know, under the auspices of our of our Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act, that we would feel that we would have the obligation to come to counsel in closed session, inform them of the liability risk and request authority one way or the other. But we're not at that point, I can tell you from from having attended all these public utilities board meetings on smart meters and working with with the general manager every day, POB is constantly studying this issue. AMP is constantly studying this issue and constantly, you know, reviewing these studies. And if ever rises to the point where there is a real scientifically, scientifically backed request that these are exposing people to liability. We'll come forward. Okay.
Speaker 0: And then I ended up getting derailed with a couple of follow up questions. But my other question is, you know, there is my my understanding is the AMP is continuously conducting its own studies and looking into this. So rather than the FOIA requests or public information requests, what's posted and available online? Because I think rather than having all of us kind of constantly put in requests or having the public what's available and where is it available?
Speaker 7: So on our our web page, under our energy and view section, there is an FAA queue which is fairly detailed. It doesn't have a whole list of all relevant studies. It talks about the standards. It talks about some of the comparisons to other. Emitting devices like cell phones. We do compare ourselves to other municipal utilities and how they structured their web pages and how they get that information out there. And we're pretty consistent with what they do as well. So and we certainly we certainly can provide information. We have access to those we've reviewed those scientific studies. I mean, I think that Allen really highlighted it, that we go by what the regulatory standards are. Now, having said that, I think one of the benefits of having a municipal utility, a community owned utility, is we're not puny. So if something should change in the in the regulatory environment, we're going to adjust very quickly. It's not going to be a situation where we're going to actually he's going to have to get involved because we'll take it right to the pub and make any changes necessary based on those new regulations.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then two council member moderates his earlier question regarding this, the public Wi-Fi, things like that. I know it was said that we can't request information of the pub relative to a pub policy. But if the city's thinking about enacting policy relative to public Wi-Fi or smart cities, you know, one of the things that's unique about Alameda is that we have this resource, which is AMP, which is city owned, which has done studies. In those instances, could we request information that an app has relied on to help inform our decisions on policies that are within our jurisdiction? But. Not. And not within the jurisdiction of the pub.
Speaker 7: You want to you want to share? I don't think that's a legal issue.
Speaker 0: You know, because I feel like, you know, part of the question is also why duplicate the work or why go out and hire somebody to do this work when we are doing it already? Could we could we request the information in that instance where it might be relevant to a decision that we're making.
Speaker 7: And we're happy to collaborate with whichever department is going to be charged on point for that? Certainly, we've done a lot related to this particular issue. So I think we don't want to duplicate efforts and we do that on a regular basis for a variety of issues. So that's not.
Speaker 0: Okay. My final question, I promise, is the last one is, you know, the concern that we're hearing and you had spoken earlier about things that the public is considering. One thing that has been raised has been these multifamily buildings and the potential impact where there might be a number or a bank of smart meters. Can you speak a little bit about what the pub has done relative to the analysis of that and, you know, just the impact of it? Because that seems to be kind of a recurring theme.
Speaker 7: So we don't really differentiate between a single meter and multiple meters. Again, I'll fall back to the regulatory standards. So if if there was a potential issue associated with that, then that would flow through some sort of regulatory standard. Now that standard isn't there. It hasn't been established. One thing that's important to note about these meters is these meters. They're designed to go in one direction. They want to get to a device that will able to relay that information down the line and then get it aggregated. So they typically don't they're not like a wireless network in your home, which is kind of 360 degrees. They kind of they go in one direction. They're not going back into the house. So they're really going out. Now, we haven't gone in and done measurements in in houses or in an apartment buildings. But based on the regulatory standards, there's nothing that would lead us to believe that there's or would make any adjustments or a special dispensation, I guess, for a meter bank or multiple meters.
Speaker 2: Any other questions or comments from Council Member Ashcraft?
Speaker 5: This is more of a. Comment I think we've gotten some useful information about the council has in the form of emails from the city manager but about these comparative levels of of emissions or EMF from devices. What I think would be helpful because more information. Properly distilled is is better than less is to be able to put that out to the public in a number of formats that you don't have to search too hard to find. So while I appreciate that AMP has effects on your website, we have a public information officer. We can do an opinion piece in the in the newspaper and actually at the five K the other day I happened to be race walking with and MacCormack who's the public utilities board chair right now. And we we kept up a running conversation and I told her, you know, I think it might be useful to put it when I know there's an important meeting on Monday. But when some of those decisions are made, share it as widely as possible, I think that's important. And part of the problem that we all deal with his there is sometimes an abundance of information out there, the quality of the information in and this is where my scientist colleague Frank Materazzi you know, and he talks about he wants it published in peer reviewed because there's data and there's data. And but I think to the extent that we can be the purveyors of the information that we know to our own residents, we do a great public service. And it it helps, I think, all of us as council members. So and then sometimes there is misinformation in it. I'm not up on everything. But with regard to if the reference was to the recent North Bay fires and Peggy's involvement, I thought that had to do with transformers blowing. Maybe it was smart meters, but it's good to just know, you know, as much information as possible.
Speaker 7: You know, I haven't heard that it was a smart route heater related issue up there. And in fact, I think they're still investigating. So I'm not going to weighed in on that issue there. There was an issue in Stockton involving, I think, 5000 meters. They had a power surge. It was a somewhat unique situation in terms of what was happening on the distribution grid. My understanding we actually talked to our engineers about this is that that what happened with those meters would have pretty much happened with any meter. It's not specific to smart meters.
Speaker 2: So what happened with the meters?
Speaker 7: The meters, some of them essentially blew out of their socket. So and it was the way that they have their system configured. The nature of the surge, very unusual. It's not something that we would anticipate on our system. But again, the meters, whatever meter, if the old meters were in there, they expected they would have had a similar situation.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor So one of the other things that got brought up is we are a different body obviously than the pub for contact information for members of the pub. If members of the public are trying to have a conversation or want to convey a concern. How do they how do they go about doing that? Because on our city website for the Public Utilities Board, it gives contact information for Robin, her phone number, and then an email address for Robin. But there's no contact information for the individual board members provided on this is on our city website.
Speaker 7: There is a pub mailing list and we get those on a regular basis and then we will distribute those to the hub members. And I believe that's on our web and anything that goes to Robin, he's my executive assistant. Anything that goes to her that's addressed to the pub will then get distributed to me.
Speaker 0: Is it possible to set up city email accounts for our pub members, individual ones where they because they're not, it's just and if we have them, it's just not it's not posted online. But to me, this is an access issue. So we're not making the decisions and they're the ones making the decisions. I just want to make sure that if you can't make it to the pub meeting, you can still get a hold of one of the board members and and share whatever your concerns may be.
Speaker 7: Yeah, absolutely. We can do that. And one thing I wanted to note also on Monday, in addition to this item, the lifting of the sunset provision, we are actually having an army update to the pub and it's just by chance that this is occurring at the same time as this referral.
Speaker 5: But it's amaz what do you have.
Speaker 2: About advanced.
Speaker 7: Advanced meter infrastructure, smart meters, smart meter updates? And it's it's going to cover a whole host of different issues, not really this issue, but the privacy issue, which was mentioned by one of the other speakers, is something that will touch upon that as well. So certainly there's interest. We welcome it.
Speaker 2: So I have some questions. So we had comments about the march, a potential moratorium that these other cities have done that. Is it possible, for example, to find out what about. That would be one of my requests to find out what other cities and counties have had a moratorium who currently have a moratorium and then share that information. And has AMP had a an agenda item where they had a discussion about these health concerns, given the public an opportunity to speak at an AMP meeting and discuss a potential moratorium at AMP, do that. Has that happened?
Speaker 7: Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 2: Okay. So then as an individual or the public. So has there been a petition started by the public in regards to this? Have you heard of a petition for Alameda? Okay. So that's something else our community could do to communicate the interest in our town on this. Okay. And then in regards to the smart meters at the apartment buildings, is there something that can be added somehow around these meters or something to reduce any potential RF to the residents? Is there anything that can be done to make them safer?
Speaker 7: I'm not.
Speaker 2: Aware physically.
Speaker 7: I'm not aware of anything that can be added or any utilities who are adding something we can certainly look sound like quite right.
Speaker 2: So I would like to know if there's a way to add some kind of physical something barrier behind these meters where they're against a wall that goes to someone's home. Or in in some sort of an apartment building or we have. Right. And some of this and I appreciate that a lot of this is needs to be data driven. Unfortunately, a lot of times we don't actually end up with something that we say is so black and white that everyone is going to agree until ten or 20 years down the road. When we look back and we say, oh, yeah, we now know that that did contribute. So if there's anything that we know or we think could actually help reduce the exposure, I'd like to know what that is. If if you have any information that goes to that, that would be helpful to. Any other questions on this? All right. And I also want to thank you, really, because I know you're going to be both of you going back to you've already said on the next agenda item on Monday. It is going to be coming up. So thank you very much for revisiting that. And I look forward to hearing the vote from the p b on these issues. Thank you very much. Okay. So I think that dispenses with our referral, so thank you. And then there's one more. Referral nine B 90 is.
Speaker 0: All right. | Council Referral | Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Alameda Municipal Power’s Smart Meter Program, Including Opting Out, City Manager Voting, Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation, Maintenance and Inspection. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11212017_2017-4864 | Speaker 3: Recommendation. Authorize the city manager to enter into a one year agreement with bar architect.
Speaker 6: I pulled this one, too. I had a quick question on this one. I mean, if we approve this and we go down the path of spending almost 200,000 to prep for a technology campus, I mean, are we shutting the door to possible use of the BQ for any residential or dormitory or housing type purpose?
Speaker 2: That would be a decision.
Speaker 1: By the City Council. We'd come to you to do the RFP.
Speaker 2: We did have quite a few discussions during the Main Street.
Speaker 1: Specific plan about using the number of residential residential units up to the cap to be able to do the workforce housing. So that was one discussion that that broached.
Speaker 2: Where the housing might be and centralize again, centralizing it in the Main.
Speaker 1: Street neighborhood, but it doesn't preclude it. You could do pretty much whatever you like.
Speaker 6: Okay. Because I mean, I the way I understand it, if there's certain units like they don't have kitchens, for example, like a dormitory wouldn't have a kitchen and those wouldn't count against the cap. Right. I guess my concern is if we're doing this, are we shutting down the possibility of of using that for some type of housing purpose? And then if we if we aren't, then I just wonder, you know, why we're spending the money.
Speaker 1: So I think we're just exploring.
Speaker 2: What's out there. I think the bachelor list, of course, has been one of the chronically.
Speaker 1: Vacant buildings, has not been used since the Navy left 20 years ago.
Speaker 2: And so we're just starting to look at some of those other buildings out there that haven't been activated. And we've been really successful with some of the more low hanging fruit that the hangars. But at this point, we have to start looking at other options. And so it's something that could be incorporated into a.
Speaker 1: A tech campus that could.
Speaker 2: Go on its own. We're just we're exploring the tech campus because we have a tech cluster out there right now and it's something.
Speaker 1: That could bring a lot of jobs.
Speaker 6: Okay. I appreciate the clarification.
Speaker 0: We have a motion.
Speaker 5: So moved.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 0: All those in favor.
Speaker 2: All right. All right.
Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Five f2 someone?
Speaker 4: I did.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Recommendation to receive a status report on job creation efforts at Alameda Point, including an update on the enterprise marketing strength.
Speaker 4: I have a few comments on this staff report. I think it's a good thing to have to keep us abreast of what's going on in development. But there are certain things that seem to be remarkably the same as what the last report said, and especially when I look at the table that has the deliverable tasks and the results, the results basically that the tasks were, you know, what what was done, not the results. It talked about 65, 65 people or what does it say, inquiries. What were the results of of that? Do we have any anybody who has interests beyond inquiry? The other point that I wanted to make on here is that if we're doing the same thing and we're only getting 65 for the number of activities like broker presentations, mailers, phone follow ups. What do they call this email blast? If we keep doing the same thing and we're only getting a little response, what are we going to try and look and see why people aren't responding? That was the second thing a little more. A little more innovation than seeing the same kind of report every every six months or every every year. Also, I'm a little bit concerned that the enterprise area is being held up based on site a groundbreaking. We seem to have other traction outside of city where two buildings have actually been sold. And that should be. You know, the public relations effort is being in the regional press being held up for Saturday, groundbreaking. We just sold two buildings and they're being repurposed. I would think that is public relations effort worthy. And we should make a big deal out of that. Also, I'm looking at the financial impact. It says there is no financial impact to the city general fund or the base reuse fund budgets. Well, we just sold two buildings, so there's got to be a financial impact there. How much were they sold for? The report doesn't say that. And where is the money going? And we have infrastructure needs that are being ratcheted up because of failures in the sewer systems and failures in the water delivery systems that we may have to foot the bill for. So I'd like to see a little more meat around that rather than a it looks like a cut and paste line that says there's no financial impact when you lead off saying that. We we sold two buildings and people need to know that. And I think this is super critical that we're moving ahead with the enterprise district in spite of city's problems. And people are asking about that, what's going on. And I'd really like to see a bigger splash on this. So those are my comments on that.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments? Well, I would agree with member matter, S.E.. When this contract came to us, I actually believe I voted against that. I have been very concerned that we are paying a higher rate to Cushman Wakefield to in fact, do tasks like this. And they don't seem to be as successful as I would like. So I actually did support. I appreciate the this 200,000 or we're bringing in another firm to actually try to market that. And I think that that's money well spent. I do have concerns, though, in regards to if Cushman Wakefield is really performing at the level the. That we really need out there. And so I do agree with your comments member matter, S.E.. I think it's very important that we send a message to Cushman Wakefield that really we're looking for more information and some deliveries here. Any other comments or questions? All right.
Speaker 1: Can I just note that we have in response to council mattresses comment, we have sold two buildings, as you mentioned, and it's a total of approximately $15 million that is being set aside for exactly what you suggested, which is the infrastructure improvements for Alameda Point.
Speaker 5: For the public. Would you like to identify this.
Speaker 1: Building nine and 91 and then palladium is today. I don't. So that's. Three buildings.
Speaker 0: I just want to clarify. My understanding is that those are Joe Ernst and Adam. Right. Okay. So that was not a result of Cushman Wakefield efforts.
Speaker 1: I'll submit what I was just referring to the comment.
Speaker 0: Right. That goes to my concern that I think actually Mr. Ernst has been successful at coming up with projects that are approved palladium as a long term tenant out there. And I think Cushman Wakefield job is in fact to bring new people to business interests and end up with deals being made. And that's the part that I'm concerned about that I don't think has been happening. But another matter, S.E., sorry I did you on that.
Speaker 1: It goes to our staff at Alameda Point and reuse Jennifer Ott.
Speaker 4: And Michelle and I was going to make a comment that those those transactions and building data as well have been our staff and there's a lot of money that is coming in. To those buildings based on what staff is has negotiated and what we voted on here. Those. And this is not a Cushman Wakefield report. This is a job creation and development report at the base. So again, I think it's got to be meaty and it's got to be public so that the public knows that something is going on. And that bottom line, that $15 million is it's a whole lot more than there's no impact to the base reuse fund. I mean, this is this is big. And that's again, it's newsworthy. And it it shows that we're moving forward. And I think we've got a good base for based on, pardon the pun, a good a good basis for being able to take on some of that infrastructure ourselves because it's going to be needed. So with that, I move that we accept.
Speaker 5: The status.
Speaker 4: Report, accept the status report and incorporate the the comments that have been made from the seconds here.
Speaker 0: There is a second all of a sudden favor I motion carries unanimously thank you 5G.
Speaker 3: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to intern to amendment to agreement with Operation Dignity for Homeless Case Management. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a One Year Agreement with BAR Architects, with the Option of Two One-Year Extensions for Time Only, for a Total Amount of $199,450 for Architectural and Urban Design Services for Evaluating the Potential for and Preparing Materials to Support the Adaptive Reuse of the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) as a Technology Campus at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11212017_2017-4844 | Speaker 0: And I want to thank counsel for allowing this to be moved forward. It was not her last time, and I actually submitted this referral back on October 11th. And it and I think it's very important. So the ask is, the members of the public have expressed concern over what appears to be an increase in crime in the city. Consider directing staff to provide a public update on crime within our city. That includes trends. What the city is doing. And what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity. And council could consider also holding a workshop. And I also submitted today another referral that's very related to this asking council to.
Speaker 5: Can we talk about something that's not on the agenda? I believe the city attorney is indicating we cannot.
Speaker 0: Well, so part of this referral actually says to consider.
Speaker 5: You'll hear from the acting city.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
Speaker 4: Can we stick to the item on the agenda, please?
Speaker 0: So I just wanted to speak to this as considered directing staff to provide a public update on crime within the city that includes trends. But the city is doing. And what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity. So in regards to that part, I think I can add that we could consider adding an oversight committee by the community.
Speaker 5: That's clearly different.
Speaker 4: That mayor, is that in the referral? That's I didn't see that.
Speaker 0: So as regards the additional steps that we could discuss at council. What is his account.
Speaker 5: For us at?
Speaker 4: So you're saying under.
Speaker 0: This under this, we could consider that, I think, in regards to additional steps that we can discuss.
Speaker 4: But I think staff to.
Speaker 0: To consider that as a possible additional step. But it doesn't have to be at this time because I do have it coming back. It's just another way of that could be considered. That was that was why I think they were looking for discussion now. Yes. So we can have. Yes. And I don't know that we have any speakers on this item.
Speaker 3: We do not.
Speaker 0: All right. A member of addressee.
Speaker 4: I see no problem with. Having staff. Publicize all the points that are listed in the referral as far as what the current trends are. We have a public information officer. We have we have many ways that the city manager can can make this happen. So I think that's good direction since it is it is a matter of concern. And across many pockets, many neighborhoods of have expressed this and this is a way to get a update on the city. So I have no problem with that. I think a workshop is premature. I don't know what tasks that council would be considering or directing without understanding what the trends and and what the actions that staff comes back to us with, with this direction. So I think that's a future item. And then your what you mentioned as another possible step as an oversight committee. Again, I have no idea. What is that, a police review board? Is that a crime committee? I you know that that's something that I'm not prepared to comment on, but that we can, again, looking at what comes back to us and to the public , more importantly, because the public is is right now is it's spot reporting and we're all hearing it from many different spots. And how does this all come together and what plan does the city have to publicize exactly what you laid out? So I'm I'm fine with that, but I want to hold off on scheduling any kind of workshop just because I don't want to have a workshop. Just have a workshop. And this like an oversight committee, I don't know. What are we overseeing? We don't know yet.
Speaker 0: Any other comments? Vice mayor.
Speaker 1: I think one thing that would be helpful and council member matter as briefly touched on this is that we're hearing a number of different reports. And I know that our police officers and police chief have been having various community group meetings and meeting with various constituent groups. So it would be helpful to have that all put together in one report to us so that we can all be on the same page and understand what the concerns have been and and what, you know, what? What our constituents are saying and also how we can go about addressing that. I thought we had a you know, we all attended a meeting at the Edison School at Edison School for one neighborhood. But I think that those types of meetings are happening all over, and it makes sense to have a report on that and hear about that in terms of next steps. I think we probably are going to need a workshop at some point. But I you know, I'm open to holding off. I think we could just say that based off of the report, the council can at that point determine if any next steps are required and what they would be.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, on this I was also at that meeting, I think all five of us were at that meeting and and two members of our police force. And, you know what what concerns me is, you know, there seems to be a disconnect. And there were some letters back and forth. And I think the police chief responded to one and I kind of chimed in. But, you know, if you look at the numbers, you know, we are actually in a period of low crime. Yet there seems to be a perception in the community and I don't know, because maybe there are spikes in certain neighborhoods, or maybe because everything that happens that 20 years ago nobody knew about. You know, we're all seeing on Facebook and Twitter, you know, I followed the, you know, the peeps post when we had the incident over there with the guy that was chased and he threw his gun away. I mean. I think. You know, that was like real time. So I mean I mean, but, you know, that's the first time I've heard of that happening in Alameda in many years. So. I mean, is is there a perception issue or is there a real issue? And if it's a perception issue, you know, then maybe it's not something that, you know, belongs in the police department sphere. I mean, maybe that's, you know, working to communicate that, you know, we are in a period of low crime. Our officers are doing X, Y and Z, you know, and, you know. So maybe that's why a workshop might be good, you know, a workshop that we can have, you know, statistics talked about and, you know, kind of figure out, you know, where the problem is because people seem to be afraid, but yet the numbers don't back up the fear. So, I mean, I think a workshop would be a good idea and I think we should move this forward. And, you know, it'd be interesting to have this discussion because, you know, when these things happen, you know, like it or not, you know, we are the elected officials and the public comes to us and expects answers. So and we've done a good job, I think, on, you know, keeping the council informed on hate incidents. You know, I didn't realize there were so many. And it's disappointing that there are, but I'm very appreciative that, you know, we're kept up to speed on those. But I think what, you know, everyone has to understand in this building is that we are on the front line. You know, when it comes to people, people see us and they expect us to respond and they expect us to know. So, you know, the more that information we have to share with our constituents, you know, I think the better we can do our jobs and ultimately, the better everyone here can do their jobs.
Speaker 0: So in regards to the workshop, is that something I've heard?
Speaker 4: I supported that.
Speaker 0: May I speak to a member? Yes.
Speaker 5: So. So I'm wondering if.
Speaker 2: We could call Chief.
Speaker 5: Larry up. I know he's in the audience. And one of the things that I think I think communication is really important. But there's also a time, a place and a conduit for the information. And I think if the chief doesn't mind me putting him on the spot, as I usually do, but he always handles it really well there, you know, we we hear things. And these days with social media, it's it is kind of a double edged sword. Information gets out quickly. It's not always accurate, but it's really hard to get those horses back in the barn. And so, Chief O'Leary, if you could talk to us a little bit about reporting when an incident comes to light, how and when is it appropriate for the police department or the city or the school district to to comment and maybe also talk to us a little bit about all the different things your officers are doing on any given day.
Speaker 0: Before you answer, I want to ask, is that part of the referral? I don't really believe it is.
Speaker 5: When we're talking about an update on crime within the.
Speaker 0: City that suppose that would be part of the referral that it would happen if we agree, that is the ask, right? So that's actually ahead of where we are. So it's not appropriate at this time. And I apologize, the chief, but that's actually what I'm asking for. That would be more comprehensive and not putting you on the spot like it's happening right now.
Speaker 5: Okay, so I put you on the spot, but I'll keep the this the you can sit down, chief. But I do think it's important when we talk about for staff to provide a public update on crime within the city. I do think it's important to to understand that it's not just necessarily the minute something happens and we we blast an announcement out because an investigation is often under way.
Speaker 0: So that's not really the ask right now.
Speaker 6: I don't think I said that either.
Speaker 5: I mean, I didn't say that.
Speaker 6: I mean, so.
Speaker 0: I would prefer.
Speaker 5: I'm not. All right.
Speaker 0: So so thank you. All right. So I have a referral I did here, so I'd like to make a motion then. So actually I'd like to clarify with that, come back in the form of a workshop with the data at that time, or would we want it to come back at the council as a council meeting and then decide in the future of having a workshop? That's fair. Yes.
Speaker 4: I would support having a summary report and overview just like you laid out in the referral. Come back to the council. And it talks about trends. It talks about what's going on and it talks about where the crime is. So with that, then we can have a discussion on whether or not. The next step involves jumping right into a workshop or having a periodic reports so we can start looking at. Point A, point B, trends, what's going on and then make a decision as we see what the data show.
Speaker 0: I spend.
Speaker 1: You know, a workshop at least. We've had some workshops that have started prior to council meetings, and I think that this is one of those items. Our, our officers are doing a lot of work, but I also think we need to give a platform so that everybody understands that. It's not just that they had one meeting at Edison School that one night, that there's all of the work that's being done. If we're not telling people this is collectively all of the work that we've done, I just think that the report is going to take longer than one item. And if there's public comment, then I just worry that we're going to cram it into a meeting and then we're not actually going to get to other agenda items. So so that's my only concern and I offer some information. So the police chief has asked his staff to collect data for the last 30 years. It was mentioned at the meeting at the school that all of you went to Edison School.
Speaker 0: And that was meeting.
Speaker 1: Right, that we would be providing that information. And so the police chief and Arpaio drafted an article that they are planning to give to the public through all of our media outlets, like we do all of the information that we try and get out to the public. And it shows over the 30 year time period a drop in crime.
Speaker 0: That this chamoy area as well as perch crime.
Speaker 1: Not currently, but we can bring that data back and give it to the council or.
Speaker 0: I'm looking for more specific data.
Speaker 1: That's right. Right, right. Because I I'm just sort of I want the council to be aware that staff is hearing you not just as this referral, but what was stated and what you have told neighbors that we will provide as much information as we have as we get it. And we want staff wants to be able to give that information out to the public. And if we wait to schedule a work shop before we get that information out, it's not in the best interest.
Speaker 0: So that what they ask, if they're writing an article, obviously you can release your article any time you want data and hopefully share it with council. I mean, that's part of what's happening here is we want to be included. But this is the vice mayor and then the.
Speaker 5: RASCOFF So.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 1: So part of it is also that we're also asking for what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity. And again, I just think I commend staff for the work that's being done. I really do. I think that there's been a tremendous effort. I want staff to get credit for the work that's being done because there's a lot of one on one conversations happening. Our officers are responding and even when they're they've been busy with other calls, they're they're going the extra mile and meeting people to take the reports in. I do think we're in a different time. And I also worry about our officers safety when we're seeing these reports real time, when people are listening in on the radio broadcasts. So I also feel like this is an opportunity for us to have a conversation with some of the folks in the public who have a different perception of what's going on, and for us to be very united in terms of what's happening so that it's not just our officers, it's the officers, it's the council, it's the city. And we're really trying to look at I think the trends are going to be very helpful for people to see. That'll change some of the perspective, but I think it will also be good to have that in conjunction to have us collectively have that conversation. The only reason I think a workshop might be helpful is our agendas tend to be so packed that it would it might facilitate a better conversation with the community and kind of support what the work that's already being done. So that's kind of where I'm coming from on it.
Speaker 5: Mary Ashcroft And actually, I was going to come down on the side of the vice mayor. I think if we could have a workshop, um, timing is always tricky because I actually not that I like giving up my Saturday mornings, but I did think that we were fresh and we were. But because Friday night really wasn't optimal. And but if we could, because one of the things and I talked to the chief about these things that I think. There's a lot of different perspectives and they're all correct. Statistically, there is a trend. If you look over the last three years, the line is going down. However, if you had your garage broken into or entered in the bicycle stolen or packages taken off your your porch, that's cold comfort. And so that's why we want to make sure that our residents know, to report to the police, not on Facebook and and to and the police will, you know, they take that information very seriously. And also, these preventive matters now, maybe the 30 years of statistics won't be compiled by then. That's a lot. But I think it might just be a you know, it's structured correctly. It might be an opportunity to hear from neighbors and also to hear from the source rather than the change on social media. That, again, is that double edged sword. It's quick. It gets out there. It's not always accurate and it's really difficult to correct the record. So. But then it's up to staff, of course. When could we I mean, this is we're like looking into the next year, obviously, because.
Speaker 1: Yes. And it is an impact on our police chief to come out on a Saturday. It's an impact on, you know, staff that's really working hard to try and do actually keep the crime down. And I think what the vice mayor suggested might be a good compromise of doing a workshop at 6:00 or 530 or.
Speaker 5: I'm I'm not etched in stone as far as the time in the day, just but a stand alone workshop, I think, you know, is.
Speaker 1: So it isn't as an agenda.
Speaker 5: And I would also I think we're all respectful of staff time. So we would I'm assuming we would look to the city manager to go back and, you know, with her department, the relevant department heads, most likely the chief, you know, figure out when it works. We don't want it to be an imposition. And so so I didn't mean that, you know, I'm just saying, if we could figure out there's never one perfect time, I get that.
Speaker 1: So but if we're already meeting at a council meeting, at least it's easier to schedule the council for that. So it.
Speaker 0: Helps member.
Speaker 6: I mean, just quickly, I would agree with what, you know, the vice mayor said, you know, I'm not quite convinced that we are have a crime problem as much as that we are not communicating to the public, you know, the successes of our police department and the good jobs that they're doing. And I think that goes for, you know, a lot of things that staff does. I mean, we talked about the three leases and, you know, the money earlier, you know, that was basically genocide, not in the rest of our staff. So, you know, if we do some analysis there, you know, let's just make sure we kind of look at more than just, you know, is crime up or is crime down? You know, you know, whether what's up in the front side or, you know, wherever, but, you know, figure out ways that, you know, we can better we can better give. Has the vice mayor said give the staff the credit for doing the job that they're doing? And, you know, I'm perfectly fine with having a Saturday meeting. I think I think better at three in the afternoon than three in the morning. And, you know, I'm worried about two hour, three hour workshops, you know, making council meetings go later. But, you know, it's an imposition on us to to give up our weekends, you know. But that's what we signed up for. So, I mean, however it works out, it works out. But, you know, I'm fine with a weekend workshop to.
Speaker 0: All right, so they're in motion.
Speaker 1: I'll make a motion. So I'd like to move that that we direct staff to compile a report. That would include a public update on crime within the city. That includes trends as well as what the city is doing and what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity and to hold or conduct a workshop to give the report.
Speaker 0: I'd like to second that question. Yes. Member matter.
Speaker 4: I would. But those come simultaneously. I think it's a public report on what's listed on the trends and what you can do. I think police have already are already starting to work on that. I do not want to have that held up and held from the public and waiting for us to schedule a workshop sometime next year . I think that train can roll by itself and then we get a chance to look at. I prefer that it comes out as soon as it's ready to come out and then we get a chance to look at it, to interact with the community and then have a workshop if we're going to have a workshop. And so I want to make sure that distinction is clear.
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying that we don't I think that part of the conversation has been that the report can be released whenever it's completed, but that the purpose would be to actually host the workshop so that we can discuss the contents of the report in a meaningful way.
Speaker 4: I just want to make sure the point is that that report comes out before the workshop.
Speaker 0: Well, I think the report can come out whenever it's ready. Right. I mean, I don't think there's any ask to reject to withhold the information. The reason I submitted the referral is, honestly, I want the information and I would like it as soon as possible.
Speaker 1: So I can amend my motion to just state that whenever the report is completed that it be released.
Speaker 0: However, I would also like to have the workshops set as soon as possible after the information is released so that we can have that conversation.
Speaker 5: Well, and again, I think we leave that to the.
Speaker 1: I think I think the direction is is that and I think we've made it very clear in the conversation that we scheduled the workshop to occur.
Speaker 0: The staff have an estimate of.
Speaker 1: Time whenever, whenever feasible. I mean, that part of it is also just going to be a schedule, a scheduling issue. And we don't want to schedule the workshop during the holidays when we're not going to be able to actually interact with members of the public. What I'm hearing is that the report is probably going to be released sometime relatively soon. So through the 30 year timeline of criminal activity by. Part one and part two.
Speaker 0: By sector.
Speaker 1: Five, 30 year timeline by part one and part two citywide from the FBI. Information over a 30 year time period is what we will first give to the public. And as we're doing a more refined data and we can also submit that before workshop. And what I'm hearing too is that we will try and schedule the workshop as soon as possible, but after the holidays.
Speaker 5: And just for clarification, which is kind of what I'm probably being dense here, but what is the part, one part to you?
Speaker 1: It's major crimes and, you know, rapes and robberies and or even worse.
Speaker 5: Oh, is it scheduled at least?
Speaker 1: Jeff is a better person to me.
Speaker 5: Maybe have him speak now. See, that's not too much on the spot. Right?
Speaker 4: So two things. Part one, crimes are basically the more serious offenses murder, rape, robbery, auto burglary, burglary, grand theft, arson. Things of that nature are two. Crimes are everything else. That's that's how and the reason why it's broken up that way is that's what the how every law enforcement agency reports their crime every month to the FBI . It's based on something called UCR reporting requirements, uniform crime reporting. So the federal government doesn't care what the individual states thresholds are for, say, grand theft and petty theft. They've got their own categories and they want us to report to them every month based on those categories. So part one is more serious. Part two is everything else.
Speaker 0: So my understanding is the city has sectors. That's how we break up the city.
Speaker 4: We do. And I have I have crime statistics that are available by those sectors. The article that Sarah Henry and I worked on, that's going to be coming out later this week. I did not break it down by the sectors. I just did an overall for the entire island, 30 year kind of a look back. And then I spoke specifically about some of the trends that we're seeing this year. I can absolutely do the sector reports. No problem. But one thing that I would want the council to know upfront is that when I was hired 26 years ago, almost, we only had four reporting districts. We now have five. So it's not going to be it's going to be a little bit skewed. And five is the base. It's Alameda Point. In 1992 when I was hired, we didn't patrol that area. We now do. And so that's our fifth sector.
Speaker 0: Sectors one through four haven't changed or.
Speaker 4: Have not.
Speaker 0: Changed, or the data would still be relevant in regards to any change in crime in each sector. One through.
Speaker 1: Four.
Speaker 0: Yes, the addition of five.
Speaker 4: Rests with with the caveat that sector one has just grown exponentially in the last couple of years with Alameda Landing. So again, you're going to be talking about sector one four that looked one way for 23 years and then for the last couple of years looks entirely different.
Speaker 0: Right. And feel free to in your report to make footnotes in regards to that. So the public is aware so that it's more meaningful to the public and to us? Absolutely. That'll be very helpful. Yeah. All right.
Speaker 4: So now can I make one more suggestion? The report can be prepared because I already have the data. It's just compiling it and doing a narrative with footnotes and all that. My suggestion would be that here we are near the middle of November. If I could come to you in early January, I would have the complete 2017 year. The data from the month of December is usually available in the first week or two of January, and so I could come to you with a complete year that way as opposed to 11 months.
Speaker 0: Okay, so that sounds great. So then we can try to set something in early January. That'd be wonderful. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Our second meeting of.
Speaker 0: That meeting in January, probably. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Welcome. So we have a motion now ready to say something like Vote the motion. And I seconded all those in favor. My motion carries unanimous. Thank you. And now we are on six B was moved. That's going to be coming back to December 5th, six C.
Speaker 3: Public hearing to consider amendments to the Community Development BLOCK Grant Action Plans for fiscal year 2010 through 11 through 20 1617. Authorizing the City Manager to execute related documents and adoption of resolution amending fiscal year 20 1718 budget.
Speaker 2: Hi. Hi. I'm Lisa.
Speaker 5: You probably want to pull your mike down just a little. Yeah. Perkins.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor. Members of the city council and staff. I am Lisa Fitts with the Alameda Housing Authority. I'm the manager for the CDBG home and BMR programs and I've been with the city since June. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Update on Crime within the City. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on November 7, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11072017_2017-4856 | Speaker 4: To add section 30, dash 18 universal residential.
Speaker 0: Design. And we have two speakers on this.
Speaker 1: All right. So I'll go ahead and call the speakers for this one. Okay. Mr. Berlinger. And then Ms.. Kenny, those are our two speakers. And you each get up to 3 minutes and you don't feel like you.
Speaker 0: Have to use all. Yeah. Mumble.
Speaker 1: But just because we give you 3 minutes doesn't mean you have to use it all.
Speaker 6: I just want to thank you all for putting together an excellent staff that has worked hard on this proposal, the Universal Design Ordinance for the past five years. Andrew Thomas and the Community Development Department have put in a lot of great work, as well as the Planning Board and my fellow commissioners on the Commission for Disability. I do want to recognize three commissioners or two former commissioners and one present commissioner Kelly Harp, Susan Deutsch and Audre Lorde. Housman wrote this original draft of this ordinance five years ago and have kept after us all to get this thing done. And without those three women, I don't believe we'd be here today. So I want to thank them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Berlinger, did you want to add something to this? And just so everyone knows, this is the final passage of the ordinance amending our meaning municipal code to add Section 30 Dash 18 Universal Residential Design.
Speaker 8: I just I just want to say that this is something that is not for just the present. This is something or. Or for posterity, for our grandchildren, for their children and their grandchildren. Also, because when we talk about universal design or it's not only for people who have disabilities, it's also for people in their normal walks of life. And I just want to leave you with one thing, is that I. I do not despair about. Disability. And I can't even worry about abilities. What keeps me going is the possibility, the possibilities that are here in an Alameda.
Speaker 0: Or.
Speaker 8: In this case room for everyone being able to live in the housing that we're building. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion so moved. All those in favor of my motion carries unanimously. That is the adoption of the final passage of the addition of the universal residential design to our code OC Regular Agenda Item six A Public.
Speaker 0: Hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code to Add Section 30-18 Universal Residential Design. (Community Development 209) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_10032017_2017-4679 | Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution amending the Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association salary schedule, establishing the classification of Senior Transportation Coordinator, allocating to Senior Transportation Coordinator positions and eliminating one Transportation Coordinator position effective October 3rd, 2017, and also one part time staff for a total increase of point five OC.
Speaker 0: And the Vice Mayor had requested this before. Did you want to?
Speaker 2: We could get some clarification for staff. I know that we've looked at a number of the different positions and we were approving our budget and this is an amendment to what we're doing. Or what we had planned to do.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers Nancy Brownstein, H.R. director. We actually were still in the process of reviewing this. And so we thought we were going to be making a recommendation, but we just hadn't finalized it. So the reason we're not asking for any funding here is we actually budgeted money knowing we were going to be doing something different with these positions. We just hadn't finalized what that was going to be. So that's why we're bringing the amendment today.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And we do have a public speaker on the side and worth adding. I f this item, right? Yes.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Ruth Abby with Community Action for Sustainable alameda and we wrote to express our support for this agenda item. We think it's very important to have the fully funded positions because transportation is our number one greenhouse gas emission source. And we think that you have a large number of transportation projects that are in the docket and will be coming before you. And we would really think we need that extra staffing to make sure that we can fulfill our commitment to climate sustainability.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have a motion.
Speaker 7: So move.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Five k. I had asked that this be pulled. This is actually in regards to the straws trying to eliminate plastic straws, single use plastic items such as straws and compostable food service requirements. And this I had brought the referral that was heard after I left the last council meeting early to support our sister cities. And I know it was passed, but I want to put actually to thank council in my absence moving forward on this. I appreciate you joining me in this important effort. You don't really have to add anything unless you want to know you have a speaker. Oh, okay. And we do have a speaker with Abby.
Speaker 4: But but Mayor Spencer, you did miss that. I believe Mr. Garland at the meeting brought a big glass canister full of straws that were collected on the beach. Clean up day as an exhibit, as a show until. So that's what's missing.
Speaker 0: And I had received a piece of art from Pat Lamborn, also from her husband, picking up straws. And, you know, there's someone that makes art from what they pick up.
Speaker 5: Ruth Good evening, Ruth. Abby from Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. We really support the passage of this agenda item. We wrote to you about the importance of Alameda leadership on this issue. Because we are an island and we are very impacted by litter in the marine environment and we can do something very concrete, you know, working with our very supportive business community to make Alameda a real sustainable place. We kicked off this week the reuse of, we think, disposable campaign. The mayor and I have both been trained to be rethink disposable ambassadors. And we will be volunteering our time to work with our restaurant community to help them transition from disposable packaging to reusable. And then if they are using take out packaging, that should be also compostable or reusable. And so we really think this is a part of that. We very much appreciate the council's support of this issue, and we really think that Alameda will be a leader in sustainability. And this is a good step on the road. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I also want to thank Ruth, Abby as well as CASA for their efforts on this, as well as, you know, every green effort in this community for years. And then we had received letters of support, I believe, from Edison School students. So we also appreciate students voices weighing in on these important issues. And.
Speaker 6: Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I'm glad you called. You pulled this because I was going to pull it anyway so I could give you thanks for bringing the referral forward and making sure that we we got this done and we expanded it to our campus tables. In just a quick note, I think it's Thursday at 630 that there will be a CASA workshop regarding the next steps for updating the city's local action plan for climate protection. And I think that was a referral by Councilmember Matariki that pushed that and make sure that we prioritized that. So I'm glad that that process is moving forward and just thank you for doing that. I'm glad you have an opportunity to speak on the item.
Speaker 0: And then I also want to thank staff because I know it's a heavy lift and it was, you know, us kind of pushing and pushing it faster and making it bigger. So thank you also for stepping up and joining us. But this is really, really important. So it's one of those good things that we're doing as a community. That being said, do you like the motion? Do you want to move?
Speaker 4: Chair I move. Final passage of the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section four dash for disposable food service where to prohibit certain single use plastics such as straws and clarifying compostable for foodservice wear requirements.
Speaker 0: And I'll second that all those in favor. Right? My motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Six Regular Agenda Item six A.
Speaker 1: Presentation of certificates of appreciation to the Mayor's 4th of July Parade Committee, followed by presentation of a check to the USS Hornet.
Speaker 0: Do we have Barbara Price here to help us out on the side of.
Speaker 1: The Tell US Year.
Speaker 0: So Miss Price is the chair of this committee. He's been doing it forever. So actually, before you speak, I want to give a round of applause to her.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I was going to tell you that tonight is my last night on the program.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, let's take that now because.
Speaker 5: You know, one of the problems is.
Speaker 0: What you're saying. That was a joke, right?
Speaker 3: Yeah. It's kind of one of those things that it gets into your blood. I think you end up staying forever. But we do have some of our committee members here and our executive board. We are a501c3 foundation now. And we're very proud that we've added the Coast Guard festival this year to the 4th of July festivities. We had over 4000 in attendance this year, which was amazing for a.
Speaker 5: First year event.
Speaker 3: And thank you so much to the city and the staff and you guys for supporting that because we couldn't have done it without you. And it was a major push. So we're looking forward to next year. The Coast Guard is already committed to this being a multi-year event, and we're looking forward to being.
Speaker 1: Bigger and better next year, kind of being.
Speaker 5: Our own little Fleet Week. So let me call up.
Speaker 3: Our group that is here. I thought I saw there is. Okay. So we have I am actually a chair of the foundation. Our vice chair is Jim Franz, and I think you might know him. He's been seen around here on occasion. Oh, thank you. That's nice. Great. Thank you. And we also have Mark Sorenson, who is our treasurer in charge of all things, money. Blake Brighton. We referred to him as Judge Blake because he is the guy you can bribe if you would like to get a trophy. And Betty Dittmar, we could not do this parade without. She is in charge, of all things, horse cleanup oriented.
Speaker 5: And managing the ending of the parade.
Speaker 3: We have Troy Hosmer, who you.
Speaker 5: Almost think because he's the one that got you your vehicles to write in.
Speaker 3: And made sure that the VIP area actually worked. And got you on your cars on time. That was great. And then we have Carrie Thompson, who is our bridge between us and the race. And she does all things.
Speaker 5: That regard to that and keep.
Speaker 3: That going. Mm. The rest of our group. We have several other people that weren't able to be here tonight. But our committee all together is about.
Speaker 1: 20 people who put in their time starting in January. Our first meeting.
Speaker 3: Will be in January this year. So thank you.
Speaker 5: Again for.
Speaker 3: Recognizing us. Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 3: So there we go.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, our representative from the Hornet was not able to be here.
Speaker 3: They got waylaid. They have power, but they just couldn't get here. And in recognition of them being our partner this year, this is the first year we actually partnered with the Hornet and specifically not only with the parade, but with the.
Speaker 1: Event at the.
Speaker 3: Base for our Coast Guard festival. And the run. And the run. Yes. And the run. The Hornet was fantastic. So we now have a partner with them. So in order to kind of help them through and appreciate from what they went through the day of when there was a little mishap, we actually are donating $1,000 from our fundraising to them to help cover some of the expenses.
Speaker 5: So thank you for that. Support you. That was. We? If you're.
Speaker 1: Net 60 a proclamation declaring October 1st through seventh as public we. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Senior Transportation Coordinator, Allocating Two Senior Transportation Coordinator Positions, and Eliminating One Transportation Coordinator Position Effective October 3, 2017 and One Part-time Staff for a Total Increase in Staffing of 0.5 Positions. (Human Resources 2510) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_10032017_2017-4749 | Speaker 2: Other relevant groups. Regarding recently implemented Hervey Bay Ferry Terminal three.
Speaker 6: Think I put this as important, but not urgent. So if we're still talking about it in 5 minutes, I'm happy to continue the conversation to the next meeting. But we all know that we we just implemented the new parking procedures at the ferry, and there's been some complaints from some ferry riders. So my thought was that, you know, either in December or later, if we don't have any meaningful data until, you know, January or February that we have some type of public workshop, you know, that includes multiple agencies because there are some complaints about AC transit and, you know, it may be there on time. Maybe they're not. I mean, what will the data show? There are some potential questions for Bccdc about the extra spaces along the water. So it'd be good, I think, for the community, you know, when we actually have real data and meaningful data, which again maybe 3 to 5 months down the road to actually, you know, have this type of discussion and see where we are and how it's working.
Speaker 0: Can you tell me what was plan in regards to when they report back where they invite these other agencies or what was? Because when this came to us before and was just supposed to come back and give us an update.
Speaker 1: Right. So staff was asked to have an annual status report and collect data for the whole year, which I think Councilmember Odie is referring to. It is scheduled right now. There's actually preliminary data that will be discussed this Thursday at the Rita board meeting, but it won't be the full year. And so at the in a couple more months, we'll have the full year, December 15th, November 15th, that goes to the Transportation Commission and December will be coming to the council.
Speaker 0: Okay. And at that time then would we have representatives from other agencies will have.
Speaker 1: An AC transit BCCDC is a little harder to get here. But we're also sharing the request for I think it's 46 parking spots along the shoreline to that's a, B, C, DC jurisdiction and we're encouraging our residents if they want to do that again.
Speaker 0: So the idea of a workshop, I think that so that we would have sufficient time when it comes to. Is that right? Is that why you're saying a workshop.
Speaker 6: Workshop.
Speaker 0: And agenda.
Speaker 6: Workshop more to have like a dialog with these different agencies rather than have them come up to speak for 3 minutes and us not being able to engage with them.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: So that's the point of that, especially. I know that. But you've you've like that idea on other things. I mean, I like it as well.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So what if we want to do it, like right before a council meeting? Are you thinking a different day?
Speaker 6: I don't really care. Okay. Doesn't really matter when. I mean, if it doesn't happen until January or February, that's fine too. I just like December two.
Speaker 0: And looks like.
Speaker 1: It's scheduled for the first meeting of December.
Speaker 0: So when it comes back December, would you prefer that that be like a workshop prior to the regular council meeting to allow such a thing? Or we could actually probably recess our meeting, do a workshop.
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm open to whatever, you know.
Speaker 0: So allow me to.
Speaker 6: Know. I mean, a lot of people take the ferry, may not be able to make a 6:00 meeting.
Speaker 0: So let me ask real quick. So could we recess our regular meeting during that time, then do a workshop at the like 8:00, 7:00 or whatever on that issue to allow the back and forth dialog that have it here so that people aren't limited to the 3 minutes. And then go back to our regular meeting. Is that would that accommodate that concern? Is that a possibility?
Speaker 4: Would you take another another suggestion along those lines? I think.
Speaker 1: My.
Speaker 2: Concern would.
Speaker 3: Be if you're having.
Speaker 1: Other agencies involved, it would be kind of weird to juggle.
Speaker 5: Them in and out. That would be like just kind of, you know.
Speaker 1: Technical concern about like making that happen and whatever. And if they'd be waiting and, you know, so.
Speaker 0: We would have a specific time for the workshop. But could it be during a regular meeting where we go to that format or can we?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you.
Speaker 3: Could do it. There's nothing to prevent.
Speaker 1: You from doing it. But I would just just.
Speaker 3: It's.
Speaker 5: Legally possible. But when I think the city clerk is saying.
Speaker 3: Is it's really going to be.
Speaker 5: Messy.
Speaker 3: For your meeting.
Speaker 8: Yeah, because I don't think it I don't think it serves the the purpose if we're going to try and have a dialog here, that's I think that's untenable during a council meeting. I think the the notion of having a workshop is probably a Saturday thing. And we do have a Transportation Commission agenda item, which I fully expect a recommendation from them on this very issue because it's listed right here as an agenda, a future agenda item. And we could use that to set up a. Pending on the outcome of that set up a real workshop. There would be a dialog where we could actually sit down and talk to people on this issue as well as with other interagency issues. On the other. I wouldn't want to waste this just on on a very narrow scope of one section of the system. The suggestion if we're going to spend a Saturday morning someplace, I want to talk about the rest of the week to D.C., D.C.. City of alameda relationship because there are two other sites. There's Main Street and there's potential new ferry and all these water taxis that everybody's talking about on all these North Shore developments. So that's my opinion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Member Ashcraft, thank you.
Speaker 4: And one question I had was, I guess for the city manager, just someone from city staff attend the Ouija board meetings. Yes. Okay, good. And then my idea I agree with the council referral that Councilmember Odie brought. I mean, right now we're hearing a lot from these Bay Farm ferry riders because they're impacted. But trust me, the main street. Well, parking is better because we have the DeWitt parking lot. There's still that, you know, bicycle getting there on bike. It's kind of treacherous as you get closer in. But if we were trying to be responsive to our constituents who are already saying, you're making it really hard for me to commute by ferry, by throwing up all these roadblocks. How about if we go to them sometimes? So it's not as broad as all the ferry systems, but there's the Harbor Bay Community Center. If we were doing a separate workshop and given that these are Harbor Bay Ferry riders, we could arrange to hold a meeting there and not make people, you know, figure out child care for the evening, somehow throw dinner on the table or takeout or something. But I think it's important and I'll respect whatever priority rating you gave it. But we are an island community. We know that we need to be adding more housing to do our part in the regional challenges for housing. And we tout our ability to have water transit. So we need to walk the walk and talk the talk at the same time and make sure that we're making it as feasible, as positive as possible for people to use these alternate means of transportation. So I just would like us to consider, if we did a special workshop, maybe not requiring everybody to come here and we could use the community center, I would think.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 2: And if we do that, I would hope that we also think about using doing one on the West Side, either at APEC or Missions Theater or the old club, something like that, where we could have folks come out there again to meet us if we do have a joint meeting. All I was going to suggest is that we actually agenda. At what point in the meeting we're planning on talking about which terminal so that people know when to come. So if we do have one joint meeting, I think letting them know in the morning, you know, we're going to start off talking about Harper Bay and you know, and then the next agenda item after that will be Main Street or however we want to do it. But I think if we can agenda is that by sight that way people know.
Speaker 0: So if we're having two different venues, then we'd have two different agendas. Right.
Speaker 4: And is it.
Speaker 0: Mayor, I'm sorry. Let me let me ask a question because staff was already going to come back. They're going to the Transportation Board November 15th, and they were going to come to us December the first meeting in December. So with a workshop, the after they come to us or sometime between when it goes to transportation, which is obviously around Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: I think just from a scheduling point of view, if you're looking for a Saturday during the holidays is not a good time. So it would probably be mid after mid-January.
Speaker 0: So would we want to come to us in December without for that? The workshop come before it comes to us. Which cases.
Speaker 4: Are we going to defer to staff, figure out when they can fit it.
Speaker 1: Well. And the other logistical issue is trying to get the other agency staff and elected to come out on the other.
Speaker 6: Can I just give them direction to.
Speaker 1: We will. Why don't we look into it? Talk to the other agencies and. And we can keep it on here if you want to. Or we can. I can tell you. We could see what data are available.
Speaker 4: Maybe another put there. Yeah. CRAFT Thank you. Is that. Is there a way that we could or maybe we could all ferry riders either you know, paper ballot when they come the here to see if there were a special community workshop about her obituary issues. Would you prefer a Saturday meeting? Would you prefer a weeknight meeting? Because again, we I don't know. It's been a while since I've had kids in soccer games. And I just remember Saturday being kind of a logistical nightmare. So maybe sometimes, you know, after school, I mean, after people get home from commute, that's the best time. But shouldn't we at least be respectful enough to reach out and ask?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a very good.
Speaker 4: Way to then I there might be some other questions that could be asked at the same time.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have. So that's. So did you want to make a motion for a direction or.
Speaker 6: Sure. I just like to give directions to move the approval. But, you know, to expand it like a council member matter, as he said, to include more than just the Harbor Bay Ferry.
Speaker 8: Oh, second. That with the recognition that it was important, but not urgent.
Speaker 6: That's what I said. Important, but not okay.
Speaker 1: And the surveying of to find out when the best time is.
Speaker 6: Yeah. If that can be done. Yeah.
Speaker 8: I think that's appropriate. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. All those in favor. I know she cares. Unanimously. Thank you. Council Communications, Planning Board. I'm going to do that part now to comment before 11, I will be nominating Penny Cozadd, CEO Z a D and then I'm going to go to other council members in regards to Council Communications. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Workshop Involving the City Council, Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), AC Transit and Others Relevant Groups regarding Recently Implemented Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal Parking Solutions. (Councilmember Oddie) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09192017_2017-4610 | Speaker 4: So that brings us to the counsel referrals item nine, a consider directing staff to explore offering free public Wi-Fi throughout the city, and that was brought by Mayor Spencer. Is there anyone who wants to lead the conversation?
Speaker 5: I mean I'll speak to it because I.
Speaker 0: Council member.
Speaker 5: Odie. Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor, because I. Told the mayor that if she was not here at the time it came up, that I would be happy to advocate for it. I mean, I suppose if it only gets two votes, then maybe we can, you know, deferred until she gets back. But no. I remember when Suleiman Roberto was running for council. He said, You know, I will. Listen to any idea. And just because I don't think of the idea, if it's a good idea, then I'd like to advocate for it. So this is one of those. I mean, I think it's a good idea that the mayor came up with to consider exploring a free public Wi-Fi. I think it's pretty explanatory. I mean, other cities are doing this and we're trying to do I think we're doing a little test side of it over at Alameda point for like vendors so they can, you know, actually sell things there. So I think I think it's an idea worth exploring.
Speaker 1: And staff has been working on this and we're coming to council in October. Um, it's the I.T. strategic plan. It's part of that whole process of let's look at all our IT needs citywide.
Speaker 2: Madam Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: Council member Mutter. I see.
Speaker 2: I think for the reasons that Councilmember Brody mentioned, I, I would support giving this direction as long as it is understood that it is not urgent. It is important, but not urgent. So. But if everyone's agreed to that rating, I have no problem with it.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Ashcroft.
Speaker 4: Do you have any.
Speaker 0: Comments?
Speaker 3: So what I'm trying to do is pull up the. Uh. Yeah, I, um. It sounds like staff is working on it, and as long as we are not saying push something else out of the queue because I think, um, you know, I, I would let staff decide when they're able to logically bring it back to us because I think we have thrown a number of more substantive issues. That's I mean, we'd like to say yes to everything, but we can't do it all at the same time. So with those caveats, I would be supportive.
Speaker 4: Understood. And, you know, my concern is there's a lot of infrastructure needs that we have. In particular, we just saw a drinking water issue at Alameda Point. I do hope that our priorities relative to infrastructure are focused on that as being both urgent and important, as opposed to providing free wi fi, which is an added plus, but to me not a necessity. My concern with this is that I don't think that it's urgent or important if staff is already working on something relative to Alameda Point, I'm happy to hear that. But in just in terms of our overall staff capacity and looking at the list of remaining referral items as well as the infrastructure issues that have come forward, you know, again, I really hope that we place a premium on access to clean drinking water for our residents and spending our resources on that before we start engaging in something like wi fi, which I've traveled to a lot of cities, we all have you know, I see a lot of businesses providing free wi fi. If our business community is interested in that, I'm happy to, you know, look into exploring ways to work with them on doing that. If, you know, if. And I've also seen it on public transportation. But in terms of just citywide Wi-Fi, I also am concerned about hacking issues, our own liability relative to being the provider of of wi fi. If something were to transpire over that, what would that mean for the city? And so, you know, and then again, the cost and staff time and resources.
Speaker 1: And another item that's on the strategic plan discussion is Sinek, which is correct. Ultra Right. And and maybe the conversation when we come back, which it will cover. A broader topic, and that might be a good time for the council to say this is our priority on this technology. Amenities, basically.
Speaker 4: Understood. So do.
Speaker 0: We.
Speaker 4: Yes. Councilmember Oscar.
Speaker 3: Timeline. I'm bringing that back.
Speaker 1: It's at the same time, actually Scenic is bringing an MRU, I think, on October. 17.
Speaker 3: Oh, my gosh.
Speaker 0: No, no, no. It's. It's a contract to work.
Speaker 1: Just feasibility, right?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To start the first part of the cynic.
Speaker 3: So I'm with the vice mayor. I think public health and safety always has to take precedence and our very pressing infrastructure needs. I do believe you can get free Wi-Fi at the Army, get free library and it's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right. And none of it's free. So I think there's.
Speaker 4: A cost.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but we're not.
Speaker 2: So much paying for. Yeah. We all, we're all paying for it. So I think that's right. It's available. Available without charge charged.
Speaker 1: Do we want to make it not important, not urgent and bring it back?
Speaker 3: It's come back when you're bringing it forward with other items.
Speaker 4: I'm amenable to that. And it sounds like Councilmember Monterrosa is also amenable.
Speaker 5: I'm good with.
Speaker 4: That. Okay. Do I have a motion?
Speaker 2: I move that we give counsel direction. I mean, give staff direction. Sorry. That's consistent with the points in the council referral. Considering no charge wi fi. And that we prioritize the ranking as not urgent, not important.
Speaker 5: I can second that.
Speaker 4: All those in favor.
Speaker 0: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 4: I think motion passes or do zero item nine be and we do have four speakers. We have two speakers with two other individuals ceding time to one of the speakers and this is a referral to consider the adoption and resolution condemning the increased incidence of bias, prejudice, discrimination, violence and antisemitism, and to direct staff to provide a | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Explore Offering Free Public WiFi Throughout the City. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on September 5, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09052017_2017-4638 | Speaker 1: Thank you. However, it's standing that we can give direction on and we are will be asked. And that was in the staff report on different parts. We will be giving directions out that evening.
Speaker 0: Right throughout the workshop.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. So further verification. I do that. And this isn't even a first reading of an ordinance, correct.
Speaker 2: Now? Correct. Thank you.
Speaker 5: I'm actually thank you for the introduction, Jill. And I'm going to in my opening comments, I'm probably going to repeat some of the information that's already been said, but it probably bears worth repeating at this point. So good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And in response to two city council approved referrals regarding direction to staff to analyze upcoming regulations, updating our regulations and potential taxation of commercial cannabis activities. Staff has put together a City Council workshop on draft on a draft cannabis ordinance containing a proposed regulatory framework for cannabis activities in Alameda for council discussion and direction. No action is being requested this evening. Staff has prepared a series of questions related to permitting and regulating cannabis businesses in Alameda as part of the state's upcoming legalization of recreational or adult use of cannabis. On January 2nd, 2018, for which we are seeking council direction. And just to repeat what Jill said as part of her introduction, while I'm kicking off the staff presentation and will also conclude the presentation, there are a number of staff here this evening that have been working on this issue and are prepared to answer council questions. The staff team includes Paul, Hillary, the Police Chief, John Lay and Assistant City Attorney Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director, and Lois Butler, economic development manager. In addition, staff retained a consultant SDI Consulting Group to assist us in our work on this issue. And Neil Hall from MCI is also here this evening. Because this is a work session and there is a lot of interest in the community about the cannabis industry. We wanted to begin with a high level overview of the evolving cannabis landscape. NCI has a PowerPoint presentation that it calls cannabis one on one, and we thought it would provide background and insight and help inform the discussion. So we're going to start with that presentation. After that, I will present the policy questions for which staff is seeking feedback. It is then recommended that the City Council take public comment followed by its discussion, and we are requesting that questions arising from the PowerPoint be held until the conclusion of Neill's presentation. And then with that, I would like to introduce Neil Hall from Sky. Neil.
Speaker 1: Before you get there, how much time are you estimating for the presentation?
Speaker 5: 20 minutes for the PowerPoint presentation. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor. Council members, staff and the general public. My name is Neil Hall. I'm with a company called SDI Consulting Group. MCI is primarily a public finance agency. About three years ago, clients started asking about the potential for cannabis, and they hired me at that time to do a little more research and look into what cities and counties were going to be facing with cannabis and what the opportunities might be for cities and counties. This is a very basic presentation. I know this may be repetitive. A lot of you may be familiar with some of this, but wherever I go, I find that there's generally about 50% of the people that aren't familiar with some of what I'm going to present this evening. So hopefully this will provide that background. Back in 1937, up until 1937, cannabis was legal between 1920 and 1933. We had prohibition here in the United States. When prohibition ended in 1933. Harry Anslinger, who is the assistant commissioner of alcohol prohibition, was made the commissioner for the Bureau of Narcotics Prohibition. And at that time, Harry was looking around at what he could do. He noticed that there were a lot at that in 1910 was the Mexican Revolution, and there was a backlash against that migration of Mexican immigrants fleeing from the revolution that was happening down there. And they brought with them marijuana. And Harry looked at that and decided that this was something that might be an opportunity for him to kind of grow his organization and enacted the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Marijuana spelled with an H up there. That is the spelling that was used back in 1937 and and not a misspelling. I get that question a lot after this. And that was followed by the federal government in 1951, in 1956, enhancing the penalties for violating the Marijuana Stamp Tax Act of 1937. In 1969, Timothy Leary came across the border in Texas. They found some roaches and some seeds in his automobile. He was promptly arrested for violation of the Stamp Tax Act. He pleaded the Fifth Amendment that required him to self incriminate himself by paying that tax. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him and the charges were dropped. However, immediately afterwards, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and marijuana was put into a Schedule one classification. And that's kind of where we are today with marijuana as a CSA, Schedule one class. The game changer really came in 2013 when Deputy Attorney James Cole, Deputy United States Attorney James Cole released a memo with eight criteria that if states with robust medical marijuana regulations implemented would help them avoid the federal government stepping in to take control of that. The Rohrabacher Farm Amendment then in 2014, these are two U.S. congresspeople, both from California, Sam FA and Dana Rohrabacher out of Orange County and Monterey County, enacted legislation that prevented and defunded the DOJ and the DEA for going after states with robust medical marijuana regulations. And then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed Rohrabacher far in 2016. Marijuana is medical marijuana is currently legal in 29 states. Non-medical and we call it non medicinal. Now as a result of SB 94 is currently legal in eight states and the District of Columbia of all places. District of Columbia. You can't sell it, but you can possess it and use it non medically. Non medicinally. Here in California. Marijuana has been legal medicinally since 1996 when Prop 215 was enacted. Prop 215 was the kind of the impetus was Dennis Peron, whose partner had AIDS. He went to the state legislature and asked them to allow the use of medicinal marijuana for people that had wasting types of diseases. They refused. And Proposition 215 was then enacted as an initiative of the people. As is the case with a lot of initiatives put forth by the general population. It didn't have a lot of regulations attached to it. And we had some further clarification with SB 420 and 23 finance or a budget in 2004 and then finally in 2015, the MRSA or the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act was passed. That was the joining of three bills. AB 243, AB 266 and SB 643 to regulate medicinal marijuana. Almost as soon as that happened, we had Proposition 64 on the ballot. I did attend a lot of the blue ribbon commission hearings. Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded that and SB or Proposition 64 dovetails very nicely with the MRC. In fact, I spoke with the judge that wrote the opinion about it and asked if it wasn't kind of coincidental that and he said, Yeah, you could draw that conclusion, which led me to believe that I could draw that conclusion in 2017. Then we had the code joining of medicinal and non medicinal marijuana with SB 94. It's pronounced by a lot of people as Mark. It's easier just for me to say SB 94, but know that that's what I'm talking about. And what that does is it integrates medicinal and non medicinal marijuana regulations. We are still waiting for some clarification on that. When the MSI, RSA, SB 837, which further clarified the MRSA was passed and Proposition 64 passed, there were some additional regulations released by those three state entities that had responsibilities to the Department of Public Health, the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Bureau of Cannabis Control each released further draft regulations to clarify what was in there when SB 94 was then enacted. They had to back away from that. We expect a redraft of those regulations to be released sometime in the fall. I'm hearing November, I'm hoping earlier. So SB 94 created the Bureau of Cannabis Control. It allowed vertical integration, which was not allowed in in a lot of things under the CRC. Testing is the only type of license that cannot be vertically integrated. It is also the only license that does not need to have a recreational or a or a non recreational medicinal type of license. It holds a single license but operates in both arenas. It eliminated transportation license. It allows for special permits for certain county fairs and agricultural events for the sale and onsite consumption of cannabis as well as at retail locations. Provided that the localities allow it as well, it provides a secure exemption for the ordinances that are drafted for regulating commercial cannabis until 2019. We consider these to be the big three of the cannabis industry that is retail and delivery, cultivation and manufacturing. And in fact, in Santa Rosa, we see that when they drafted their regulations, they drafted the other two testing and distribution as kind of ancillary activities associated with those those primary activities. Again, that's retail sales, manufacturing and cultivation. We're talking about ingestion methods. I'm a child of the seventies. Back in my day when somebody consumed marijuana, it was done with a joint. We could smell it. It was very strong. These days, that's not necessarily what's happening. We see vaping, which is the product, oftentimes a clear concentrate up to something over 392 degrees Fahrenheit and under the combustion range. So that what you end up with is a very almost in detectable odor from cannabis. There are probably people vaping around you all the time and you probably aren't even aware of it. If you look down below, that is a sample of a butane honey oil or a BHO that is produced by concentrating cannabis product. We also see tinctures and ingestible oils now and edibles and drinks. The whole industry is evolving very quickly and we believe will continue to do so at probably a geometric as opposed to a mathematical pace. We see topicals, which don't contain a lot of the psychoactive properties that work on a variety of different ailments. It's being used to treat arthritis and different types of muscular types of pains. This is what a retail dispensary looks like for how many people have been to a retail dispensary. Okay. In the.
Speaker 4: Room? Yeah.
Speaker 6: So we see a lot of people have been to dispensaries. Harborside is one of the better known ones. One of the bigger ones in the state, if not the United States. When you pull into the parking lot there, you're greeted by people in jackets. Very distinctive security people to make sure that you are, in fact, a patient even before you get inside. They direct you, and when you get inside, this is what it looks like. It's more of a bank type of store type of setup. Very nicely run. Very well run. I thought it was one of the better dispensaries I saw. And I've been to dispensaries not only in California, but Oregon, Washington and Canada as well. Cultivation. This is not what you see typically as a cultivation site today. Today, a lot of the cultivation sites are much more refined than this. However, this is typical of a cultivation site where you see the canopy is not quite to the flowering stage. It's just beginning. You're not seeing the colors that you would typically see, and we'll see probably in some of the other slides. But this is what happens in the cultivation site. It's grown and harvested in containers. This is a much more mature cultivation site, as you can see what they call the colas, that is the flower on top are quite big. In some of these outdoor grows, we're seeing upwards of £10 per plant now in in harvested bud. I know for a lot of people in the audience, they're shaking their heads and thinking, how could it be? But but truly, there are plants that are that size up in in the Emerald Triangle in particular. This is an indoor grow. And she is actually holding one of the sugar leaves. Those are the leaves that grow around the bud. They do contain a lot of THC. THC, they are normally harvested and used in the extraction process. In many cases, those buds will be. But those buds from an indoor grow now are worth between 1800 and up to 20 $200 a pound. This is a manufacturing facility. And as I tell people, we do, the manufacturing inspections in Congo were slated to begin up in the city of Shasta Lake. And and would like we'll be viewing those. They're not nearly this size. My guess is that there's a lot of this facility that's being utilized either for cultivation or for other activities. Most of the manufacturing processes could take place in a room that is extends no farther than for me to the wall in front of me. As you'll see from the equipment, it does not take up a lot of space. This is the equipment that's used in a lot of the extraction processes and there are various parts of the extraction process. It is not from beginning to end necessarily. The one that we're looking at in Kalinga, they're taking an extracted material that they call crude. It's kind of a dark, black, green substance, and they're refining it, spinning off the turbines and the THC into separate components and then putting them back together to produce a product that the that the retail outlets want to sell. But this is what it looks like. And those pieces of equipment are very highly regulated. They have to be engineered, certified, maintained. We have a material safety data sheet that we look at every time we go into those facilities. This is another look at a cannabis plant. Again, the sugar leaves on the top. A lot of the work that's done at harvest is trimming off those leaves so that you're left with that bud. We've developed what we call a 5 to 6 matrix, and all it means is that it's easy for everybody to remember. There are five categories of license types that I went through earlier. We have two client types, medical and non-medical or medicinal, non medicinal. And there are six key elements of cannabis implementation that we'll look at in just a moment. So these are the five categories with a responsible agency. So the Bureau of Cannabis Control now is responsible for retail microbreweries or micro businesses as well. Manufacturing is under the Department of Public Health Cultivation, under the Department of Food and Agricultural and then distribution and testing or back under the Bureau of Cannabis Control. These are a further definition of the state license types. And for those of you who aren't familiar with the license types, there are currently 12. We're missing a type nine license type. Five is not clearly defined yet. In 2023, type five licenses are envisioned to be large cultivation over an acre, outdoor and over 22,000 square feet of canopy indoors. Type nine license type is missing. We believe that will be the the nonprofit license type if, in fact, the state is going to approve those types of licenses. But as you look through the numbers, you'll notice that type nine is still missing. These are more about the cultivation sizes. A type four is a nursery license. So they're only harvesting or they're only cultivating immature plants and clones to be used later on for for cultivators that are actually going to harvest the final plant product. Type six and seven are your manufacturing licenses and we I see the type and and are still up there those were further defined when those draft regulations came out. They are not there now. We expect that they will be released. But for now you have a six and a seven type license. It is a testing laboratory, ten is a retailer, 11 is your distributor, and 12 now is the micro-business. Two client types that I talked about, medicinal and then non-medical. So we don't know of anybody who is strictly non medicinal at this point in time. These are the six key elements of cannabis implementation. The first is community research and outreach. And I know that Alameda has done a lot of this. There were a lot of municipalities that had not done that. This is a critical component and one that's often overlooked. So, you know, as a consultant, I applaud you for taking that step. Health and safety and land use regulations are the next step. You draft an ordinance to regulate. There are two components to that. One is the land use component and one is the health and safety component. You have your application process, which we didn't realize would be kind of a a step into itself. And we are working with several counties and cities now doing nothing but helping them with the application process because it is fairly rigorous, the regulatory fees that follow that are for full cost recovery. We do believe that the if tax revenue, a tax measure must be balloted, but that a tax measure, it should benefit the community as a whole. So the cost of regulating the industry needs to come from the industry itself. Those fees need to be paid for so that you preserve that tax revenue for the general population. The next step is a ballot and tax measure. All tax measures, as we know, are balloted. We'll get into just a little more detail about that with getting to without getting too far into it. And then finally monitoring compliance. We're doing a lot of the monitoring compliance right now. The state has said they'll do it. They probably will at some point in time. But we expect they're going to be inundated with applications. There is no opportunity for them to do the monitoring, compliance with their current structure. And so we're doing a lot of it ourselves. Community research and outreach we just talked about. I will kind of skip over that. But when we do this, we typically involve a lot of the stakeholders. So we involve the Chamber of Commerce, we involve people from the church and from the educational community, as well as industry participants , a lot of law enforcement. We want everybody to have a seat at that table and to tell us what they want and they don't want, because that's how you find out what the preference of a community really is. And that is our goal. And we work with a lot of communities and I will say this to you now that there is not one single community out of the over 20 that we've worked with that have identical needs and preferences. They are all different and it's important. When we're drafting a regulatory ordinance. Yeah, there's kind of a skeleton that we look at and you'll see that format, but every single one of those goes back and forth, probably a half a dozen times between us or within the community. However, the community structures that before it's finally drafted to a point where you get some kind of consensus on what what it should contain. They are unique to the communities. We do want to ensure state and federal compliance. We want to dovetail with SB 94 and we want to be in compliance with that Cole memo. And then we want to look at the health and safety priorities of the community, address the land use and zoning priorities, and any other priorities that are important to the community. I just hesitated because I hope I'm not running over on time. This is what we look at as a typical ordinance element. The first three are the first four. I'm sorry. The first five are what we see in almost every ordinance. It's kind of the warehouses. You know, the definitions for those in the room that are attorneys are probably used to seeing a lot of that where we really get into the meat of the matter, the operational requirements, the prohibited activities, and then what we establish is permit fees and impersonal versus commercial applications. And then again, you have the enforcement and severability portions which are very typical in most ordinances. This is when we're talking about land use ordinances. This is the type of element that we see. I am not a land use expert by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I an attorney. But I do recognize what needs to be in these ordinances after reviewing probably over 100 of them at this point. Health and safety components, most of you are aware of those things. Odor, control, security and safety are the primary ones. But we have labeling and packaging that label you're looking at the label you're looking at up there. It came from the workshop down in Southern California, and it talks about the the potency of the product. Right now we're looking for testing for other things like residual solvents, microbiological contaminants, things that might be harmful to the general public . You're talking about track and trace. You know, we want to know if there is a problem with a plant or with a product. We want to be able to track that back to where it came from so that nobody's getting sick and not knowing where it came from. We don't want to be the Chipotle of this group on parking and handicapped access. We want to make sure that, you know, if you're going to a if you're going to a place where you're going to purchase cannabis, that the parking and the handicapped are very important. You know, you have people that may need help getting in and out of the facility. You want to provide that cash management to cash business. Most of us know that there are ways around that, but there is a lot of cash involved in this. You have deliveries, deliveries, a whole nother aspect of this, and you have the disposal issues. We require cameras over all of the disposal and waste materials that are going on in any facility that we're doing the monitoring compliance for, because we want to make sure it's not toxic, but we want to make sure that it's being disposed of properly. Application process and processing. There are a variety of ways that we're seeing this done. We're seeing more and more RFP now, especially where you have limited types of businesses. So you say we're going to allow retail, but we only want three sites or five sites or four sites. You have more applicants than you have sites. It can go out to an RFP. It may want to have it merit based with preference points. You have a variety of different things that you can look out for that we look at the operations plan, the security plan, the owner qualifications and experience both within cannabis and without it fees for full cost recovery. As I say, you know, these need to be Proposition 26 compliant. They need to be they need to be paid for for what the actual costs are. However, what they do is they preserve tax revenue voted on by the general population for the general population by charging back to those people involved in these activities what the actual costs of those activities are. So there is no new revenue for any jurisdiction from these regulatory fees. They can only offset the actual costs of that regulation. Common types of fees. We see them for C P, which is a conditional use permit. That's a land use. We also we advise setting up a different type of permit that may have a little faster approval and revocation process. In our language, we call it a commercial cannabis business permit, but you can call it a variety of things and it goes along with that CFP and it has a fee attached to it as well. You have renewal fees and then you have the annual monitoring and compliance fees. This is a partial worksheet that we draft for for establishing those fees. It's a fairly simple document that comes after next the study of fees is done and you assign hourly costs. You assign the number of hours that's involved in doing it, and you come up with the actual fee for it. These are some fees for jurisdictions around us. We just use Oakland and Santa Rosa. But you can see, you know, the cost of the fees are fairly substantial and this is what they actually cost in a lot of places. Taxation. We just finished passing a special tax up in the city of Shasta Lake, passed by 79.1%. Are our thinking on those taxes is that if you're not in favor of attack or in favor of this, you say, fine, then just tax it. And if you are in favor of it, you say, fine, let us do it and just accent. So we don't see that the taxes are as big of an issue as a lot of people say, provided they're reasonable. Again, what we want to avoid with our taxes and with our regulatory fees is is keeping the black market going. The idea here is to make this a regulated and sustainable business tax methodology that we're seeing these days. You have a gross receipts tax or a square footage tax. The state has an inventory weight tax on dried flower and dried non flower material. We see some municipalities going that route as well. You have a special tax if you earmark the tax for a special use. You have to have a two thirds vote in order to pass that tax. That's what happened in the city of Shasta Lake, and it was an off general election tax as well, whereas a general tax is a 50 50% plus one threshold. You look at the timings and elections and your predicted support levels when you're planning your taxes. How much revenue? Back three years ago, when I started looking at this, before California was even doing it, I was looking at medicinal revenue from the state of Colorado, and then we applied it back to cities in California and for retail dispensaries that averaged between ten and $20 per person in that city. And it it actually was fairly accurate. The high side was when you were in a place like Palm Springs where you had a lot of tourism. And the low side was if you were kind of a standalone area. So here, if to apply that here, your population is roughly 80800 to 1000000 and a half dollars. From the retail side of it is what we would expect. And I ran those numbers at about a 7% tax revenue when I did them back then. I have not updated because frankly, the the taxes on other activities and this have changed so dynamically. It would be old before I came up with a new number again for monitoring compliance. Here's what we're looking at. We're looking at financial records. We want to see that track and trace verification. We go right into their system. We see what's marked on their product, and we go back and check to see where it is in the system. We make sure we can track and trace everything. We do it at random. We ask them to randomly test their product. We inspect the labeling, the premises. We do video monitoring in most of these facilities remotely, and we send a report to them of what we're seeing on these remote cameras, community communications. We handle complaints, we answer questions and we handle violation reports. Other issues. You have jobs. You have lessons learned from other jurisdictions on site. Consumption is going to be an issue, although it's not now. Most cities that I say that I typically, you know, they're not in favor. We do believe that over time that's probably going to become more normalized. Product safety, crime levels, operating a motor vehicle. I mean, we all know that there's still issues there. Is cannabis a gateway drug? These are the things that we talk about. So I think that's the end of my presentation. And I appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Potter. For those of you that would like to speak on this, please submit your slips. I already have 24. Where did you say we could ask our questions after the presentation?
Speaker 5: That's absolutely. If there are clarifying or other questions, Neil is available to answer those.
Speaker 1: We want you to take questions at this time. You. He asked that we hold the questions on the presentation to the end. So yes, I. You come back up, Mr. Hall. I'm Ashcroft. Good evening, Mr. Hall. And I should just for full disclosure, last week I attended a four day seminar on commercial cannabis regulations and considerations that was put on by SC. I signed up before I realized they were actually working with our city, but it was very good and instructive. Anyway, a couple quick questions. Can you explain the term vertical integration to us?
Speaker 6: Certainly vertical integration means that if you're a cultivator, you can also be a manufacturer. You can hold a license for manufacturing, you could hold a license for distribution. You could hold a license for a retail sales LLC. You have the ability to hold everything except for testing. Testing is the one area you may not hold another license in.
Speaker 1: So testing is the standalone license.
Speaker 6: It's a standalone license, yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then there was reference to a 600 foot buffer. Why 600 feet?
Speaker 6: Right now that's in the state regulations. But that is kind of a minimum distance that we see, that we see quite a few cities going 600 to 1000 feet, in fact. And again, it depends on the preference of the of the locality.
Speaker 1: And is it only with regard to a school or daycare center, or could it also be, say, a distance from a public park?
Speaker 6: We see it used for public parks. We see it used for churches. Again, it is the preference of the locality.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And my third and final question is, so you talk about the we saw the matrix that you had for the estimated hourly rate of the different city staff members that would help process an application. But how would a city know how much time a given license application would take before they did it the first time?
Speaker 6: They really don't. And we didn't when we went into Coalinga. And one of the things that we learned is that that initial, just like anything else that first time through, I think we spent about 6 hours. There were two of us that went through it trying to learn everything we could about that. And over time, the last time I was there was just last month, and it took less than 4 hours apiece for two of us to go through that facility. And so what happens? There's a learning curve with that. And and again, it's such a dynamic industry that we expect that we're going to continue to have a learning curve for a while as this industry normalizes and really gets up to speed like other industries are. But there is, to answer your question, there is no real way to know that in advance, other than we do as part of our service, provide, you know, our estimates on that time.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks. All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions from counsel? Clarifying questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a few. So. A quick question. Maybe this is for Miss Potter. I think maybe this one might be for you. So in our smoking ordinance, do we include vaping in that?
Speaker 5: No, not at this time.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: So but part of the draft ordinance, that's before you would update our smoking ordinance to prohibit cannabis smoking, too.
Speaker 3: But what about, like tobacco vaping?
Speaker 5: The the ordinance. I think the ordinance is so old that vaping was not around when when we did it.
Speaker 3: Okay. So and then is that we're trying I thought when, when we first did this, we were rushing to meet some January 1st deadline. Is there some special significance to that deadline or to that date?
Speaker 5: So January 2nd is the date after which the state will start issuing temporary licenses and the state will issue temporary licenses for for cannabis active business activities in jurisdictions where those activities are permitted. And so that it is important for a jurisdiction to either affirmatively regulate the industry or to ban it outright ahead of the 2nd of January. Because if the city does not have an ordinance either banning activity or regulating it, then the state may assume, and this is basically on the feedback and what we've learned from the League of Cities and what the League of Cities is recommending is that we have something affirmative in place such that the state will not presume , if you're silent on it, that that means you were permitting those uses solely tied to what the state requires.
Speaker 3: So I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: I was just going to say so as the Council goes through the process of debating and discussing and analyzing this issue, if there is not consensus in the next month or so, staff would recommend that we come back to you with an ordinance banning cannabis activity so that we have time to continue to work through it and adopt an ordinance ultimately that would provide the regulatory framework.
Speaker 3: I guess that was my second question then. So the current status quo is we have a ban on manufacturing, cultivation, dispensaries for medicinal, but we have nothing in place for adult use.
Speaker 5: That's correct. And we also would need to update our ordinance even if there was a desire to. And until we were done with the regulatory drafting process, we would need to update our existing ordinance to permit personal cultivation for recreational use, because we only address the personal cultivation for for medicinal at this time.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then maybe this let me see if I can get all the ones I have for you. I think those are the ones. Okay. And then the last couple I mean, there's been some discussion here on trying to encourage local ownership in your in your travels in the business. And have you seen cities that were able to do something like that?
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 3: Were they able to do that?
Speaker 6: It's a variety of ways. But not only have we seen it done for local businesses, we've seen it done also for local businesses or businesses to hire locally to give some type of program for local hiring. And it comes to mind as Atalanta, Oakdale, Salinas, Sonoma, Oakland. They all have preferences of different types for local businesses or or hiring locally.
Speaker 3: And then just a question on the 600 feet. Does the statue say it can be higher or lower or just say it can be higher? Or is it silent? I'm somewhere you send me that. And I thought it was.
Speaker 6: There's kind of a conflict on that. And we've had a discussion about it. And I'm not an attorney, so I can tell you what I see in the in the in the SB 94, in the back part of it, under the collective model, it says that it will be a minimum of 600 feet in the front part . It actually says 600 feet or whatever a local jurisdiction determines. We're not we're not sure how they're going to reconcile that, whether it'll go one way or another. But there is kind of a conflict in that area.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'll save the rest. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Any other clarifying questions also? All right. Thank you, Miss Potter.
Speaker 5: So as I had previously mentioned, staff has prepared a draft ordinance and that draft ordinance is a two part regulatory framework. Kind of big picture on the ordinance. And the two parts are an operators permit and a land use permit. And that is kind of the big framework under which we have proposed to regulate activities. And then we have prepared the ordinance that that has a series of staff recommendations. And what we would like to do this evening is run through what staff is recommending and what's embedded in the ordinance, and then post kind of the high level questions that staff is looking for feedback from the council.
Speaker 1: So I, I would like to hear from the public before we give our feedback. I think that's appropriate. But did you want to, I guess, generally what your recommendation is exactly?
Speaker 5: So the ordinance is drafted, permits retail dispensaries, including delivery, manufacturing, indoor cultivation, distribution, testing and research and development. It prohibits outdoor cultivation and onsite consumption. So the kind of feedback we're looking for from the council and the community is what types of cannabis businesses should be permitted and whether those businesses should be medical only or medical and recreational.
Speaker 1: Can you clarify real quick on that? Is that current? Would that be allowed January 1st under state law to have dispensaries that are both medical and recreational?
Speaker 5: So the co-location issue is coming up in another slide. So I can talk about the co-location and and the ambiguity on that. And the ordinance proposes a cap on on the number of dispensaries, and it is proposing a cap of three dispensaries. And then it's proposing that there be no cap on manufacturing, indoor cultivation or distribution or testing businesses. So the feedback we're looking for is, does the council and community want to cap the number of cannabis businesses, dispensaries only or all businesses? And if capped, what number? And then whether dispensaries should be able to sell either medical and or recreational. And one of the confusions that's been happening as the different sets of state regulations are being reconciled is co-location. And right now, most folks are saying that the regs pretty much don't allow co-location of medical and recreational cannabis. And they're hoping that when the emergency regs come out probably in November, that the issue of co-location is addressed and that medical and recreational can be co-located in a single business. But in the event that that doesn't happen, we're asking the question, would you if you allow dispensaries, if you allowed recreation and medical, would you want to kind of divvy up the number of dispensaries selling medical and recreational if they couldn't be co-located? And then, as I mentioned earlier, we are recommending a prohibition on off site consumption. So that's another question we're looking for feedback on. Oops. I'm. Okay. Another recommendation that is in the ordinance is that we prohibit cannabis businesses on city owned land. As Neal mentioned, cannabis is a schedule one controlled substance at the federal level and it's illegal. All aspects of manufacturing, possession, cultivation, it's it's illegal at the federal level. And there is some risk to the city of the federal government deciding that it wanted to enforce and there could be forfeiture or seizure kinds of activities that the federal government may want to do if there are cannabis businesses on city owned land. And so just to mitigate that risk and not really compel the city to have to kind of deal with that. Staff is recommending that cannabis businesses be prohibited on city owned land. And then can you.
Speaker 1: Clarify forfeiture of the building?
Speaker 5: Or it could be forfeiture of the building. It could be for the land of the property. It and it really is uncharted territory. And so at least in the beginning, there are some things that it may be better to kind of have a wait and see attitude and see how things evolve at the federal level.
Speaker 1: And do we know of any cities that allow that? Mr. HALL.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 5: No, for, for us, yeah, for there was one I think the, the plant in Coalinga was a former prison or something, but it was sold for us. We may be this may be one of the more unique attributes of Alameda, but we have the former base that is still owned by the city and by the federal government . And it's an outright the feds can't happen on federally owned lands how it is. And then we did we had a map up briefly and it's also attached as exhibit two in the staff report where staff had mapped all of the 600.
Speaker 1: We pull up the map. So you can actually describe that the people know where we're talking about.
Speaker 5: And what we mapped where all of the 600 foot radii of the sensitive uses that are. The state prohibits outright cannabis related activities within 600 feet of sensitive uses, which under the state definition are K-through-12 schools, daycare centers and youth centers.
Speaker 1: And so and what is the definition of youth centers? Is that a strict definition?
Speaker 5: There's a state definition that's contained in the ordinance. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: And so you can see all of our sensitive uses, everything up there that has a circle around it or a rectangle around it is a sensitive use. And then we are showing you.
Speaker 1: Member So with regard to the sensitive uses and Mr. Hall touched on this because this hasn't come to the council yet, we don't know if council might, for instance, want to include parks as a sensitive use, since the underlying objective is to keep the cannabis activity away from minors. And so and we also don't know if the council might want to go to a larger radius. So this is it's a first draft, but there certainly could be a different land use map with different integrations and calculations.
Speaker 5: That's absolutely correct. And the the draft ordinance is recommending the state minimums, but absolutely.
Speaker 1: That's what this is.
Speaker 5: That's what this reflects. And this council could absolutely provide different direction.
Speaker 1: Okay. And Nebraska, I'm just going to say this, and I know we've had some email communication, Ms.. Potter, that while I appreciate staff's recommendation, this is really a very significant decision for the community and the entire council since we are the elected representatives of the community. So I think at this point are clarifying questions. I'm sorry, and we need to keep going. I think it's. I appreciate that. All right. Let's continue. Thank you. Further, there are five questions. Thank you. Okay. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: So when staff was considering making their recommendations, did they look at any other types of maps that would have included parks or the distance exceeding 600 feet? Because I think part of all the to answer that.
Speaker 0: Or did.
Speaker 7: You only look at this map?
Speaker 5: We did do a map showing a thousand a thousand feet, which I actually have this evening. So I can put that up on the screen now or at the end of the presentation.
Speaker 1: Do you wish you could show us? Yeah. So if you did a map that includes park so you can see so we can see the differences.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So this is a map that shows a 1000 foot buffer.
Speaker 1: So what is the difference? But sites are not available.
Speaker 5: So a little more of part, a little more of park and a little more of Webster and Harbor. And over at the harbor. Yeah, the Bay Harbor Bay landing.
Speaker 1: So the harbor. And so there's no site then at Harbor Bay with the thousand foot dispensary site?
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 1: And then on the main island, what were the changes?
Speaker 5: You can see that park there. Their locations are removed from Park Street on the south and also on the south at Webster.
Speaker 1: So I remember.
Speaker 0: Audie, for.
Speaker 3: Clarification. So the the red was the previous retail and now the red that's not filled in. Those looking at that is the parts that are the areas that are removed based if you expand it to.
Speaker 7: The red outline.
Speaker 5: Right. Well, the 600 the 600 foot buffer map also shows an outline. It just shows that you're that shows that you're in a retail zoned area, but that you wouldn't be permitted because you'd be within 600 or a thousand feet of a sensitive use.
Speaker 1: Okay. So real quick, is it possible to go back to the other one and everyone look at that one and see where the 600 is? And if you could describe that, then so we focus on that.
Speaker 5: So so you can see that it would remove possible locations in the southern half of Webster, as well as more of the southern half of Park Street, because already some of Park Street would be impacted by the location of Alameda High. And then, as we said, Harbor Bay Landing would be removed as a potential site.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 7: Vice Mayor So Councilmember Odie just mentioned one school. So is.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 7: The schools that are on this list? Are they? How did you determine which schools were included.
Speaker 0: With.
Speaker 5: All of the K-12 public, private and charter schools? So what we probably missed, if Lamar is closing in, we probably are still showing it on here.
Speaker 1: But what is open and what is what's on here, really? That's the point of what I think.
Speaker 5: Not long, but if we've missed something, we are happy to to map it and add it.
Speaker 7: And then my other question is, it's a thousand feet from the edges of the school property. How is it measured?
Speaker 5: The edges or this.
Speaker 1: So your description online said As the bird flies, as this descends door to door. That's what some jurisdictions have used. Yeah. Door to door then.
Speaker 5: So. So that's that. So that does give you a flavor of a thousand. A thousand.
Speaker 1: And do you have one that shows parks where the options would be if we included parks?
Speaker 5: And we have we do not have one map showing the parks, but we can certainly do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Vice Mayor So were Parks considered when the, when staff made its recommendations to the council? Were Parks part of the consideration?
Speaker 5: No staff only took into account those sensitive uses as defined by state law and parks are not a sensitive use under state law. We have a lot of linear park land in the city and it would probably pick up a lot along the shoreline and out of that out at the Harbor Bay Business Park. It's probably what would what would happen with the parks. So that just so back to the map regardless of the buffer, staff is suggesting that retail dispense dispensaries may be appropriate in the city's two primary retail streets, as well as its shopping centers, and then cultivation and manufacturing in the city's two business parks and at Alameda Point once property transfers to private ownership. However, land use decisions are very important, and what staff is recommending is that the council direct the planning board to do the deep dove on the land use and make ordinance recommendations to the Council in the form of amendments to the zoning, to the zoning ordinance as part of this process. So that this, we're recommending, should go back to the Planning Board for its recommendation on the land use lease.
Speaker 1: In regards to the 600 feet buffer versus 1000 foot versus parks. No, not.
Speaker 5: So much that issue, but more that is it. The manufacturing zone, the key zone, you know, in which zoning districts would these various cannabis businesses be appropriate? This is a very high level kind of cartoon map about where we think it generally makes sense. But there's probably some more in-depth work for the planning board to do on recommendations to amend the zoning code.
Speaker 1: Okay. But then that would go back to council?
Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely. The council approves all ordinances.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we can get feedback on that later. Member matter.
Speaker 4: So the inserting a planning board hearing for land use into into your timeline that would. You mentioned in answering Councilmember Otis question, what does that do to the timeline? And given also the lengths that we've gone on here and we've got more people than we have minutes left for this hearing. Would what do you see our timeline looking at with that?
Speaker 5: Well, it's going to be it would be tight if council gave.
Speaker 4: No, I'm not asking an opinion about what, October. Right.
Speaker 5: If the direction were given to go to the planning board, we would get to the planning board in October next month.
Speaker 1: As the follow up, would it be possible to just have these questions posed to counsel?
Speaker 5: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 5: Okay. So can you get me back to my slide? Laura? So I'm. So. Oh, one another. One more. And one more. Oh. And then, obviously, if there are any other comments or directions. Those were that those were the key questions that staff was looking for feedback on. And then I. Our advance we placed. One more, one more. And then just to Councilmember Matt Orestes. Question, we have put together a timeline, but a potential timeline. But if you look at it, you can see that it's very ambitious and it it it addresses a lot of different aspects of this from dealing with the ordinance to the zoning text amendments and map amendments that we were just talking about. Staff is recommending that the implementation of cannabis business activities in the city, if it goes forward, be revenue neutral to the city. So that does require a fee study. Okay. So can you. And we would need to prepare a few study and amend the master fee schedule. And then if we want to cap dispensaries, we would have to go through the selection process. And then we the staff report notes some of the complexities around taxation because the city has some larger issues that it's looking at . So we want to come back to you for a more in-depth discussion on taxation, so that that's an ambitious set of things to undertake in the fall. But that would be the timeline if we if the city was committed to getting something in place.
Speaker 1: Remember, Ashcroft and I have a lot more questions, but I want to hold them till after we hear from the public. But I have one that I want to ask now is that if the council were to decide to just approve one particular kind of cannabis business now. Could we still go back and revise an ordinance in the future but, you know, have something in place by the January 2018 date?
Speaker 5: Absolutely. And then we did in the staff report mentioned that we have a quality of life survey that was conducted in for a three to over three day period in July. And so we had we asked some questions of the community about the kinds of businesses it might be interested or willing to see in Alameda. And so this is the result of that survey. And the question.
Speaker 1: Is, okay, before you get there, can you tell us how many people participated in this? The methodology.
Speaker 5: It was a scientifically valid survey. I don't know what the who. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think it was 600.
Speaker 5: And it was a random is a random.
Speaker 2: Random sample of voters on.
Speaker 0: Call a.
Speaker 1: Voters so limited to voters in the last election or voters defined by whites.
Speaker 2: It's done by the all registered voters and it's randomly selected. You know, it's not by the number of voters who have actually voted. It's those that have registered to vote.
Speaker 1: All right. And where did they get the phone numbers?
Speaker 2: From the rolls from the from the voters.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: So it's interesting because.
Speaker 2: The survey is done every couple of years in Alameda. It's a quality of life survey and we add and this these four. Questions at the end of our regular survey. Just to give the council a sense of where this community.
Speaker 1: So are these the only questions that were asked regarding this topic? Yes, these are all of them. So okay.
Speaker 5: And it's interesting because people often say that 68% of Alameda voters voted to legalize recreational cannabis use. And these those who support or strongly support, strongly support or somewhat support the various types of businesses, dispensaries, manufacturing attacks, cultivation, pretty much mirror the same percentages. The lowest, actually, interestingly, is on cultivation, but it still is polling at strongly support or somewhat support at about 59%. And then the others are higher. So that was feedback that we thought would be interesting to share with the Council as part of this workshop. And with that and one last question.
Speaker 1: Another matter.
Speaker 4: I don't expect an answer for this tonight, but I'd like to get to the speakers and I'd like to have the answer at the next meeting is if we put all this effort into chasing a date. What's not going to be done by the people who are doing this?
Speaker 5: I'll defer to the city manager for.
Speaker 4: That, but I don't want the answer tonight. But I think we need to know that to prioritize what our next step is. Thank you.
Speaker 5: That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And I just want clarification. What you're asking then is that in regards to other work that would not yes.
Speaker 4: We have building and planning. We have the city manager. We have the city attorney all hustling to a date. That we have a couple of choices on. We can either put an outright ban in and take our time or we can rush to get something in. But that rush to get something in is going to displace other activities. Is that clear? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. At this point, we have about 25 slips. Each speaker will get 3 minutes. I will call like five names at a time. And then if you all could line up on one side so that you're ready to go. And then if you could hold all fours and be respectful of all speakers, that would be greatly appreciated.
Speaker 3: My heart was not with you.
Speaker 1: And I want to clarify, as I understand, the 7:00 is not a hard stop so that we.
Speaker 0: Can.
Speaker 1: Continue to hear from the speakers atmosphere, continue to turn down and give the feedback on this item. All right.
Speaker 3: 11 is a hard stop if we don't want to. And after meeting.
Speaker 1: We're not going to. All right. Mendoza, van Clerk, Mike Grafton, Sharon Golden and then Agustin Ramirez. That's right. Go ahead and dance with me. Now, Carter, then you get a total of 6 minutes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. Greetings. Greetings, Mayor, City Council and community at large. So I want to say that I stand here in support of establishing a local system to control and regulate cannabis businesses in the city of Alameda. And I just want to say, with with the climate that's going on today, there's a lot on the line in the United States of America. Racism is rearing its ugly head and it's alive and well in America. Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow of Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, said Here are white men poised to run big marijuana businesses dreaming of cashing in. Big, big money, big business selling weed. After 40 years of locking up impoverished black kids for selling weed, their families and futures destroyed. Now white men are planning on getting rich, doing precisely the same thing. So I stand here for my friend whose father spent years of her childhood in prison for cultivation. I stand here today for my mentee, a second generation immigrant who at 17 was forced into drug treatment and incarcerated, even though he's not an ad addict and deserves a second chance. I stand here for the disproportionate number of black and brown men and women who are arrested, sentenced and convicted for cannabis related offenses at higher rates than their white counterparts. I stand here today as a community member who believes in the decriminalization of cannabis for medical and recreational use. As a former teacher, juvenile probation officer, PTA president, a USDA parent and longtime resident of Alameda, I am personally and professionally invested in public safety. I work in implementing taxpayer measures funds through the City of Oakland Violence Prevention Services. When we regulate responsibly cannabis businesses, we are keeping our community safer. Don't get it confused in action. And what I want to point out as well too, when we are prioritizing local. Ownership. I completely agree with that. Consider the applicants here in Alameda before going outside. There's people in this community who are prepared to run cannabis businesses. I would also like to strongly encourage you to have one of those at least one of the businesses be a delivery service because the same type of regulations will happen. They will examine the premises, track the merchandise, but it's not not the brick and mortar storefront. I'm completely about transparency, cooperating with law enforcement, going through the live.
Speaker 1: Scan process, the.
Speaker 2: Security. This can make our city safer, not not less safe. So I want to say in closing.
Speaker 3: All. I'm.
Speaker 2: That I would like for us to be intentional in our effort to include include people.
Speaker 1: Most impacted by the war on drugs.
Speaker 2: And so that they can benefit from the expansion of the cannabis industry. When you allow people to participate in the local economy as small business owners, that will generate that will generate revenue for our city and improve lives. But let's not think about the mom and pop shops like going to a cannabis dispensary can be like going to a cafe. Do you want Starbucks or do you want the mom and pop shop down the street? So it's like it's or do you want a boutique experience or do you want fast food? So it all depends on the type of the market and the client. So I would say let's make sure that we can participate in this economy. Don't leave people out and please prioritize. Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Diane Clarkson told your applause that Mr. Clarke, did you want to speak? You're good. Thank you. Mike Grafton, then Sharon Golden.
Speaker 4: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Mike Grafton. In the industry, I'm known as Granddaddy Mike. I'm proud to be the recipient of a lifetime achievement award from the Marijuana Industry Council. I've been in the industry for a long time. I love cannabis. I think cannabis can do a lot to resolve a lot of the problems in our world today. And I think you're in a unique position to be able to make a decision about how that's done. I want to let you know that in my experience, cannabis is not toxic. Cannabis is not nuclear waste. You don't need to over impose and overregulate and overtax this industry in order to protect our citizens. I am indeed a grandfather. I have protected and encourage the development and empowerment of a number of generations in my family and certainly within this culture. I think it's important for you to realize that my own business model in this industry has been very successful, and I would like to encourage you to adopt it. It is one of small margins and high value. By that I mean if you can keep your local taxes minimal. I believe that you will invite, encourage and support this industry in a way that will allow this industry to support you and this community. So I encourage you not to put repressive tax limits into this industry so that you can have a well-regulated and income generating industry in your community. I also want to say that I think it's important that the fair market model be observed. I'm all in favor of, you know, benefits for local residents and certainly the voters who elected you expect you to represent their interests. I would also point out to you that the interests of this community have been served by people outside of this community for a long time and no doubt will continue to be so. I wanted to let you know that there are many of us who respectfully believe in public safety, in public health, in ecology, in the harmony of nature, and would continue to implement those values in this industry should you decide to support it. I think it's very important that Alameda get a board with ordinances and with permissible licenses before January 1st. Otherwise, I believe that the the tide of the cannabis industry will flow past this community. Right now, you're in a unique position with the repressive policies that are in place in Oakland to be more competitive and courage to do so. Thank you. Please hold your applause. Come on up.
Speaker 1: And we need to honor the three minute rose so we can let everyone speak. Let's go. Hi there. Sharon Golden, founder of.
Speaker 7: Alameda Island Cannabis Community. I just want to thank council and city staff are working really diligently on this. I'm kind of coming up here. I say the same things kind of every time. You know, we're advocating for local ownership, local hire. A couple other things.
Speaker 1: That I feel like because of the contention of local ownership and local hire that's getting lost is we.
Speaker 7: Really want to see some of this money get captured into community benefit fund that can go to programs like Alameda Promise, Meals on Wheels, a lot of other programs versus just getting completely put in the.
Speaker 0: Community into the general fund.
Speaker 7: We are also basically I just kind of want to comment on a couple different things about the presentation this evening. With the ten months that's.
Speaker 1: Passed since.
Speaker 7: Jim Ortiz groundbreaking referral in November, I'm really hoping.
Speaker 0: That we could.
Speaker 7: Try to avoid a ban.
Speaker 1: We've really made some great.
Speaker 7: Progress this year. I understand doing the research that it takes to get this done the right way, but.
Speaker 1: We got to kind of try to get this ball.
Speaker 7: Rolling. Also, in.
Speaker 0: Regards to the map.
Speaker 7: If we do the Thousand K, it's starting to look like where are these businesses going to open? I think that's going to directly impact that $800,000 potential revenue that we saw it.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I guess then Ramirez.
Speaker 0: And then Madam.
Speaker 3: Mayor, councilmembers. My name is I was still Ramirez and I'm here on behalf of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. Everything I heard from the presentation is great, except that at no point did they mention the workers. And I believe that that to us and to and to you, that should be a priority also. I remind those of you that were here when we came in late 2014, early 2015, when I brought the the recycling workers from ASI, those workers were making $8.30 when we first met. And right now they are at $18.12. Thanks. Thanks to you. So that means that when when city councils get together and what city councils try to do the right thing, put their workers that that money is going to be reinvested here in your community. And if you implement, you know, local hire, as many other jurisdictions have, or at least a portion of local hires , other jurisdictions have that. That money is going to be reimbursed to here people, as Mr. Ashcroft heard from some of the recipients at ECI, that now they are able to afford their own apartment, their car. Some some workers mentioned that for the first time ever, they were able to buy toys from my actual toy store. And that $0.99 store. That was those those were. I'm not saying that the that the cannabis workers are going to be in that category. But what I am saying is that we have to make sure that the rights of the workers are health and safety and are protected also health and safety and benefits. And the best way to do that will be that use that you put in the ordinance that before you issue any permit, regardless of the number of employees that they need to sign a labor peace agreement with a union of their choice are the companies. This is possible. They've done that in other cities and asked as you can as you can see what happened at ECI. The same things could happen here. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Our next case. Hold your applause. Our next speakers, Rich, Rich Moskowitz and Brian Agaba is sitting time to him, then Linda Astbury and then Mark Hershman and Nicole sitting time to him. So 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 4: Little technical difficulties.
Speaker 1: You're all feel free to open the windows back there if you're getting warm.
Speaker 2: And you hear the next speaker coming from Princess.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: Looks good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's.
Speaker 3: Perfect.
Speaker 4: Now that we're all set. Mayor City Council Member Staff Thank you very much. My name is Rich Moskowitz. I'm here today as the spokesman for Alaska. We are the Alameda for Safe Cannabis Access Group. Our mission statement, what we believe in and why we here today is we believe in safe access for cannabis for all Alameda patients . We believe in compassionate regulations. And we also believe in the prioritization of local ownership. Benefits of local ownership, as we see them, are very simple. As we've all known Alameda and support Alameda. And in this way, we boost our local economy. We can develop the advantages of bringing cannabis here through what's known as the multiplier effect. Every cannabis dollar spent in the community often reaches much further than it was initially spent. And of course, we certainly believe in neighbors employing neighbors. To us, safe access means local access for patients. It addresses the need of the largest growing segment of this community, which is the senior community. Compassionate regulation of cost is a large part of safe access, and we certainly believe as part of compassionate regulation, an onsite consumption option, be it in the home or in a business, provides a special ability to those who medicinally use cannabis. Compassionate care as we see it seeks to and we educate on this regularly seeks to have people understand that cannabis does not prove the same risk or pose the same risk as tobacco use. Seniors, as I said, are the fastest growing segment of this market. And the big part of compassionate care and why we support onsite consumption is the state already addresses the idea that you cannot have the right or excuse me gives the right to landlords to prohibit medical usage in there in people's rental units. So if we go ahead and we don't think about this as a compassionate care issue and we ban the public consumption of cannabis in every way, if we bring a dispensary to Alameda, we are forcing people to either break the law in the street or break the law in their home. By breaking the law in their home, they're actually subjugated to a much greater risk. If somebody 3 a.m. and or Alameda Winter chooses to medicate in their home and the landlord finds out they could be evicted. Breach of contract. And we all know that an eviction in the Bay Area in today's climate is a de facto sentence to homelessness. So we believe compassionate care should be a big part of this conversation. Now, we'd certainly support bringing businesses to Alameda. We certainly support that for local access to our patients. We certainly support that for the revenue generated, the economic growth and the multiplier effect we have spoken about previously. And it seemed to get to the next slot. There we go. I want to introduce you a little bit to what we have done in case you're not familiar with us. And I certainly know some of you and most of you are. We were formed several months ago. We are a community education group. We have provided to the community a Facebook page and a web page with unbiased medical information about cannabis, its and its uses throughout the community. Additionally, we were all here. We were all here at 75. We all went quite late that night. Right afterwards, we had a booth on Park Street. This was phenomenal. Over 600 Alameda INS right here have signed a petition asking for local access. This was not a random thing from the city. This was a random thing by who goes to the Park Street Art and Wine Festival. In addition, we had over a thousand people there who just come to Alameda to spend their money and they very much wanted to sign the petition. But we asked for local people only. In retrospect, we realized we should have captured their signature too, because that is a big part of our community, people coming and spending their dollars here. So additionally, we had the Mastic event on August 20th. A lot of you came, we had roughly 140 people from the city have access to y'all. And we saw both sides or we tried to see both sides of the issue. So I just wanted to wrap up today. I know we've been given 6 minutes now through. Donation of time. However, I just wanted to wrap up and speak to what Ascot's vision of the future for cannabis and Alameda is. Though, as we've said over and over, we certainly like local access in Alameda. I agree we should not wait. That is not our decision. That is your decision and what you think is best for the community. We certainly feel that prioritizing local ownership is the best for Alameda and we all, as Alameda ends, enjoy knowing the people we purchase from. We enjoy having that daily contact, whether it's in the supermarket or at the place of purchase. This is what makes our community special. Towards that end, Alameda has always been a compassionate community. Recent events for the last two three weeks have seen us come together as a community, stand together. And we've always felt that Alameda and support our means and everyone is welcome here. Towards that end, a compassionate regulation. As I mentioned, we feel the onsite consumption option either in a business or in your home, is an important one. And remember, please, that the state has already addressed the in the home issue and the workplace issue. Public issue, of course, is also being addressed. And lastly, I'd like to say, in our vision of the future, no matter what your decision, and we certainly have our preference for your decision. But no matter what your decision, Askia was going to continue to be here. It's going to continue to educate the community because cannabis is going to continue to be part of this community, whether it's brought in from the outside, medically, recreationally, or it comes from the inside. And therefore we feel citizens need access to this information. We heard in a recent event some old information, but what's most important is the federal government is putting forth new information, cancer, dot gov, federal patents. There's a lot of information to be shared. National Institute of Health, CDC and ASCO will be here. We firmly believe that working together today, we can create tomorrow for all of us. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I'll go through some of your paths, Linda.
Speaker 1: Astbury and then Mark Hersman, and he'll get 6 minutes and then Don Shear. Linda. Yeah, I know. It's hard to hear with the doors open.
Speaker 0: All right. So sorry. It's very loud out there. Linda Asbury, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. We first want to thank you for taking this thoughtful process that so important to our community and taking the time engaging, looking for community input. So input. So we want to thank you for that. We strongly agree that there should I think I wrote down a Type ten retail, only one permitted in any district or any designated area. So none of our areas would have more than the one. And would encourage you to look at a local preference policy. Keep our money here. Keep we have some very talented people in this community that are very interested in this subject. And if we could consider a local preference policy, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Mark. Mark Hersman. And then don't share it. At 6 minutes. They have to.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Council at other city leaders. What I would like to do tonight is read into the record communication that we sent most of you last week. Dear City Leaders, thank you for your diligent work in crafting the proposed ordinances that we are discussing tonight. As you know, my partner Nick and I intend to apply for a license and use permit for a cannabis related business venture to be located here in Alameda. Once the final ordinances are approved. In reviewing the proposed ordinances, we urge you to reconsider the proposed ban on onsite consumption. It is our considered opinion that by providing an available communal space for cannabis use, we can achieve better outcomes for our community in terms of public safety, while also meeting the needs of cannabis users in the community. By allowing but not regulating. I'm sorry. By allowing. But regulating available use spaces. We will provide the cannabis community an alternative to smoking in public parks, beaches and streets. We also provide a safe, secure location for cannabis users who reside in multifamily complexes that have strict secondhand smoking ordinances. The business that we'd like to establish. Now, Amita is a membership only social club that will allow the use of cannabis on site in order to protect the culture and public safety of the community we love. We commit to the following. We'll work with the police department to develop and deploy a multifaceted security system which will prevent crime on site. Well partner with a ridesharing company such as Uber or Lyft to provide safe and sober transportation options for our members will locate the facility near a major bus line in order to provide a public transportation option for members as well. Our private membership structure will allow us to control our clientele and enforce a zero tolerance policy regarding any violence, weapons or disruptive behavior on site. We will keep detailed records of our member visits or via our point of sale system, and we pledge to cooperate with the police department on any investigations that may involve club members. We will enter into a labor peace agreement with our staff and will not interfere with any attempt by our staff to join a labor union. We'll create approximately 20 to 25 local jobs with this project. And for those employees, we commit to pay a minimum of $17 per hour wage, provide health benefits for full time employees , and provide flexible scheduling to accommodate personal needs of our staff. In addition, we plan to we will donate 5% of our pretax profits to local charities with specific focus on anti-poverty, anti-crime and domestic abuse victim support charities. We willingly make these commitments because as cannabis activists, we feel a sense of obligation to the voters of Alameda, as well as California at large, who overwhelmingly voted to legalize adult use of cannabis. We recognize that this is a social experiment, and if this experiment is to be successful, cannabis businesses must be prepared to work constructively with all stakeholders in their communities. We see so many benefits from legalization, from medical research and scientific discoveries regarding the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis to relieving the social and financial burden of overincarceration those particularly harmed people of color. We would hate to see this experiment fail. Our goal is to operate an establishment that will be an example of best practices in the cannabis industry and help to destigmatize the use of cannabis. Thank you again for your time and consideration as we continue to research the topic. We have also included some articles of reference in the email that you received last week. Thank you. And I would just like to add, you know, in a much more informal format that our thought is meet people halfway. If you do that, they're going to meet you the other half. The other thing that I really am concerned about is Alameda not allowing onsite consumption really puts the city at a competitive disadvantage with cities nearby like San Francisco and Oakland. So I really urge you guys, aside from another very important point of considering local residents preference, if and how that's possible legally. I really, really urge the need for giving these businesses that will operate here in our city a competitive chance to compete against some dispensaries that allow onsite consumption both in Oakland and San Francisco, at least , you know, within remote reach. And there are other cities that are even further beyond that, too, as well. So just take that into consideration. Thank you very much for your time today.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Please hold your applause down. Share it. And then Gretchen Lebow. Don. Don, share it. And then Gretchen LeBeau.
Speaker 4: Mayor Spencer, member of the City Council, on addressing this issue with a no vote. I'll be probably one of the first people will step up here and say no, I definitely appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Consultants, if you could please speak in the mike and.
Speaker 4: The consultants working on the presentation and a lot of people addressing this issue, I know who has friends and and acquaintances and it's a very hot topic. I'm coming from a different direction. Who am I? Dawn. Sure. A resident, a longtime resident, a parent of four children, two, two grandchildren in this community. Retired after 40 years of experience at the state, local and county level. Why am I opposed to cannabis? The pot industry? Classified. Now, it is a Schedule one drug by the U.S. government and a group of the country's most addictive controlled substances. That's from the NFL. My firsthand experience with middle and high school as a middle and high school administrator led me to understand that experimenting and elevating the use of drugs is commonplace. So why would the city of Alameda make marijuana more readily available? What sparked my interest as it sparked maybe a couple others in this room I know at the Western Fair Association convention in Reno. We had a chance to to talk to people that have implemented programs in their communities, and the cannabis industry was there to promote their programs. One of the things I got out of that and I'm getting here tonight is the main issue is how much money we can make and give to how many people and where are the profits coming from. I recently wrote a letter in the element of journal with my opinions regarding the city of Alameda adopting this ordinance. That letter sparked phone calls and conversations from many people, all who had many questions I could not answer. I promised to ask these questions to the city council and will continue to ask questions to the city council. Who on the council is pushing this agenda. On the November 1st, 2016 and July 5th, 2017, the Council approved referrals to move forward with the ordinance. Who made the motions and what was the vote? Have you gathered input and opinions from the following entities? Recreational Park Commissions. L.A. Unified School District Board of Education. The Social Services Board. Business Organizations. Civic Organizations. Narcotic officers from the APD and Churches. What Department of the City of Alameda will be in charge of this ordinance? I challenged the Council to do a force field analysis on this important city change issue, and if money in revenue comes out to be the majority factor, then the over again social ramifications. I sincerely hope the Council will decide to vote no. I'd like to thank Sabrina Chan and Lina Tam for a conversation on this issue I had with them the other day over.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Gretchen. And then Dorothy Freeman.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Gretchen LeBeau, please hold your applause. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Your council people? Yes, I. I taught school for many years, and I know what smoking marijuana is all about because I had a lot of students in my classroom. There's a whole nother dimension to cannabis that I entered into when my husband was dying. And cannabis is often used in palliative care. Palliative care means compassionate care. And that was a whole nother dimension that I had to learn when I went over to Harborside to pick up the the pick up the cannabis. And I met all kinds of people just like me who were helping their loved ones die. And so I wanted to share that with you because it's a whole nother dimension of the use of cannabis and that we should not lose sight of that. I think that cannabis gets sort of a one sided idea because it's smoking and so on and so forth. You can't smoke in public anyway public places. So I just wanted to share with you that cannabis use for palliative reasons is very much on the up and up and I think I support this. Ordinance that you guys want to put in effect and study it and I'm all for it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Dorsey Freeman and then Scott Stockton.
Speaker 9: Good evening, mayor spencer and council members and city of alameda. Alameda is always concerned about tax bleed without approval of both recreation and medical marijuana. Our taxes will go to our neighbor cities. I support both recreation and medical locally owned dispensaries. I also support locally owned businesses.
Speaker 1: That they will carry back because.
Speaker 9: They will care more about the city, its citizens and keeping it safe.
Speaker 1: I support three.
Speaker 9: Dispensaries within Alameda. I also support much needed testing and research. Alameda point is a perfect place where testing can be housed in a private facility, so there are no problems.
Speaker 1: With the feds.
Speaker 9: I believe in our no smoking laws and agree no smoking laws should apply to cannabis, especially in apartment buildings and public spaces.
Speaker 1: Cannabis taxes do not belong in the general fund.
Speaker 9: Cannabis taxes.
Speaker 1: Should be dedicated only.
Speaker 9: To activities that have direct.
Speaker 1: Impact on the people.
Speaker 9: Such as recreation and parks, the public library, our animal shelter.
Speaker 1: Our food bank.
Speaker 9: Our art commission. Alameda Homeless and Drug Education for our Youth. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Scott Stockton and the Mallory Penny. And please hold your comment, your applause. Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Stockton.
Speaker 4: Hi, my name is Scott Stockton. I'm a Alameda resident. I got kids in the area. I'm not for this at all. I think there are some serious considerations you need to look at, quite frankly, that I'm not sure you all are. Primarily, the fact that it is illegal at a federal level puts a lot of implications into where these organizations can bank. In fact, they can't bank right in any FDIC insured bank. It's a federal crime, right? It's a cash heavy business. You're projecting $1.6 million in tax revenue. That's at a 15% tax rate. Right. Which these slides show that means $10 million worth of cash is going to be in Alameda. Where is that cash going to be? How's the city of Alameda going to accept $1.6 million of cash on tax day? Where are you going to put it? Where you store it. I don't understand the rush. It seems like there's this fear of missing out that these conditional permits are going to be given away by the state of California in January. And if we don't rush that, we're going to miss out. I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, all the decisions I made in a rush that involve marijuana, it never turned out good. They never turned out the way I thought they would flat out. Not a pot expert. But that's my experience. Right. So I think you really need to look at this. Right? The political climate is not the same as it was on a federal level. You got an attorney general that's coming after pot. Right. You're basing all this on a Cole memo. That's not law. That's a memo, right. That can be overturned at any time. Right. The guidances do not allow this on city owned land because of federal forfeiture laws. Those laws apply to commercial premises as well. Right. This stuff's happening. It happened at I think it's called Midwest Distribution down in San Diego about a year and a half ago where they confiscated 340 $300,000, never charged anybody and they lost the money. Where does your tax revenue go? Right. There's IRS tax code 280, which taxes cannabis companies at a huge rate. Right. Is our tax going to be based on that or are we back in that out? Have we thought about this? Have any of you guys thought about this? Right. I don't see why we have to be the tip of the spear on it. Right. Harborside. It's a great facility. I've been in that facility. It's awesome. It's 1.8 miles away from here. It's not about access. Right. The guidance is to allow handicapped parking spaces. Where are these parking spaces? Arbor site has people in jackets. Meet me in the parking lot. Right? Right. I don't want people in the parking lot to meet me and my family going to a movie. I don't want.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 4: Where are these parking spaces? Behind Tom Mattina lying. Tucker's at the movie theater. Anyone.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure everyone knows we're not allowed to respond to the questions. Mallory, Penny and then Sasha. Sasha Still worth.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 9: My name is Mallory Penney.
Speaker 7: And I want.
Speaker 0: To say forgive me for repeating myself as I did speak at the town hall already, but I feel it's important to reiterate these facts here. I am an Alameda resident. I have lived here since I was six years old and right now I currently teach and direct children's theater here on the island, which I'm very passionate about . And I also work at the local Pete's Coffee and the Fish Shop, so I know a lot of people here in town. My personal story with cannabis started when I was a teenager. I got really bad cramps from my period and my doctor prescribed me Vicodin. So receiving a prescription for an opiate opioid before I was even 18 was pretty startling to me and really put things in perspective with kind of the priorities in America. Anyway, I discovered cannabis from that, so maybe it was a blessing in disguise. When I was 17, I got my doctor recommendation and my mom had to come with me to get that, and she had to come with me to the dispensaries to obtain my medicine. I also have done extensive research on CBD and THC and various aspects of cannabis that are not just recreational but also medicinal.
Speaker 9: If dispensaries were.
Speaker 0: Local, we wouldn't have to leave the island. We wouldn't be adding to that horrible traffic that I know we all experience when we're trying to get island off this island. I think it's really important to have access here for everyone. I'm advocating for local ownership, fair wages for employees with a minimum of $17 per hour. We are the one city in the area that did not up our minimum wage when everyone else did. And I think that's really problematic. I also think that I encourage you to think about 600 feet from schools as opposed to 1000. I also would encourage you to map the bars and see where they are with regards to schools and parks. We have quite a few, and I would say that we have. Cannabis, as far as I know, is a lot less lethal than alcohol is. I also advocate for onsite consumption having a safe place where we can all. For me medicate for other people recreational usage of it would be I think, a great thing. And I want to.
Speaker 9: Just say I am so proud of the city for being a sanctuary.
Speaker 0: City. Let's consider this a sanctuary for other people as well that are using this medicinally. Just want to use it recreationally. We have an opportunity here, so I really encourage you to think about that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Sausage dollars. And then.
Speaker 1: Jennifer Williams. And then Betsy over. AC Hello.
Speaker 0: Good evening and thank you for listening to all of the public here today. I am number one, a cannabis user. I care from the West End today before I bike to consume cannabis. I am active part of my community. I donate a lot of my time to cleaning up our beaches after people from the outside come and cool off on the beach. I participate in our community. I've lived here for a year and a half. I would have loved to put my business here as well. I own a cannabis business. We manufacture edibles. We were in SoCal for seven years, came up here to be in the bay. I'm from Europe. I don't like the weather in SoCal. I don't know what's up with a hundred degrees up here. It's not what I signed up for. So when we talk about having a cannabis business on the island, we're not talking about people smoking in the street. We're talking about people being able to access cannabis without having to go and spend their money in Oakland or in Emeryville or anywhere else. I currently pay $4,000 at a commercial kitchen in Emeryville. I could be renting from somewhere here on the island. We pay our workers a minimum of $15 an hour. That's what you start when you walk in the door. We. We have. Ah, ah. I'm sorry. My anxiety is kicking in. I haven't medicated in a long time. A few hours we've been sitting here. Our workers get paid for. For donating time to the community every month. It's part of working with our company. I don't see the problem in putting cannabis businesses on the island because guess what? Cannabis is already here. All the consumers that are consuming on this island are just going somewhere else to getting the cannabis. And why not spend your money here? The the tax implementations, the everything that can. Yes, it's money. But it's not just to get people rich, it's to fill the community with the money from our businesses. So I hope that you guys will lift the ban on whatever level that may be manufacturing, cultivation, dispensaries. But consider the fact that I right now employ ten people and in a few years will employ many more. And hopefully we can do that here. I think it's important to mind the date of getting something on the books. Anything. If you don't feel comfortable with dispensary here yet, start slow. You can't smell that. We make anything with cannabis. I promise you, you can walk past our facility while we were baking. You would not know the difference. Thank you for your time. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Jennifer. And then.
Speaker 1: Basic.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council and staff. I'm Jennifer Williams. I'm a member of the school board here in town. But I'm here tonight in my individual capacity as just a parent and a member of that community. As I.
Speaker 5: Indicated at the.
Speaker 7: Event at the Mastic Center, my concern solely revolves around the.
Speaker 5: Location of these businesses.
Speaker 7: Related to our.
Speaker 5: Children and kids. And I'm asking for a 1000 foot.
Speaker 7: Buffer from our school sites, playgrounds, rec centers, places where children congregate. Other jurisdictions in the area have adopted similar restrictions.
Speaker 5: San Francisco, San Jose, for example.
Speaker 7: And I also think it's.
Speaker 5: Important to note that under federal law.
Speaker 7: There are criminal penalties for distribution within a thousand feet of a school. So at least.
Speaker 5: With that small caveat, I think we should be consistent with.
Speaker 7: What federal law requires. The other thing I wanted to note was that last week in Denver, the 2017 National.
Speaker 5: Cannabis Summit occurred.
Speaker 7: And there were a number of breakout sessions.
Speaker 5: By public health entities regarding the effects of cannabis business on youth. Doctors from the Public Health Institute.
Speaker 7: Did a presentation there on the importance of slowing down the process in terms of city regulation to get it right.
Speaker 5: Even if it means a couple of extra months to consider.
Speaker 0: All aspects.
Speaker 7: Of the regulation process. Some of the other recommendations.
Speaker 5: That public.
Speaker 7: Health groups had with respect to youth would be to consider restricting the number of permitted retailers to assure a safe distance from youth serving institutions, like I previously mentioned, require freestanding establishments away from malls and restaurants. Because studies show that locating marijuana business in mainstream shopping.
Speaker 0: District districts.
Speaker 7: Has strong associations.
Speaker 5: With underage use and seek to limit products that appeal to youth, for example.
Speaker 7: The flavored THC, edible products, things of that nature, and also consider advertising regulations. I didn't see in the proposed.
Speaker 5: Draft any conversation about limits on advertising. And I think when you look.
Speaker 7: At the long documented history with regard to advertising in the.
Speaker 5: Alcohol business and its impact on kids, that's something.
Speaker 7: That we should really be.
Speaker 5: Taking into into.
Speaker 0: Account.
Speaker 5: And then using part of the taxes collected to.
Speaker 7: Finance a local wellness fund to support prevention and education in our schools. About marijuana.
Speaker 5: Use. A couple of people have talked about that tonight.
Speaker 7: I know at the Mastic Center event, I believe Mayor Spencer voiced support and something along those lines. So I would also ask something like that be added to the proposed ordinance. And then finally, one of the women that did a presentation at the.
Speaker 0: The National Cannabis Summit.
Speaker 7: Last week.
Speaker 0: Was a doctor from the UCLA.
Speaker 5: School of Public Health.
Speaker 7: And what she what she talked about was that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. AC And then Michael McDonagh. And then Debbie George.
Speaker 4: I met a mayor. City council and staff. I'm here as a Alameda parent, as a resident here for the last 16 years and also as a current police officer. I work in law enforcement. They have for the last 21 years. I'm here to. Talk mostly about thousand foot buffer around schools. I think it's important to give schools a wide berth, especially with onsite or I'm sorry, distribution centers. I think it's important that just as it would be with any other business, I mean, people talked about bars and cigaret tobacco distributors. I wouldn't want those near schools either. They're already there. I don't know what can be done about that, but I think with this new industry, it's like the green gold rush and everyone's rushing to get in and get it first. But I think it's like someone said, get it right. I don't begrudge people and I don't want them to have to forage off, you know, off the island to go places for their medical marijuana. I don't. I want them to be safe. But I also want us to have thoughtful and measured rollout of this. And if you have to vote in favor of rolling this out, that is I'd like to see it then slowly. I don't see what the rush is. The money is going to be there. There's no rush. It's not going away. And I think just a thoughtful, measured approach. And then also we're on site. I've heard live scan. I think that's a great idea to have people in the industry. Live scanned and record checks. So that's all. I just really like you to consider a thousand foot buffer and those other items. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Michael McDonagh.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and city council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber doesn't support or oppose whatever you decide to do as far as lifting the regulation, the ban or establishing new regulations. We don't see it from our standpoint as a business support organization. We don't consider it from the from the moral aspect or the social aspect or even the medicinal aspect. But we do think it is worth considering, as you are considering it as a business from the business aspect. And we believe that education of the public from that standpoint is also very important. The issue is, is that there are a lot of jobs that could be created. There are a lot of peripheral businesses that you'll hear from maybe one or two today that are affected, businesses that never touch the leaf, but that will be affected through in the insurance business, the banking business, the real estate business, and a lot of the surrounding businesses that would support any business that comes to town. As far as the local ownership business, I fully support local hiring policies. I fully support local zoning policies where that is appropriate. For instance, the dispensaries, the delivery, the cultivation. But I also want you to be sure that when considering. Ownership of companies or businesses that require special. Expertize or technical technical aspects that you choose the best business so that we don't have someone that is starting to learn how to be the best testing lab or the best manufacturers. But someone who has already experience how to grow a business of that nature so that the city can benefit from the high quality and the experience that they've learned maybe elsewhere. But certainly if we bring in businesses outside who have that type of expertize, a local hiring policy would be a great thing to have. Also in this educational aspect of what we believe needs to go on so that the local business community, the parents and individuals and a lot of the people that are here tonight can get a better idea of what's going on in local business, local regulation. I really think this is a great workshop and the chamber is also taking this issue on. We are going to at our business expo coming up in September 20th, have a feature there where Rob Bonta, who has played a large part in the regulation on the state level, will do the keynote speech on the cannabis effect on jobs and the California economy. And then we will he will moderate a panel where we have some of the five experts in the area, including your Neil Hall, the the consultant with the city, including the author of the regulation and three businesses that may come to town. So thank you for considering this issue.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Debbie George and then.
Speaker 8: Michael Nolan and Brian Hall.
Speaker 0: Madame Mayor and City Council members. My name is Debbie George, and I'm a resident here in Alameda. A business owner, property owner, commercial, both commercial and residential. And I see this as a. I'm for the regulation and not the ban. I see this as an opportunity for Alameda. We're a forward community. And my my view point is to see that we do this correctly and in a way that's going to benefit everybody, because I do see a lot of benefits in it as far as the money on the tax could go to our police departments that we're short on. I mean, a lot of things in the city ordinances. But one thing because I'm a business owner on Park Street and I was involved with the downtown Alameda Business Association. I'm not speaking on behalf of Darva tonight. I'm just speaking on behalf of myself. But you may remember a few years ago, there was a tattoo parlor that wanted to come to town. And it really just opened up this big controversy. And basically, the company, which was a very well-known and large company, left because they thought, well, these people are just crazy here in Alameda . So what we did in our district, the downtown Park Street District, is we talked about how do we feel about having tattoo parlors, kids going to come in. It's going to be on the street. They're all going to see this. So what we did at that time is we put in to our bylaws that anybody that wanted to put a tattoo parlor in has to be on the second floor. And it actually worked. We have several in the district, and probably a lot of you don't even know that they're there. But I am all for forward thinking. I'd like to see this happen. I appreciate. The the presentation that we had, it shows that this isn't a sleazy behind screen door type of a business, that it can benefit a lot of people and it can benefit our community as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Michael Nolan and Brian Hoge. So there's two names on this list, so I'll read it again. Michael Nolan and Brian Holmes. So 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Accordingly, Madam Mayor and City Council. It's an honor and a privilege to be here as a native comedian. And I commend you guys and ladies in your efforts to be open minded. And the time and efforts that you've put in on behalf of this. I'd like to share a few accomplishments of. My best friend. I've known this man for 44 years. Our parents have known each other for in excess of. 70 years combined. His accomplishments in the city and on behalf of other business owners, speaks for itself. I believe nobody in this room has more experience in this industry. I believe he is a valuable resource to the community and also to to fellow. Attendees here that are aspiring to enter in this industry. Not just in Alameda, but Mr. Nolan, as has been the owner and the founder of the Green Door, which I believe is the second longest running dispensary in the world. His we'd like to state his accomplishments speak for themselves. You know, and I think from the community's perspective, I'd just like to get a show of hands of anybody in this room who has had the opportunity to meet Mr. Nolan and also had the opportunity to have a family member or friend benefit from his involvement in this industry and in the community. Thank you. So without further ado, I'd like to give the remaining time to my best friend and business partner, Michael Nolan. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you, Brian. I did take down a few notes here, so I wanted to make sure that was very clear. Good evening and thank you, Madam Mayor and Full Council. I greatly appreciate your most valuable time. I like to say that being the founder of the Green Doors dispensary in San Francisco has given me the experience to share the information in this industry, as well as having generations of family in Alameda and businesses. This is a very passionate goal to better the city and its constituents. In San Francisco, as well as other municipalities and states. We have worked with numerous charitable organizations, such as the Friends of the Urban Forest, Teaching Children, tree conservation in different municipalities, working with the United Players in San Francisco for the last five years during the gun buybacks in which we've taken thousands of guns off the street and we've provided them with target gift cards rather than giving them funds that could go back into the inner city in which they might go into the wrong direction where there could possibly be drug activity. We work with the Black Works Arts Foundation to locate sculptures that the children have built in parks that we've built around the city . We work with military hospitals to help provide medicine to terminally ill patients to have a better quality of life while having the honor of passing with dignity. We have also worked with the Academy of Sciences, in which we have done numerous art contests for children at the different schools to experience science and field trips in which we contribute the busses and the tickets for their admission. I leave it with this fact that I learned from my father, James Nolan, who was the executive director of the Boys Clubs. Fail me to hear you. President Nixon came down to congratulate him on what a great job he did for this great city of San Francisco or Alexa of Alameda and the children. When I was in the third grade, my grandmother, who lived in urban Ohio, had a form of stomach cancer that was a terminal at that time that can be treated. And I remember being in Columbus, Ohio, and the doctor telling us if we could find cannabis. And he used the term marijuana at the time to provide a better quality of life for her while she's going through her chemo. That perhaps it would be good for her. And I had to ask my dad, I said, and this is during the Reagan administration. I said, You told me drugs were bad. How am I supposed to understand this if this is a physician? And he said, Well, son, you take aspirin, don't you? I said, Yes. And he said, Well, that's a drug. He said, It's all about abuse. He said, If you're not abusing things and you have the opportunity of acquiring any type of relief through some type of medicinal value, then you should have that opportunity. Therefore, I felt that I was in a better place. What I would like to do is I've collected data on more than 3 million patients and received more than a thousand letters per dispensary annually. I've helped write legislation in more than 23 states. I worked with Congressman Rohrabacher, who did the rollback for Amendment, and it's now the robocall of Blumenauer was just reinstated. And I worked very closely with Congress as well and numerous senators. I was with Senator Rand Paul on his presidential campaign. I work on both sides because I'm a diplomat. I want to come up with win win resolution and what's best for our communities at large. At this point, I would like to say I have many more things to contribute, but I think we can save that for someone else because in the interest of time, I would like to make sure that everyone has their most attentive attention to be able to speak on their behalf as well. If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer any questions at this time of night. I look forward to having meetings with you all to see how I could be a benefit and an asset to this great community. I thank you all for your most valuable time, and thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Rosemary McNally. And then James Nelson.
Speaker 9: First. I think it's really important that you're here, that we're all here. I'm a child of the sixties and I took a few tokes and I remember how I responded. Then I went several decades without touching the stuff, and I became a senior citizen with trouble sleeping. I found out how you get a recommendation, which is a process in itself. I scoped out two dispensaries in Berkeley. I scoped up two up in Portland, and then I went to Harborside and it was like going to the makeup counter at I Magnums. There are incredible opportunities, potato chips for you, candy cookies, you name it. There are two qualities the THC which get you stoned, the CBD, which does not get you stoned. It's really important that people put themselves in a high education program before you start allowing kids and even some seniors who need a learning curve. This is powerful stuff. It's very. And my father, too, he was dying of lung cancer in 1976. He, too, took a little bit. Somebody found a joint someplace, but he was also taking cocaine, morphine, Thorazine, which was under the under the table. But he had a really hip doctor who gave that to him, and it calmed him down and it was a relief. So I would like to thank Frank, Matt SC for saying take your time figuring this out. I believe there's no rush and once you open the door to these recreational buyers, you don't know what's going to happen. The end, even the medicinal people. When you go to Harborside, I recognized three Alameda people there and I wasn't complaining about my money going off the island, but I was very interested to know that I know three people here who go over to Harborside and I started talking around and there are many people there are there are little lozenges you can take. There are the lotions you can put on your skin. There are tinctures, the tonics, mouth drops. Cannabis comes in many forms and in many formulations. And for those who do not want to get stoned, it's really important that you take your time choosing what to buy and what to use and how to use it. So I would say go slowly, figure this out. And I'm not a recreational user. I think medicinal purposes are fine.
Speaker 1: Thank you. James Nelson and then Kevin Pietersen and then Serena Chan. If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit your slip.
Speaker 4: Good evening, city leaders. I'm going to bring a little different subject up, and that's the insurance subject hasn't been spoken about here tonight. But I've been in the insurance business for 33 years. I own new growth insurance, which is located right here in Alameda. And. Presently. We. The one of the requirements that the insurance brings to this particular industry is security. You might be. Interested to know that the alarm systems, the video inside and out, the prison systems at the doors, vaults, safes, fencing around the property lock. Security gates. Security personnel inside, outside the building are all come as part of the insurance requirements. So that's a big concern in most communities, and that's handled just through the insurance alone. Presently our company is in eight different states. We've insured over 100 different cannabis businesses to date, and that's all happened primarily in the last 6 to 8 months. Most of those are in California. However, we're in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Maine, Florida and Pennsylvania as well as California. I'm a member of the two largest cannabis organizations, and one of them is the National Cannabis Insurance, a National Cannabis Insurance Agency. And it's a newly formed I'm on the insurance committee. There's only ten of us in the United States that are on that committee. I'm also on the California Cannabis Industry Association Insurance Committee that's newly formed here in California. As far as what you're going to see out there, dispensaries are going to be the only cannabis businesses that you're going to see that are going to have any branding on it. You won't even see the indoor building cannabis grow facilities. You won't even know they're there. Manufacturing, same thing. The. The job so that that that's that's the big thing I'm seeing in all these businesses that we've insured. For instance, Cultivations can have anywhere from 3 to 30 employees on site. That's pretty typical manufacturing, anywhere from 5 to 20, dispensaries, 10 to 20. Then you have transportation services, delivery services, attorneys, consultants. The list goes on and on. And we've heard different people speak tonight of how many different businesses are formed out of cannabis alone. Right now, some states require general liability insurance to be part of the permitting process. Along with now we're seeing product liability, which protects the consumer against any product malfunction or that that they may occur, which is pretty important. Other insurance is are on the crop itself. We can ensure the plants in various stages, building the transportation, the delivery, the cars, the people who drive them, labs and manufacturing.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ken Petersen.
Speaker 4: Mayor Castle, thanks very much for the good presentation from the staff. It was a good job. I am a doctor of pharmacy degree from the University of California, San Francisco. I've been interested in drugs, legal and illegal, for 55 years or more. And fascinating. I'm not a user of marijuana and I don't advocate it one way or the other, but I am concerned about general public health and welfare. Cannabis is probably the largest economic crop in agricultural crop in the state of California, which is very proud of its agriculture. And cannabis uncontrolled cultivation is an environmental catastrophe in the national forests and other such places destroying streams, wildlife, endangered species and people that happen to wander into the wrong places. One of the startling things about illegal drug use and attempts to control it is that when they try to make it illegal and and punitive, the value of the product goes up and the criminality goes up. On the other hand, in places around the world where they have tried to decriminalize and control and provide safe products, the crime and addiction even and the health issues have decreased greatly. Portugal, the entire country of Portugal has decriminalized. Switzerland is decriminalized. The city of Maastricht was a place where they decriminalize marijuana and they had a flood of tourists coming in. The local people weren't much interested in it doing the in Liverpool decriminalized. But medical control has been very successful in decreasing crime, illness and addiction. Thank you. Thank you. By the way, have a good trip.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sarina chan.
Speaker 9: I'm vertically challenged. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council. I'm sure you're tired of getting my emails. My name is Sabrina Chen. I lived here on the island for over 20 years. After moving here to raise my son in a safe environment the past 25 years, I've been a public health advocate working on tobacco control and learning all the best practices around tobacco control and alcohol control. And we have an opportunity here if we are to consider cannabis outlets to apply our best practice knowledge about how communities have tried and attempted to control tobacco and alcohol after it got out of the bag at the very front end. So I agree with most everything that was in the presentation. SEIU did a great job. They had one slide that said Health at the very end, and I'm all about a public health approach to cannabis and we need to do our best. Kids, unlike adults, if they start taking cannabis, out of all the adults who take cannabis, 9% will get addicted. That's according to the CDC for all the kids, people under under 18 who start using cannabis. 17% will become addicted. And addicted means addicted. I just have to mention that when I worked for an association that took a lot of secondhand smoke complaints, all the second hand smoke complaints that I got in housing, about half of them were regarding secondhand marijuana smoke. We had people calling us who had elderly and children and their next door neighbors were smoking cannabis and as a result, their health was being affected. And cannabis is listed on the state's list of toxic contaminants because 33 of the components of secondhand marijuana smoke are on that list. So it is recognized by the state of California to be a human carcinogen. So be very careful where you allow it to be smoked. And I was looking over the data from Colorado because this is a really complicated subject. And I've been reading everything and I feel like I need to smoke a joint. But what I found there is that in Colorado, they did a lot. They've been doing a lot of studying of the statistics. And still about 87% of the cannabis is consumed in the form of smoking. So even though edibles and vaping might be safer for other people around them, we have to take that into consideration too. But I'd be very happy to share with you the tons of documentation that the public health community has produced in relationship to the legalization of cannabis. And it's not prohibition. It's all about looking. How do we protect our communities? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Our last speaker is Linda Weinstock. If you want to speak on this issue, please submit your slip. Linda. I. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Hi, council members.
Speaker 1: My name is Linda Weinstock.
Speaker 0: I've been in the community for about ten years. I'm going to talk to a little bit about how marijuana seabeds have affected my family.
Speaker 1: About three years ago, I started having seizures.
Speaker 0: And the doctor.
Speaker 1: Put me on a medication called Topamax. I started to have problems with my vision.
Speaker 0: I started having problems with losing my hair. The next thing was they recommended that I start using CBD.
Speaker 1: Because they felt.
Speaker 0: That this would have less adverse effect. And also the fluorescent lights weren't bother me, but I was using them. At this moment I have a.
Speaker 1: Grandson who's suffering from.
Speaker 0: Tourette's. You look online right now, one of the best researches.
Speaker 9: For suffering from Tourette's is marijuana.
Speaker 0: Doesn't have the adverse effects. And I think we need to look at all the all of the adults, the seniors, the kids that are using medication right now that's destroying our bodies. And I think. We have an opportunity to have a really safe community and a really healthy community and especially our seniors. We're living really long lives. I'm 67 and I guarantee you I'm going to get to be 100 if I live in this community. So I just am hoping that we all look at the health of all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. There. Looks like we have another step. Andy Huntoon.
Speaker 4: Really? Right. Oh, I don't know what happened to it.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: But you put a different number.
Speaker 4: My dad. Mayor council members. I am here tonight as a long alameda resident. Close to 60 years. And at one point, I had just come home from Vietnam and I got turned down in my friends who hadn't had the privilege of going to Vietnam. Some of them later did, but they had gone over the Summer of Love and learned a little different.
Speaker 6: Attitude towards their.
Speaker 4: Fellow men going across around the world and killing people. And they came up with a kind of a hippie mantra, two things to remember and some things to consider when you're doing drugs in the light. I thought they were pretty productive and they've treated me well. 50 years ago, I was actually incarcerated in this building. We're doing somebody a favor, providing them with some drug. And I really, to this day, don't see what I'm doing wrong. There's always enlightening as it is. It offers me in the fact that I might be able to just sit down and relax and smoke. Smoke a joint without being incarcerated is thrilling, but it still doesn't address the problem that you're talking about hiding this thing and taking it out of this. The sites of the site of souls children, the realm of children. I'm thinking the children should be part of the formula. It's their world or their inheriting, and they should know what's going on and they should see what drug addicts act like and what what's motivating them and what's getting in my head. People do in everything that they do in the world should be a transparent things. We can understand what's going on to try to straighten out society. That's about all I had to say on so.
Speaker 8: All right. He's our.
Speaker 1: Last speaker. At this point, did we want to make a few comments or want to go to staff's questions?
Speaker 0: And Brody, let me to go first. Well.
Speaker 1: You're right. The first referral.
Speaker 3: Okay. So you got your pen ready? You might want to call because I may have a couple of questions. I'm sorry. So I'll try to go through this quickly because in the interest of time. But I do want to make some really short. Thank you. Thank you to staff and the consultant for all your work on this. And thank you to the mayor for asking me to co-host the town hall. We had a few weeks ago. I appreciated the opportunity to collaborate and. It was happy to say yes. I thought it was a very interesting event. Thanks for the community for coming out. You know, when we did this ban back in the middle of the night at 4:00 in the morning after we did the rent thing, we did say that we were going to have this this community outreach. So I appreciate everyone coming out at 530 for an early meeting. And just just briefly, I mean, one of the speakers said this. It's here. So it's something we have to deal with. The argument over whether or not we're going to have adult use that was decided last year at the ballot, that that issue is not up for debate. The same thing about. The same thing about medicinal cannabis. That's not up for debate either. That's been 20 years. I mean, it took us a long time to get regulations. But, you know, that debate is over. So like Dorothy Freeman said, you know, it's not a question of, you know, we want our taxes to go to other cities. I mean, do we want our jobs that could be had here to go to other cities? So I'll just rattle off, you know, where I stand on the different questions. And then first I'll just go through some general stuff. So because I think I had those listed first, I do think we need to take care of vaping in the in the smoking ordinance as I think we need to look at banning flavored tobacco . I know it's tangentially related, but if we're looking at smoking, I think we should look at that. Also on the deadline. I mean, I kind of agree with Councilmember Matt Arrestee. I'd rather do this right. It'd be great if we can do it right by January 1st. But if we can't, I'd rather do it right. I think we should look at delivery just in case we don't approve dispensaries. You know, there's going to be delivery in Alameda, so it'd be great if we can figure out a way to regulate that or somehow raise revenue from that. I do think we should, at the dispensary level, incentivize local ownership. I don't know what that looks like. I don't know what's legal. But I do think that's something we need to do licensing and permit having, you know, different fees for the actual permitting versus the actual application. I like that idea. I mean, local hire, I think that's a good idea as well. And if there's a way and I know some people talked about, you know, a live scan and that maybe as a solution. But, you know, a lot of people in a lot of communities have been impacted negatively by the, quote unquote, war on drugs and Nancy Reagan and all that crap. But so we might want to find a way to. You know, make sure that they can benefit from, you know, this being legal now. So if there's a way we can do that, those that have been impacted in a negative way, I'd like to see that as well. As we figure out the taxing structure, I'd like to see some type of a community benefit component where maybe some of this money goes into a grant fund and our shrub takes, you know, an opportunity every year to emptied out because I don't want it to be, you know, seized at the end of the year. And then we can kind of do this competitively and not like, you know, whoever gets the favorite charity of the month behind them, that type of thing. I'd like to see some type of incentivizing of incubator space. There's a lot of people in the business, but there's a lot of folks that, you know, may want to get into the business as we go. A labor piece, of course, to me is critical, whether it's card check or some other type of labor piece. I mean, there has to be that way. And then on the kids, I mean, the the speakers that touched on that, I think that's critical education. I think some way we can educate children on, you know, what's good because this is adult use, it's not children's use. So we want to make sure that we don't. Do anything that makes it easier for children, whether that's advertising signage. I actually think the 1000 foot ban is a good idea. Quickly, going through your your questions. To the extent I have an answer. What types of businesses? I'm fine with all of those. I think we should consider onsite. I mean. If we're going to be talking about this, let's talk about this and let's have this debate. I mean, it is something that especially since we're doing well, at least I hope we're doing the thing where you can't use it in apartments and out in public. Maybe we think about a different creative way and make sure, you know, our police department is is involved. Medical only or recreational. I mean, what is the market? I mean, to me. That would be the driving force on that decision. I mean, if we think we can be successful in a market where there isn't anybody like recreational. I don't know. I don't I don't really. I don't really know. So let's just kind of see where where the market is and where you think we can be most beneficial. And finally, the three dispensary cap. I think the others don't need to be capped. But the one thing the one speaker from Webster that that was interesting that maybe we cap, you know, one in each, you know, area, one of our retail areas. I thought that was interesting because maybe we don't want three on, you know, Webster Atlantic. Right. Maybe, you know, we want to space them out. And then. Okay. So I think I answered that one. I answered that one city on land. I agree with staff. No city on land. And I think I answered all your questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And staff, you can fit the questions up so we can all be looking at those to prompt us. That'd be great. I vice mayor.
Speaker 0: Mayor?
Speaker 7: I think there's been a lot of work, obviously that's been put into this and a lot of thought. But I also hear that there's a number of our community members. When I looked at some of the numbers who aren't fully on board and and I think when I look at that, I want to make sure that we're doing our part to really work with the community and talk to them and hear them out. I think we're going to be better for it if we can bring people along rather than kind of force something onto our community members without really getting their buy in. You know, in terms of the deadline, in a way, it's somewhat of an artificial deadline because we can do things to kind of put things in place while we actually fully articulate what it is we intend to do. I would like this to be done once and done right. I don't want us to rush into it. One thing I would like us to consider is the possibility of phasing certain things in. If there is, there's certain areas that might be less controversial. I would like to start with looking at that, seeing that we do that right, perhaps starting with lab testing or manufacturing things that might be, you know, not involving direct retail sales where we could address some of the issues that have been raised tonight. How are we going to handle the tax revenue that comes in? How are we going to make sure these facilities are safe in some communities? You know, the sheriff has an access, you know, video surveillance into the facilities. They can check, they can monitor. They're working with them on, you know, delivery, timing, best practices, things like that. I think that there's absolutely an opportunity for us to kind of perfect that in the areas where we're not adding that additional element of direct retail sales right away, that sort of thing. I also think that, you know, it's not to say that we don't look at some of the other things, although I am concerned about our capabilities and capacity at actually being able to deal with any sort of major incident. Right now, I know we have to call for mutual aid in the event of fires and things like that. I'm a little less inclined to kind of prioritize something like cultivation, where we're an island community, we have infrastructure issues currently on Alameda Point. You know, I want to make sure that there's not a kind of runoff issue or some sort of issue with water or things like that in terms of production and cultivation. Also, in the event of a major incident, I want to make sure that we actually have the crews needed to handle whatever that would look like and to do that sort of analysis. I don't know that we have. You know, in terms of looking at the direct retail aspect of it, I do think that I would at least want to see that come in at maybe a later phase if it's something that we're going to consider. One thing that I've heard a lot of is people wanting an opportunity to participate in the conversation of what direct retail sales might include or look like. You know, is three the number that we want to have, we still don't know if we're going to be able to co-locate. That's something that's still outstanding that could affect the analysis. I also think that we should do our best to engage groups like the PTA, the school board, different community groups that are out there, folks at Mastic Senior Center, our Parks and Rec folks, friends of the Park. I think we need to try to get as much feedback and buy in from them. I don't know if that would look like a task force or some sort of additional town hall that we would have in the coming months relative to what direct retail might look like if we are considering it, and what our biggest and chief concerns are. You know, I do. I think in terms of the setbacks, you know, in Colorado in 2012, the federal government issued a number of cease and desist letters to dispensaries located within a thousand feet of schools. I think under the current climate, we absolutely have to consider that. So we're we're looking at this especially with regards to schools. I think it's something that we have to consider. I would like to see a more detailed map and what that would potentially look like. I also think I know we have a number of different parks. Something that's come up is parks where there's place structures, there's different types of parks out there. And that's perhaps something that the community could discuss. But I think the 100,000 feet from schools is something just based off of the federal climate of things right now. I'm more interested in looking at what a map like that would look like, and then also the feasibility of what types of spaces are actually out there. Are we just kind of creating a map and then there isn't really spots for things to land? I do want to have a more robust conversation in terms of land use and zoning for different things. I think that that's something that hasn't really been dived into in the report that we got and is is still obviously outstanding with regards to the live scan. I think we absolutely should encourage looking at things and looking into things and making sure our facilities are as safe as possible. But I also know that there's a number of people who are in the industry who because we've we've just made things legal, have had you know, we'll have records. I think that we don't want to say just because you have a record or some sort of past that you can't operate now legally, I think we want to encourage people coming into the industry in a legal fashion. You know, with regards to the cap, I think at least initially, I'd like to limit the number that we're looking at just so that it's manageable and we're not getting staff kind of inundated with the approval process and having that take up a lot of our time in terms of what our other priorities might be. So I think figuring out what that number might look like and what we think we can actually process and regulate in a in a given year is something that's worth looking into. With regards to residency, I think residency can be a little arbitrary in terms of how we actually go about defining it. Is it three years? Is it five years? What do we actually look at? I think the metrics that we're looking for, the underlying concerns is what is your connection and commitment to our community? And to that end, I think I'd be really interested in looking at those sorts of indicators, like, do you hold a current business license ? Have you ever held a business license in the city of Alameda? Have you gone through a permitting process in your personal capacity or otherwise? What would what would that look like? What's your history in terms of your ability to work with our staff and to really work with us as opposed to working against us or being combative or litigious? I think also looking at things like what's your involvement in our local community? Are there community groups that are supporting you or that you've worked with, that you have a history with that sort of thing? I think that, again, that really hits the heart of whether or not you're committed to our community or not. And I think those people who are residents of our community are long term, you know, community members in various ways are going to meet those those aspects more so than other people who are less interested, let's say, in being a long term community partner. You know, I would also like to see something around a labor peace agreement right now, the state saying 20 or more employees. I would like to at least cut that number into half. I think that that gives us insight into making sure that the facilities are safe and that we're really working towards safety and safe access also in the working environment and can be with the union of their choice. But I would like that to occur before we actually issue a permit that there's some sort of agreement worked out that that they're going to be working with a different labor union. They're going to have ten or more employees. I like the idea of limiting, you know, one type of retail per district. And I also would echo my colleague's comments regarding flavored tobacco bans and looking at the smoking ordinance. One thing, if we do have some sort of I kind of want to. Parcel these out and talk about them separately as opposed to in, you know, in combination collectively. If we are looking at, you know, retail, I think we do have to have a conversation simultaneously with if we're looking at our smoking ordinance and making those changes, which I think it's worth looking at, are we going to have on site? Because if you live in federally subsidized housing, you can't smoke at home. And at the same time, we don't want people necessarily smoking in our parks, smoking around our kids. I think that's going to push it into those areas. So I think there is a value in really looking at on and what that looks like. And I think there's ways that we can address whatever issues might exist, like, you know, safety on the roads, safety for people in the neighborhoods. One other thing that I've seen is, you know, in some of these different areas, requiring different people when they get to the final stage in terms of applying to actually have the applicant put together some sort of town hall or community access, just like we notify folks if we're going to be making changes to a building that are going to be drastic or could involve the neighborhood, that we would notify the neighbors, give them an opportunity to meet the prospective owner and actually have that process happen and take place so that we can get that community input and we can get whatever the concerns are, we can actually address them as opposed to dismissing them . And I really hope this process is focused around, you know, addressing whatever the underlying issues are, if it's safety. Let's actually have a conversation about that and talk about the what ifs and if we can do those sorts of things that are going to make people feel safe and comfortable with what's happening. Because I think that that's really important. And I think that, you know, this people were strongly supporting, but we don't talk about the details. And I think the details really matter in terms of making sure people in our community feel like we're addressing their needs in terms of quality of life. So those are my comments.
Speaker 0: I want to go next.
Speaker 1: What member matter.
Speaker 4: S.E., thank you. I agree with most of what my colleagues have said there. I do think we have to start small in a phased in approach. I think most of the people have talked about dispensaries, and I do think we need to cap manufacturing, cultivation and distribution and testing. And I think the point about distribution may be a function of what is allowed. On the two other or the three other categories. My biggest concern right now is location where this is going to be located. And it's really not my personal concern. It's the concern of the people who get notice when there's a conditional use permit if you're within 300 feet of it. I think that's when the theory of legalization becomes the reality. Who wants this next door to you? Whatever this is, then you can talk about parking. You can talk about all the the horror stories are. We had the debate about whether medicinal should be used and whether recreational. Views. I think Councilmember already pointed that out, but I think it's very important that we talk about the location and that's a I think is a land use issue and the planning board should help us with that. I think the thousand feet for the the reasons that were mentioned from a federal level and from experience where for example, in in the seventies, Oakland put in a thousand foot ordinance for new liquor stores because that was the scourge of the time. Was it within a school? I think the comment on on putting parks into the equation as well as balancing that equation off with on site use activities, I think that still has to be debated. My second concern is directly with the this draft ordinance. And it's not this is not an order of importance. But I'll make the police department, particularly the chief or the chief designee, is tasked with a bunch of activities. And here are hearings, enforcement, appeals. These are some of our most expensive employees who people are clamoring that should be out on the street enforcing the speed limit. I want to make sure that this is not only revenue neutral and I. I don't harbor the illusion or the delusion that we're going to get $1.6 million in tax revenue because this is going to cost us a whole bunch more than I think it is. And we need to pay those bills first before we start divvying up the money to all the all the the other services. Because I was just reading in the Chronicle where a grow house in the Lower Dimond in Oakland was raided by a SWAT team. They caught the guy and nobody was hurt. The guy was there, according to the report, two steel plants. So I was glad nobody got hurt. It was resolved. You know, the alarms went off, all the security work the police got there. But it was a SWAT team and. Ching, ching, ching, ching. That's dollar signs. And it's also police officers who are not doing the things that we're tasking them to do now. So I want to make sure that our police department is paid and expanded to handle whatever is brought in here, regardless of how it turns out. And then that comes to the cash nature of the business. It was dramatically stated that $1.6 million is a lot of $20 bills wrapped up in a pile and deposited right here down to the Department of Finance over a period of time. How do we how do we make sure? How do we mitigate the liability of having a heist in the parking lot or a heist at one of these places? It's like a bank robbery where people get tempted because there's a pile of cash that they can take and run because robbing a bank is a federal crime, I think. Right. The federal crime. Robbing a pot dispensary is not a federal crime. And we don't have that protection. And I don't want to have the city ignore that liability. And how do we address that? How do we address I appreciate the protection for the workers. Are we address having the workers pay into the Social Security system if they're receiving cash? How do we make sure that they're being paid overtime, they're receiving cash. And when I say we make sure that means we have to pay somebody to audit this gentleman who does audits from SCA. Well, that's being paid and. That's a cost to the city. And. We have to. We have to know what those numbers are so that we can fund it and balance those those against what we're gaining by allowing one of these aspects or all of these aspects. And I agree with the. No city property. No federal property. A thousand feet from a school. I would like to see something come up with the parks especially and that overlay with the with whether there's a on site consumption activity or not. So those those are my comments on it. And I do think this is going to be a long discussion if there's a way to phase it so that we get started as a pilot to see. How safe it is, how much it costs, and what the problems are. That's great because ordnances are meant to be examined and reviewed and refreshed. To make sure that we're meeting the current needs of. But I don't want us to ignore that. And I don't want to wait to the end and have the ordinance approved. And then we spend another few months arguing over what the fees are. We need to know. In parallel with what the fees and what the cost of this is. We need to take our best shot at it and be conservative on what the impact is on on this. And I think it's not just going to be cost. It's going to be more people that are going to be needed. Because we don't have enough people now to enforce many of our ordinances. This one has with the cash that's going to be resident here. This one has bigger implications than, you know, a signed ordinance or a a public nuisance ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go next member Ashcraft. Thank you. And thank you to my colleagues who have spoken before. As Councilmember Madras said, I concur with much of what's been said. So having spent a full day this past week at this seminar with. Government officials from cities and counties, mostly in the Northern California area, but many of whom are already doing some form of commercial cannabis business. The overarching theme we heard from those who've been there is go slow, that it's always you're always able to add as you go. It's really hard to take away something that you've permitted. And there were some horror stories which I will get to. But so at the outset, I want to say that I respectfully disagree with staff's recommendation, that we permit everything, all the different categories, with the exception of outdoor cultivation. At the outset, I don't think that's going slow, and I don't think that gives the council and the community an opportunity to get their arms around what this means for Alameda. And I do appreciate hearing from all the advocates who have come out on both sides of this issue. I also am mindful that our schools just went back into session about two weeks ago. So during the summer a lot of families were in and out of town and not even aware that, you know, of what was going on around this topic. So I do want to I think the vice mayor mentioned bringing in the school district recreation and parks stakeholders. I would add to that the Boys and Girls Club and Girls Inc, and I do want to see that buffer. I worry less about limiting tax revenue if you expand the buffer too wide than I do with the primary. Overarching reason for the regulations is to keep this cannabis out of the hands of young people. So you logically keep it away from schools and parks. And after all, a number of our parks are the site of afterschool programs that are run by the Recreation Parks Department, our Recreation and Parks Department, or Girls Inc, for instance. And I also want to just pause for a minute and say, I have complete compassion for all of you who are or have had family members who are cancer survivors or patients or other debilitating conditions for whom medical cannabis has provided relief. And that's one of the reasons that medical cannabis has been legal in the state since 1996. This is not a question about do we legalize it or not? It's legal. It's been around since 1996. And not only is Harborside a dispensary 1.8 miles away and I love the analogy of I magnets make up counter we are showing our age because there hasn't been I magnets for a while, but there are also a number of dispensaries that deliver to Alameda. So nobody needs to go and find and find a parking space and that sort of thing. So we're not you know, we are mindful of those needs. I also like the idea of creating jobs, but not just any jobs. And that's why if Augustine Ramirez is still here and I worked closely with him on the ACA recycling workers, so we want to make sure that we're creating well-paid jobs, that there are benefits. That and very good question from my colleague Matt Arrestee. How do you make sure that that's done in a in a cash economy? So put that on your list of things to look into because the Bay Area actually has a very robust economy, unlike, say, Eureka, where I had lunch at the conference with some folks and one of them is a planner was is a planner in the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, which produces 92% of all the cannabis in this country. And she was telling me that it's a very real issue there because people are jobless. The forestry and the lumber industry has left that area and it's not coming back. And she said as we legitimize these businesses and have these dispensaries, it brings the price of cannabis down and it makes it less lucrative for the illicit operators. They are dealing with Mexican drug cartels in the national forest in their county. This is not a good thing. It's also not a problem we have here. But my point is we can be a little more selective about the jobs and a little more demanding of what these workers, what their benefits and pay should be to the extent that we're allowed to do that. But one of the things she said and also the city council member from the city of Arcata said, watch out for too much of a concentration of cannabis businesses in any one retail area, just like too many bars on a on a street or in the business district, it really changes the climate, the whole atmosphere of that area. I would favor starting slowly with the least. Intrusive, if you will, businesses. I am convinced now, having heard from a professor from UC Davis who started the first lab for testing cannabis products ten years ago in this country, that testing laboratory testing is very important for the safety of the people who use these products. And there is so many different variations and the impacts of the different kinds and that sort of thing. A testing lab in Alameda or two. I would think that that would be a pretty good place to start, kind of get our our feet on the ground a little bit manufacturing, maybe. The lady who spoke who has her business in Emeryville can invite me over to come see it. I am trying to get all the education I can. I also thought we learned it at this seminar that you can have a brick and mortar business that doesn't include a retail storefront, but it can do delivery. And I thought, well, delivery because that gets the cannabis into the hands of people who need it without having to come to the place. Now, one of the police officers from UC Davis, not UC Davis, the city of Davis who was there, did tell us a little horror story about there have been a couple of armed robberies at deliveries where someone called in or requested a delivery. It was really a vacant house and there were really gang members waiting there. But I you know, we have our very capable police chief, Paul Woolery, in the audience. And I'm sure this is something that police chiefs around the state are discussing how to deal with. And but, again, I would I would start slow with one or two of the the different uses. I would love to get into the hands of the Council on Staff. This report from the Denver conference. It's like this, but I think it's great reading for us. And I also I said that the thousand foot buffer includes our parks, including the skate park. And as far as the residency requirement, I'm all for hiring local. But as far as permit applications of operators, the staff participants also emphasized that experience and track record is very important. That's not to say that you couldn't have some points for being local, but you know, when we get around to issuing permits, I would rather see a good, strong track record. Maybe it comes with locals or maybe it doesn't. And so then in the ordinance itself, just quickly, I've highlighted some pages that concern me. The. Well, first of all, we did say it's one of the findings that we will hold several public meetings. So this, as far as I'm concerned, is our first public meeting because it was a great town hall that the mayor and council member Odie put on, but it wasn't put on by the city. So it, you know, more information is better than less. So let's hold more another town hall and hear from maybe some different aspects. The. I also. Want. So and well, I wouldn't even get to dispensary and retail permits because I wouldn't do that in the first year. I would do something less, less impactful to the community. See how that all shakes out. And then we'll think about. Retail and others. The. Something that. Security for cash businesses has already been raised. The. Background information is important. But bear in mind, and it's in the ordinance that you cannot in under the ordinance, you can't deny someone a permit for a previous conviction under California Health and Safety. 11. 350 or 11. 357. My probation officer days are a little ways behind me, but is that. Is recreational use of 11 350 and 11 357 Health and safety. Somebody help me. What is that? Oh, come on. You can hear someone speaking on the mic off the top of your head. Chief, did you want to take that question for us or not? It's not it's not the penal codes. That probably was our chief of police. Paul, we're. Larry.
Speaker 4: Paul. Larry. Police Chief. You caught me off guard. 357 and 350. Our Health and Safety Code Sections 357 B was the one that we always would before would use for the infraction citation for less than an ounce of marijuana and 350 was sales.
Speaker 1: So the point is that. And you can go sit down and relax. Thank you, sir. The point is, you can't deny someone a permit for a previous conviction on those statutes. And that we do. Councilmember matter S.E. mentioned and it's true we stretch our staff very thin. And so right now I was looking under the licensing regulations. And so there are all these requirements to come up with insurance and inspection, all that. And do we do that on an annual basis? And, you know, do we do we make sure that someone is current on their on their license, on their business license, on their use permit? Because I know sometimes with our other licenses, they could be overdue months going up to a year. But in in a case like this, I would think it's very important to stay on top of that. So. Um, and, you know, you can answer yes. You add it to your list. Yeah, I'm not looking to too, but. But then we do. There is on page 15 the failure to pay the required fees, taxes or any other monies owed to the city. So my question there for staff for another time is and then how long do we we know that that would result in a revocation of the license. So is there a grace period? How long before you've gone without paying your license fee for the renewal year before that licenses revoked, it wasn't clear in there. And then there is the so the chief of police is deemed to or can designate someone is going to do the hearings and determine who or reviews the applications for permits and determine who gets it. And then a permit could be revoked, temporarily revoked. But the the license holder or permit holder can ask for a hearing before a hearing. Officer My question is, who pays for the hearing? Officer The hearing officer comes up in a couple of different instances. So please have that information for us and then. Okay. And the shopping centers and I said this in an email to Ms.. Potter last night that and I see, you know, we've expanded the radius, but a shopping center like South Shore, I think Jamestown Properties, is doing an outstanding job. They're trying to be very family friendly. In the winter, we have a skate park. They've just put in a playground next to Bed, Bath and Beyond. They held weekly activity sessions for toddlers all during the summer months. We have children's stores, we have food trucks on the weekends. That is not a good place for retail cannabis sales. And the same thing could be said of Park Street. And I remember when what is now Peet's Coffee was going to become a cigarets cheaper and the community erupted because it was so close to the high school and that was cigarets. But and I actually think the city bought that property and then sold it to Peet's and it's been a great success. So just think of all the family serving activities and locations up and down and in the environs of Park Street, including Alameda Theater, including the main library checkers, ice cream. I could go on, but you all know our city, I think. And. They're on the delivery piece, and I know that. Delivery, it says, shall be directly to a residents or business address and only between certain hours. And it has to be signed for that. What's to keep that delivery out of the hands of a young person? If a minor is the only person home that teenager, does he or she get to sign for the cannabis or does it go back with the delivery service? So I would like that answered as far as the locations that were suggested on page 34 for cannabis cultivation. I was mildly surprised and I was very surprised that made a point. Adaptive Reuse District, the army, the Point Enterprise District were called out because the council hasn't really had that discussion. And I think we're looking at being a lot of things. We've got a lot of tech companies that are out there and are acting as incubators to others. This kind of goes in a different direction, quite a different direction. We also have the Alameda Point Collaborative out there and Operation Dignity and Bessie Coleman Court and, you know, lots of families and, you know, more more residents is coming to Alameda Point. And then, of course, and I think the vice mayor touched on this. There's the infrastructure that is in need of everything out there. And we're charging over $1,000,000 an acre. But I, you know, I. I don't want us to do just anything to bring in revenues. I just don't think that the council's had a a robust discussion on whether cannabis is illegal, is appropriate in that area. But at this point, I wouldn't favor cultivation indoors or outdoors anywhere in the city. And and again, I think when you talk about the army to point locations, you do need to think of the other uses that are out there, including the collaborative. Finally. Um. Okay. And so. In summary, I think that we can be proactive but conservative. I think we can get something very limited on the books to protect us from the January 28 date. But I would start with very small steps. Learn from that, and whatever we do will make sure we do it right. We don't need to be early adopters on this. Thank you. All right. So I want to thank. First of all, I want to thank the community. I want to thank staff. Their presentations. The legal advice. I want to thank my council members for. Considering this, I'm going to answer some of the questions that were raised. First of all, why Rush? From my perspective, and I'm going to remind you all what my perspective is. I'm a Mexican-American woman who grew up in Los Angeles in the sixties. From my perspective. And in regards to who? Who is the one that got busted? I am in I do want to ask our police for the records of who got cited. I my understanding is from looking at Oakland and Los Angeles, they're going back 20 years to find out if there was any disproportionate siting for cannabis related offenses in regards to the skin color of the people that were, in fact, cited. So I want to know what records we have on that or if there's any area of town that received more citations. And that is what other cities are looking at. And I agree that that is something we need to at least look at the data. So we are making an informed decision in regards to if there is a response required or at least that should be considered for that as other cities are. So in regards to the question, why Rush? I don't think this is rushing. I think that our country has been dealing with this for over 50 years and some of you would say 60 years. And I would submit that our country has done a very poor job with this issue. And that connects to my next issue that many of you spoke about, your personal journeys. And and I have heard from people in the community in regards to their children themselves. Their parents are needing medicinal cannabis to.
Speaker 0: Actually.
Speaker 1: Be able to participate in life. It is and from and that leads to as all many of you know, I am a ten year breast cancer survivor. Triple negative impacts. Women of color. High fatality rate. Very aggressive chemo. And with that comes side effects. With that comes doctors, oncologists prescribing medications that in fact are very detrimental to our bodies. So why does that matter? Why does it matter to all of you that can stand up here and say you are not that person? You have your health so that driving to Oakland doesn't matter. It should be something we can all do. I'm going to ask you all to close that door. Thank you. Honestly, a lot of us cannot do it. A lot of us cannot do it. I heard many of you say you care about education and yet then you say, well, other cities are have deliveries come into our town. So it doesn't matter that you're going to be able to get it, but you're not going to get is that conversation. That is, in fact, what needs to happen. And should someone that has impaired health. I have to go to Oakland to have that conversation. Should they have to have that conversation with someone they don't know? I also support preference for local ownership and employees. Why? Because it matters. I want them to be able to have a conversation without the stigma. I also want our country to figure out how to move forward with medical research so that we all know how to do the best we can. So my position on all of this 600 feet. Why? Because it's the state law. It is not reckless. Reckless. It is not. It is in quote unquote, minimum. But it is done with measure. They they when they are suggesting 600 feet, there is a determination by our state that that is sufficient. And when you look at our map at the 1000 feet, and I'm sure if you include other things that you want to measure from. We will not have any retail establishments on the farm. I do not think that is appropriate. Why? Because access does matter. Going to someone in person does matter. And yes, we can keep it safe. And in fact, any of you that think cannabis is not here, you are wrong. It is here. If you ask your friends who has a card, who is using. Your friends use it. Please do not fool yourself into thinking that no one that you talk to uses and it's not. So from my position, it's not a rush. We are way behind. Should we in fact be measured? We are measured. Member already brought his first referral. Someone asked this question. Who brought the referrals? Member already brought the first one in November. What was the vote? My recollection is. And who made the motion? I actually made the motion on the referral. It was a31. One is my recollection to hear the referral with myself member ODY and member matter SC of voting to hear it. With member Ashcraft my recollection voting not to and member de sog abstaining. That was in November. Come May. I felt like we actually needed to. Moving along. And I'm going to use that. Move it along. So I brought another referral. It actually coincides with my treatments that I go to the cancer center for every six months. And as the clock ticks and I'm thinking, why do people like me? I go to the cancer center. If any of you want to join me, I'll be going again in November here at Cancer Center. You can see stories like this, and I'm going to explain what it is. Last time I was there, there was a gentleman African-American receiving chemo. He had a caretaker with him. He was in a wheelchair. They could not move him to a non wheelchair to receive his chemo. He could not really speak. He had to have the caretakers speak for him. The saddest part was, okay, so I when I did my chemo almost ten years ago, I had what they called dense dosing. I went every three weeks instead of a traditional four. I do not now my current treatments every six months. Which means I go to the cancer center every six months. At the end of his treatment, the nurse said, I will see you tomorrow. There are cancer patients that go every single day. We do have serious problems. And it's not just cancer. There are other illnesses. There are others. We heard it tonight. Other medical conditions that can get relief this way. I don't think it's appropriate for Alameda to not. I do agree with the term compassionate, compassionate care. These are our loved ones. They are parts of our community. And I know and I trust that Alameda can do it responsibly. I also trust I was former PTA council president for two years. I was on our school board for six years. I am confident. And yes, I do want to work with our schools. I want to educate that we have teachers that do that currently because they know students are offered marijuana in this town. There is access. And we have students every day that say no. Yes. And we have parents every day that step up and teach their children what's appropriate and what's not appropriate, whether it be in regards to marijuana and alcohol. And some of you I know heartache and alcohol and yet our thinking that we can have. So when I moved up here, I was a little surprised to see a liquor store right across the street from Alameda High. I was also surprised to see a liquor store not very far from another one from Alameda High. I was also surprised to see how many bars within walking distance to both of our high schools and other schools in town. But you know what I was told? Trish. They were kind of grandfathered in. It's the Alameda way. So that is something that this town has done. And and teachers and principals and school board members and parents all know it to me every day when we, our children walk past those. They do it.
Speaker 0: Responsibly.
Speaker 1: Please do not ever discount the intelligence of our youth, our youth. And in fact, also walk past. Dispensaries. And by that I mean brick and mortar dispensaries. I think the number three by staff is appropriate. I think it is appropriate to have one on each side of the main island and one on the farm. I also on site consumption. I also support that. I think it is actually complements our ordinance of no smoking because we honestly I would prefer that people that want to smoke have a site that is legal instead of having them smoke. And you all know what? Smoking in our parks, smoking at our beach, smoking behind a crap cove, smoking on our streets. You know it. Let's give them a safe place.
Speaker 0: That was that is legal.
Speaker 1: To smoke and them as in people that are people that do look like yourself. I did, in fact, have someone that I highly respect. I wish I didn't see anyone that looks like us support this. Look in this room. This is representative of Alameda.
Speaker 0: This is.
Speaker 1: Us. Okay. Deliveries. My preference would be to have dispensaries, brick and mortar in this town sooner rather than later, because I don't think it is best practice to have deliveries only and we cannot stop those other cities. You can order from a dispensary outside the city. They are driving it through this town. They are driving it through this town with product our city. We have a proposal for a permit that includes jeeps, the $3,000 regulations that would make it safer. And we cannot put our proposals on these other cities. We could offer a safe alternative, a safer alternative, and encourage our residents to purchase from our delivery services that then have safeguards put on them. And I would prefer that please do not kid yourself that you are stopping deliveries to this town. You are not. You would only make it so. It's not regulated the way the Alamitos want to regulate it so that we can in fact have it as safe as possible. Economic Development Department. I believe that this should go through the economic development department like other business permits. I think it is critical that it go through fire and it goes through police. I don't think it is the best. I don't think it is appropriate to have it go through police to begin with, because I am concerned that, first of all, our police have jobs. They are very busy and I want them to be dealing with criminals. Guess what? Our state has legalized this. This is no longer criminal, so it's not appropriate to have a police chief in charge of it. It should, in fact, go through economic development department like any other permit. And when it requires oversight. Yes, it goes through police and fire, but not with our chief being in charge of this. Local ownership, I absolutely support. I think it's critical. And I do want to know the data. If we have any data that would support an equity policy like other cities have in regards to especially people of color and certain areas in town. Commercial Benefit Fund. I'm fine with that. We have many uses. Many, many causes. You all know that. I could ask you all raise your hand. Who supported a cause in this town? Every hand's going to go up. I know it. We all know we have many causes in town. I'm happy to fund them. 600 feet buffer. I think that's appropriate in regards to schools and use centers. But our state requires. I support community education. Yes. And banking. That is an issue. I would encourage each one of you, especially those of you that have been concerned, to reach out to everyone that's running for governor, make sure they have a platform to require that they will, in fact, commit to having a banking system in our state. Other states that have done this issue have in fact, implemented their own banking systems. We need it to. So unfortunately, here in Alameda, we will be limited that make sure, especially all of you that are this is your hot issue. In fact, I've done this. We had Antonio Villaraigosa show up in Oakland. I went to the meeting. I asked that question critical, the side effect from other drugs, opioids. We know that you can look at that statistic if you don't think that we should try something different. It is critical that we as a society figure out how to do medical cannabis advertising. We don't have billboards in this town. I would also and I'm sure our state will be having high safeguards on this, but I would oppose advertising for this. Somehow word gets out products that appeal to children. Okay, I. I do think alameda can do it better. I am in support of having manufacturing. I am not in support of manufacturing that appeals to children. I think it's critical that we raise that bar. Do it well. I do want containers and that was in the proposed ordinance. I am fine with trying to come up with a safe packaging. Okay. Another reason why I think it's critical that we do this. Drug dealers. When when people. I on the street, they get exposed to a lot more than cannabis. It could be guns. It can be drugs that have serious consequences. When people use cannabis, it can be for health reasons. It can also be for recreation. But no, they shouldn't have to buy it on the street. And we can again. To me, this is an improvement. It's a serious improvement because unfortunately, people that sometimes you go to buy, you can have something go terribly wrong. And we have had people in this town that end up with serious injuries, if not worse, from having a drug, being just being there. Drug deal go wrong. Insurance requirements, that was discussed by a speaker. Thank you for being here. That should appease a lot of these concerns. Vaping in regards to adding to the smoking ordinance. I actually am not sure about that. I'm not. I know why because I think vaping is actually used to help people stop smoking. But to me that is something that would come back to council and we can have the community weigh in on that issue. Okay. So I'm not sure if I've hit all these issues. I hit everything, but. I, I am supportive of. So initially going into this, I was thinking I would not support cultivation, commercial cultivation in town. However, we had a speaker that spoke about where is it being cultivated now? Unfortunately, sometimes in our national forests. So you know what? I'm okay with having cultivation in town and that will just be something else that I think we have to figure out the best practice for doing it. There's all there's so many businesses connected to it that. So. So I'm not I'm going to support all of them. And. And I also. So so the only other issue I think I might not have touched on is labor peace. The state has said 20 to 1. I think that that is sufficient. Again, I would defer to our state. I don't think we need to lower it. And I want to make sure that we are not putting up barriers just for the sake of. So. So and I already saw shaking heads. I have we had businesspeople stand up here and say that they actually take pretty darn good care of their employees compared to other business retail businesses in town. So they. So I think there is, in fact, another way that you don't, in fact, have to require of. So. So the state is already saying 20 to 1. I'm fine with that. I think we can also. Ask and well and where we've heard our businesses are already offering higher pay than if, for instance, working in a lot of our retail in town. So I am happy to entertain, you know, how to make sure that we get if we think we want to do that for one business. And in regards to minimum wage. I brought a referral for that.
Speaker 0: A long time ago.
Speaker 1: And it is something that. I think we do need to look at it. I actually don't know if you can look at it in regards to just one industry, but in regards to the Labor piece, I'm comfortable with 20 to 1. I'm less comfortable with having people have to go off island. To get to go to a dispensary there. And I'm even less comfortable with having deliveries being made where we ourselves are not offering the education and doing offering the educate the education in a respectful manner that we think would work if I didn't already say it. I see some people in the audience that spoke to onsite consumption. Yes, I support that, too. All right. So now as a.
Speaker 0: Member, Odie can.
Speaker 3: I just had a couple of things get some things came up and I wanted to make sure that staff knows that I agreed with some of the comments.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: One thing I didn't mention, I do think to the extent we can de-politicize the selection process, I would like to see that. So it's not the person with the I see Mr. McConnell sending up the fanciest lobbyist. I think we should. I just prefer that. That would be great. I did neglect and I apologize. Madam Chairman, your point about. But the rush. I mean, I appreciate that because, you know, you did do a second referral that kind of jumpstarted the process, which I thought was taking a little bit longer. So I am concerned if I don't do it right, but I also don't want that to be permission to staff to let this linger, you know, another year.
Speaker 1: That's right. It's been almost a year since memory.
Speaker 0: Was first before.
Speaker 3: I do want to I mean, I agree that, you know, there is some sense of urgency for the reasons you mentioned. But, you know, if we have to wait till January, February, I'm fine with that. But I, I just don't want to see this linger a lot longer. And I'm afraid if we say slow down, that it's just going to be, you know, interpreted as permission to wait.
Speaker 1: So so I really appreciate that comment. Thank you.
Speaker 3: That, you know, I made that comment. You know, I like the also the idea of, you know, the planning board getting involved and making sure that this is an economic development because it's not a crime anymore, folks in the state of California. So why are we emphasizing the police department when it's a it's really a health issue and it's really economic development.
Speaker 8: So those comments came from.
Speaker 3: My my two colleagues. And then and then also the time commitment, you know, some of our highest paid ice pension employees should be doing what they're supposed to be doing and not, you know, administratively managing our cannabis business in the last concern. And I think the mayor mentioned, you know, artificial restraints. I mean, if you consider the shoreline a park and you, you know, draw a line around the shoreline and you're basically cutting off, you know, big chunks of the city. So. Well, I'm cognizant of that park issue. I want to make sure we do it in a way where, you know, by saying that we're not whether intentionally or unintentionally, kind of making it impossible for any business to be permanent at all. So let's just be careful about that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate all those comments. I think I agree with them. Thank you.
Speaker 3: We did. So I wanted to make sure staff knew that. Yes. Some other agreement that, you know, I wasn't able to say in the beginning because I don't want to hog all that.
Speaker 1: I know that. Okay. So member already brought the first referral. I brought a second one to move it along. He and I did do a townhall and I do appreciate his work on this issue.
Speaker 3: And same here.
Speaker 1: So many questions. All right. Member Ashcroft So and maybe you were about to say how we will proceed. So that's what I was going to. I do think there's some difference of opinion. And I do want to touch on the issue of not having the police do the applications. I think it is important for a number of reasons that we do background checks that we make. We would still do background checks. Yeah, I anyway, I don't I'm not hearing that we have agreement across the. Right. So what I want to restructure. So what I wanted to do was to ask counsel at this point I would propose that we go back to staff, have them raise the series of questions that you've heard from all of us, and then you can start getting direction. So this is not an actual vote. This is where all of us can weigh in on your breakdown of lists. Yes.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we've been taking notes and I think all of you have responded to those series of questions.
Speaker 1: So I was. So, no, actually, I do want to give direction. I want to give the what is supposed to happen. I want our audience to know where each and want each of us is on each of these issues. And I want you to hear the long list so we could go over the list and see where we have three. Where we where we don't. If you could stand up here so we can hear you. And there were many issues raised and our attorney lay.
Speaker 5: So there were a number of issues raised, and they were a broad range of issues. And maybe what I could start by telling the council where I thought that I heard there was at least sort of a majority position and if we can work from there, as opposed to marching through each of the issues, because one of the key things that I heard and that might have been almost unanimous was a desire to go slow and to get it right. And so it sounds like there is a majority who is supportive of a starting slowly phasing in. And what I heard was that there was a consensus to start with that manufacturing and testing was something.
Speaker 1: That, hey, wait, wait, let's do the first. Your comment of you, what you think you heard was the majority that said go slow. Phase in memory.
Speaker 3: I mean go slow. It to me didn't mean phasing. It meant making sure we took the time to draft an ordinance that, well, was not rushed. So with that said, I mean, we're not cutting edge here. Emeryville, San Leandro, San Francisco, Oakland. I mean, we could Berkeley. I mean, we could go down the list. We're like almost last to the party. So we're not like the tip of the spear, like somebody said. I guess so. So rather than say. But. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So we need to see if we have two or three or four on this. So actually, I need you to break it down. Can you actually. So in regards to go slow, if you want to use that term, then I'm going to have to toss it back to and you can tell me what go slow means.
Speaker 5: Okay. So one of the things that I heard was that there's a desire for more community input to solicit feedback from all SSA to be reckoned, park a USD PTA potentially itself. Okay. One idea, one thought is do is the council interested in having that community outreach happen first before there is something that's drafted?
Speaker 1: So that's the question.
Speaker 5: Parallel track.
Speaker 1: So are you guys good answering that? I'm actually not. I don't think I think that if we had a school board member come here, we also had a school board member come to the town hall. I think we have had time for input and we will have more meetings on this. When you come back with a proposed ordinance, that would be another time for people to speak and they can always email. So. So Mayor. Yes. Member Ashcraft. So I, I do. First of all, the ordinance in the findings said that several public meetings were held. This is the first public meeting that the city has held. And it's the city who's drafting the ordinance. The school board member. And by the way, it was the same one tonight who spoke at the Mastic Town Hall, emphasized that she was not speaking in her capacity as a school board member. And in fact, this issue hasn't come to the school board. But I do believe that they are going to consider a resolution requesting a 1000 foot buffer from school properties. So, Mayor and Councilmember Odie, I, I understand your sense of urgency, but I also want to make sure we do it right. And I think it's only respectful that we hear from the community, which also doesn't mean dragging it out. Let's put together a forum where the different groups that Ms.. Potter just mentioned can be heard from, and at the same time, staff will be working on addressing the concerns that all of us have raised tonight. Member I'm sorry. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: Um, I don't want to say go slow. I think we all want to do things in a thoughtful manner, including staff. And I think we want to be very considerate and thoughtful and full of purpose whenever we do take action and have a clear understanding, I think that's a little different than going slow. So I do want to preface my comments with that. What I did hear from my colleagues is that were there is more than three votes, I guess you could say, in support of lab testing. There seems to be a majority of us that are in support of working on manufacturing. I'm just wondering, Mayor, if there's a possibility that we could perhaps bifurcate what the conversation looks like to look at those two things and to staff have staff work on that into a lot of the questions seem to come from how we would go about looking at what direct retail sales would look at. And I think that that's where a lot of the.
Speaker 1: Question let's see where if we have at least three of us that are willing to phase in all this phase in. And you can make sure I have them on the mat.
Speaker 7: And I'd be amenable to putting down a timeline for when we want to presumably have certain things come back to us or about when we would want to perhaps look.
Speaker 0: At. Okay.
Speaker 7: Different elements of that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So and then so the.
Speaker 0: Non.
Speaker 1: Brick and mortar dispensary. So so. Lab testing, manufacturing distribution deliveries. That is not. A brick and mortar dispensary. Are you looking at items we're going to vote on? Is that what this is now? This. Yes, these. This is the group that I from listening to vice mayor, the things that I think we may be able to phase
Speaker 7: . In sooner.
Speaker 1: Rather than later. And that. Right. Oh, cultivation. Was that one of them?
Speaker 2: Could we maybe just start small and just do manufacturing first testing and do on one at a time?
Speaker 1: So my preference, what I'm I want. So I, I was listening to the vice mayor use your comments. Okay. So let me just make sure what your statement was, because I thought you were talking about really everything thing.
Speaker 0: But.
Speaker 7: Brick and mortar retail. I didn't hear my colleagues. What I heard from my colleagues had to do with lab testing and manufacturing. When I when I was listening to people, I might have heard differently. Okay. I think.
Speaker 5: So now you.
Speaker 1: Can call out if you can call the different ones and then we can respond. Okay. Okay. A lab testing.
Speaker 5: Right. So I had heard that there was more than three for the lab testing in the manufacture categories.
Speaker 1: One at a time, please. Lab testing, just like we did on the rent control as you break it down.
Speaker 5: Lab testing.
Speaker 1: Okay. How many of us are in favor of bringing. We're phasing in the lab testing at the beginning.
Speaker 4: Mayor.
Speaker 0: I'd just like.
Speaker 4: To make a comment on this going down. These, to me, seems to be trying to get everything done right at this moment. And I do think, like, if you ask the question, what I'm hearing from most of my constituents and most of the people here is people have a medical need. They want to be able to buy it here. They want a harborside here. Mm hmm. And then the the easiest one to control. They're they're not piles of cash around is a lab. You know, no one's going to rob a lab for little test samples, you know? You know, to me, that's logic. And I'd like I gives our staff some credit for synthesizing what we've been peppering them with and then bringing it back to us and bring it back next meeting, you know, and, and say we have that on a. I'm not gonna say a clean slate, but a revised version of this.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what I heard was loud.
Speaker 4: Can I finish my comment? The other thing that I heard also is that and I think a majority of us said this is. The police chief of police shouldn't be responsible for administrating a land use and a permit process. But I think that's another thing that's loud and clear. So I'm hoping staff can synthesize that down. And I think we can still make the timeframe if we if we get a second draft and we can bounce things off that. Based on what people here said. Basically what people email said and we're doing all of this right here.
Speaker 1: So you're not you're actually saying to them all.
Speaker 0: At.
Speaker 1: This point. And when it comes back, as in our next reading.
Speaker 4: Not these are not readings, these are drafts, it's not the first.
Speaker 1: Reading but in regards to so but they could come back.
Speaker 4: With this source of information.
Speaker 1: So I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that you'd like them to come back with only labs.
Speaker 0: Just brick and mortar.
Speaker 1: Dispensaries.
Speaker 0: And then.
Speaker 1: Those two? Or did you say everything?
Speaker 4: I'm saying that that's what I've heard. Agreement on those two. That's what people are saying.
Speaker 1: So that's what you're hearing.
Speaker 4: And the second point I want to make is that a phased in approach is a phased in approach. It could be one. It could be three. Like said here. And I disagree with no cap on all the others. You know, put a cap on it. Start small.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that's why I think it's important that we all get to answer the question.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but I think so.
Speaker 1: So. But that's what. So. Tim.
Speaker 0: Do you?
Speaker 7: I was trying to understand. I mean, I. I know what I heard. I just want to get some sort of understanding of what Stafford I think perhaps if we could hear from I'm open to hearing from staff in terms of what they think that they heard in terms of the priorities of moving forward. But I do want to have some clarity in terms of what we get back the next time we meet so that it's not just. We all have a different idea of what we think is being worked on.
Speaker 5: So there were three or four items that I heard that there was majority support on that kind of address, different things. And now I'm hearing different discussion the second go around, which makes it perhaps a bit more challenging. But maybe I could tell you what I heard initially, just kind of the list as I heard it, where they're on different items, but that I heard that there was a desire to update the smoking ordinance and to take a look at the vaping and the flavored flavored tobacco and the other issues around updating our smoking ordinance . So I heard that as something that there was consensus about updating the smoking ordinance. I heard that it should be phased in, that manufacturing and testing. There were there were at least three votes to support manufacturing and testing. I heard at least three votes to support a 1000 foot buffer or for the uses. I heard a desire to have more more outreach to the community and that the land use decisions should be taken to the planning board. I believe that there was a majority support in engaging the planning board on the land use. I heard that there was a desire for us to look seriously at the onsite consumption, relative ease of the parks and multi-family residential so that onsite consumption may make sense relative to those issues. There were at least three three council that I heard in there, and then I heard that there was a desire not to have the police department head up the operator permit piece of what was proposed as a term to part permit the land use permit and the operator permit. But it sounds like there's a desire to see those those two types of permits administered by the Community Development Department or another department that's not a police department. Those were issues where I heard a broad majority for the first go around. I think that the discussion started to then look and go towards dispensaries and whether or not medicinal dispensaries made sense at this point. One thing, there was a lot that we wrote down. There were a lot of notes, a lot of things that were being asked to go back and research. One thing in terms of keeping momentum going that you might want to consider is a ban with a hard sunset date which keeps people, which keeps staff and the counselors in the communities kind of feet to the fire to keep going on this, but gives us the time that we need to do it right. That's a possibility. That is what some jurisdictions are doing and they're putting in a hard sunset date so that we would keep working towards a goal, but that we wouldn't have to really I mean, we could not come with all of the work that's being requested. October 3rd staff reports were due last Thursday in terms of our internal process within City Hall and how we work as staff. So our ability to really tackle what we heard this evening and and evolve consensus and work with the Council to get to consensus. That it's a daunting prospect to do it over the next three, three months. So you might want to consider directing us to look at a band with a hard sunset date and that. Could keep us then going. It's a suggestion.
Speaker 1: All right. So in regards to so you had said lab testing in manufacturing is no manufacturing in testing yet. That's what you'd said right there where you thought you had three. Want to ask council now? If I heard member matter. I see you raised medicinal dispensaries. Yeah. So I would be supportive of that.
Speaker 3: I think I heard four on that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So medicinal dispensaries, two comment. There's four of us that I hear. Are you supportive of that? I have a question. So I think that we need more input. So we're talking about medical dispensaries. And is that the on site usage that you're also contemplating? So I think councilmember matter. No. So we're branching off into recreational and on site.
Speaker 4: Know, I haven't have we haven't had that discussion.
Speaker 1: Okay. I just. So right now, I was going to say I would want more input to on the public safety aspects of that of how people get to and from and also the locations. I think that's really important. So but I also feel like we're sending staff out in a lot of different directions. So I want to ask council distribution, do we have three that want that added in member odor? You're right, other cities have done this.
Speaker 0: So this this is we're.
Speaker 3: Not reinventing the wheel.
Speaker 1: Right. So I'd like to see if we have three to include distribution.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm an American. Yes, I make a comment on that before I abstain or whatever you want to call it in this kind of straw vote thing is that one of my points was about the cash and I still don't have an answer of what is happened in other jurisdictions relative to this list of activities, to how many police calls happen to go with the cash that's along the supply chain here. We don't know that. All I know is the odd things that make the newspaper and that should be a consideration, too, is what kind of risk. Because until until there's a banking system, there's we we can answer all these questions. It's all well and fine. But if you got people who are not paying into the Social Security or we have no verification of their salary if we've got piles of cash that put. People at risk for armed robbery. You know, I want to know about that and talk about those risks in a forum like this so we don't have that information. We can rattle this list off and it it's that part's uninformed.
Speaker 0: I mean.
Speaker 1: No, I'm sorry. We're not. However, I feel our staff's my understanding that employees do pay into Social Security staff or expert. Mr. HALL, can you answer that question?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I knew this question would come up. And so I checked with the dispensary owner up in the city of Shasta, like her solution had been to hire a temporary firm that does that. But most dispensaries that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0: That that's.
Speaker 4: What that's what.
Speaker 6: The temporary firm they just pay they hire the employees from the temporary firm pay them a gross the firm pays the Social Security.
Speaker 4: Tax. I mean, these people get all their.
Speaker 6: Money for a long time doing this. Yeah, the others actually send in their tax payments because even under 80, you have to make your tax payments, your Social Security payments, so it gets made. And it's not that it's not happening. One of the things they also do is they meet them in the bank with the payment. They make the payment into the city's account in the bank, sign a receipt for it and move out. So there are a variety of solutions for that. And I'm not saying it's not a cash business member already.
Speaker 3: I mean, I, I, I don't know what the federal people do, but I know on the state level that the BOA actually makes them take their cash to San Jose and make their deposit. So that's and the Franchise Tax Board. So, you know, they're doing that. I mean, that may the other thing may sound like money laundering but you know, I see. Ah, I be that's what some of these garbage people were doing in San Leandro to avoid the minimum wage laws. So we fix that and we fix that. But I mean, it's. Yes, not great. I'm let me finish. Sorry. I mean, it may not be the greatest thing. I mean, but it's technically legal. But I do know that they do that. But we do need to hear the answer to cuts over matter. These question are more than just me or. Someone from the audience member Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So, yeah, that that does concern me. And this is not something that you would know. Mr. HALL But several years ago, as Mr. Ramirez mentioned, there are are recycling workers from the company that our city contracts with. They were being hired through a temporary agency. Temporary. Some of them were working there 12, 11, ten years. Temporary agency means you don't get vacation pay. You don't get sick pay. You don't get time off for holidays. And these people were barely making ends meet. I mean, not only can they buy their cars now, they're not living in their cars. So I think I that's and my concern, too, with getting into the dispensary business now before some of these issues are ironed out, is that we don't quite know how we're going to handle the cash, whereas a laboratory and a or manufacturing , it's less amounts of cash coming in, some of them because it's testing, it's not purchase. It's actually was done by credit card payment because that question came up at the seminar I attended. So I just I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves not and I'm with you, Mayor, we don't need to take forever and the hard deadline and, you know, maybe a temporary ban will, but we'll give staff the time to research these many questions we raised. But I cannot support something that brings employees back through a temporary agency. So I don't think that's necessarily what the businesses would be proposing. But I want to get back to the direction that we are giving staff. Yes.
Speaker 2: What I'm hearing is there's more information that the council wants about delivery and the cash business. We are still working on this. Why don't we come back with options for the Council to consider? And we already have the other list that Debbie already talked about, which is already a big lift for staff.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate that. I just want to make sure we are adding as many types of businesses to this list that we can. I actually don't think there should be such a heavy lift for staff. I think you can look at and we have you hired an expert, a consultant to help you. He is very familiar with this. There are many cities you can look at and how to do this. So I just want to make sure manufacturing, testing, we put medicinal dispensaries on that list. We have three people that would be supportive of that. Yeah. Library staff comes back though as at the initial at the initial phase.
Speaker 3: I mean, the proof is as the I'm sorry customer matter, he said when somebody is in the 300 foot radius, whether or not these 66% numbers stand up. But, you know, that's a decision. I think we we let the planning people take care of that decision.
Speaker 1: Okay? Yes. Okay. And then on the third. So go ahead. Call it ask for direction on the medicinal dispensaries. How many of us are supporting.
Speaker 7: I guess from my perspective, it seems like and the reason I'm saying that I really feel it's important to bifurcate. I guess the lab testing manufacturing portion from the dispensary portion is that there seem to be a number of outstanding questions relative to the dispensary and direct retail salesperson. And I feel that that in and of itself could be a separate item that we look at. Separate from the manufacturing and the testing site, the testing portion of it, just because we we still have to have the conversation about the different processes, the conditional use permits relative to retail. There's a number of issues that are still coming up. I'm not saying that we don't talk about it, but I'm just.
Speaker 1: Wondering, can they be parallel tracks then? Are you saying so we could do manufacturing testing on one.
Speaker 0: Proposal.
Speaker 1: That they could also come back with medicinal dispensaries that we could look at?
Speaker 7: I guess my question my question to staff is really how much how many other things? And this goes back to councilmember mode. Rossi's question earlier, which is how many other things are going to not get dealt with that we have that are pending that we've given already given direction on? So if we're going to look at this, is there, you know, how much time is it going to take to really look at both aspects of this? Is there one that's easier to roll out? Could you work on both of them in a parallel way? But what's the timeline for things? And I think that that's information that we'll get when staff comes back to us.
Speaker 1: And just and I'm wondering about distribution, if that is something that is similar to the manufacturing and testing in regards to staff time, if that if that's something that we could also consider distribution and if we have three of us that support looking at distribution. We have three of us to support looking at distribution to get the answer to the question the vice mayor was asking of staff so that we have parallel tracks. Well. And what else?
Speaker 7: Well, and what else?
Speaker 2: Have a number like tonight. We have the rent stabilization that has to be heard. That starts a whole process that staff will be involved in legal will be involved in.
Speaker 1: Form.
Speaker 2: Staff. The manager's office planning will be involved in. We have the inclusionary housing ordinance that council has asked for. We have a number of development projects that are coming forward, all that take a lot of focus on the same individuals who are looking at this tonight. And so, again, we've talked about priorities and are the priorities. Is this the priority or do you want a more thoughtful process that gives us another six months to look at this or four months or whatever number the council wants and know that there are other priorities in the list that's on the agenda tonight. Of all the referrals, the 23 referrals that this council has asked for and so.
Speaker 1: So I heard six months. Well, that number matters.
Speaker 4: Also, I think this council already prioritized these. And if I remember correctly, this one is lower than inclusionary housing, lower than the homeless and lower than the other housing issues. So that I'd like I'd like to get a real number, not a not a not an arbitrary number of six months.
Speaker 1: And I well and I want to clarify, when we did the priorities, that was prior to me bringing another referral.
Speaker 4: But but still that was a vote by council and it was official until we have that vote to overturn it, then that's the priority. So we have to stand by what we voted for. We're moving along on this. We had a good discussion tonight. I think I make a motion that we the direction give staff is take what Ms.. Potter listed as the as the commonalities with a majority of votes. Take the other notes that were input from all of us and to the community. Synthesize that come back with us and to us with the next step in a time that meets the priorities that we addressed.
Speaker 1: So which means what? Well.
Speaker 4: Can you give us a time? So that's my motion. So I have a second.
Speaker 1: Can I just get clarification on what it was that you said, Ms.. Potter? So I want clarification in regards to the time. What are we talking.
Speaker 0: About in the question?
Speaker 5: So we are probably talking about the first council meeting in November.
Speaker 3: Yeah, inclusionary is on. The next agenda is.
Speaker 5: To come.
Speaker 2: Back, but not the final product.
Speaker 4: Proposal.
Speaker 5: Right? Not not the final product. And if you if you kind of do the kind of do the math in terms of how many meetings are going to have to be held, we will not be we will not have an ordinance prior to January 2nd. So at that, either now or in November, you may want to give direction about Banning with a hard sunset in conjunction with the work that that we're going to be doing with the revised ordinance.
Speaker 3: I mean, at this rate, we're going to have extra meetings in September, October.
Speaker 1: All right. So I personally think a question on the November so yes. Member Ashcroft. So one thing I was thinking and this is 2020 hindsight, I did think that 530 to 7 p.m. was kind of an optimistic time estimate for this time. But I think we've had a really good discussion, heard lots of good speakers. I think we did hear consensus on wanting to get more community input. Is it possible to do a standalone meeting? Only on synthesizing. But the community said and hearing what you've come back with, you and staff have come back with an answer to our questions. I'm just worried that if we and I know scheduling is tricky with five people and travel schedules and all that that I'm just thinking if we could divert a special council meeting, we might be able to knock out that first draft of the ordinance and then it prior to the November 1st. Well, so that we hold that date for the first reading. Well, okay, let's hear from the city.
Speaker 2: I mean, I just thought of an option rather than have a ban that has a hard. Sunset is that we could do a very focused ordinance that looks at manufacturing and testing and prohibits everything else. Until this council does it and we will revise it as we go through this process. So instead of spanning everything, we start slow with the two two categories that this council has said they want us to look at, and we'll bring that back before January one. I mean.
Speaker 1: He said November 1st.
Speaker 5: Right. And then if if that's if that kind of skinny down, phased in approach works, you could do a first and second reading and have it be effective in 30 days of November.
Speaker 3: First time. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: First time this idea was approached. I don't think it got a lot of favor. And, you know, I'm not in favor of that either, because it seems to me staff is trying to find a way to say no instead of finding a way to say yes.
Speaker 2: We're saying and.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but you're saying yes to just a piece of it. And we kind of rejected that earlier, if I remember if I recall correctly. And now that same idea is being rehashed after we said we didn't like that idea. So I'm I might be open to this hard this hard thing, but I don't want to go much past the end of the first quarter of next year on this. I mean, so that that's just my thought.
Speaker 1: Yes. Member Ashcraft. So I actually find the city manager's proposal reasonable. And I think if we were to decide to go that route, we could also say what the road map is for the next what we want to be the next items to add to the ordinance. And I would would think I mean, excuse me, I think we do our discussions in public. The but if I'm I'm hearing your concern, Councilmember Odie, that you're afraid that this will just somehow drop off the horizon and not come back. And I don't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 3: Had staff suggested twice now and the council has said no. So, well, this is what we know but that is that, you know, without and I mean no offense by this, you know, without something to light a fire like a hard deadline, I'm just afraid this is not going to get done. And again, it seems like three of us have said we want to move forward on dispensaries, but yet staff has twice said, no.
Speaker 8: Don't do that. So this is where this is where I.
Speaker 3: Think there's a disconnect. And I'd like to see. I like to see a path to yes on this instead of a path to no.
Speaker 7: So in that in that is there in that vein, I do think that it also behooves us to be realistic in terms of what. What sort of timeline we're really faced up against and make sure. I think it's fine to say let's start with those two things. I'm not saying I don't want you to work on the dispensary aspect of it. That's not what I'm saying. I would like work on that, but I would also like a realistic date of when we could have a more robust conversation about the dispensaries, because I think that there's still a conversation that needs to be had about what the process is going to be, who's involved? Is it going to be medical, is it going to be recreational? And frankly, we're not going to hear from the state if those two things can be co-located, if they can be co-located, that might change the analysis. For some of us, that's not going to come at the earliest until November. I don't think it's the end of the world to lay out a date of when we want to hear back. And it's not to say that we couldn't enact something by January 1st. We couldn't do a first and second reading in December regarding what our path forward is regarding dispensaries or what that would look like, or we couldn't do a first or second reading in January or something like that. I think I'm just frankly, I'm just worried about making sure that we're bringing everybody along. We're being realistic about the constraints from staff. So I think if there's a certain deadline that you want to hear the issue and really work on the issue of dispensaries, and I would frankly like to have that robust conversation with the full council at a special meeting. I have no problem with that, but I would really like to also give staff the opportunity to come back with all of our questions and answered with all of our options before us and what that would look like and give the community another opportunity to weigh in, because that, frankly, from my standpoint, that's where we need to do the most work in terms of bringing certain people along. And I would like it like to do it right, and I would like to bring as many people along with us as possible so I don't have a problem with that. Councilmember Ody If there's a date that you would like, a date certain to hear back from staff regarding a second portion of it, is that something you would consider?
Speaker 3: I think Councilmember Matt Arrestee, he asked, you know, if we were to do a hard cap or I mean, a ban that had a fixed date, what they could you bring the stuff back to us? I mean, I didn't hear an answer to that. I mean, is it March 31st? I mean, is it April 30th? Is it July or January 20/30? I don't know.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, it's we're only one half of the equation in terms of inputting the information and then what comes back out. But it seems to me that as part of the process and people are committed to moving it through that over the next six months is a reasonable time frame to tackle this. And if there's a willingness to do a special meeting and do some of the things that allow us to kind of expedite some of some of the discussion and some of the direction that's helpful to staff, too.
Speaker 1: Okay. So is my understanding when we're giving direction, we're not actually making motions, is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yes, that is. But if I can just so I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Well, so I want to make sure because we had a motion my second.
Speaker 0: Direction, you know, having a say in.
Speaker 1: So I am now asking the question yes, you are you.
Speaker 0: So it's not appropriate.
Speaker 1: For me to call a question. It's not proper for us to do a motion. So let's hear from the city attorney.
Speaker 0: I may just add something, right? Because of some of the things that have been complex like this, where we have had counsel and no offense and with all due respect, kind of all over the map, I heard a couple of councilmembers say that maybe it's good to kind of check in without coming back with the final product or the product that we think is closer to the final. I would suggest that we do something along those lines because my notes show that almost all of you said you were not concerned about delaying somewhat to January so we could get things done. Now it's changed on some of you and this is what happens. And I'm not saying it's bad, that's why you have discussion, but a lot of things are changing. So now we're being what I'm hearing is we're being told, well, let's try to buy for it. So we get something going, come back with manufacturing and labs. But I didn't hear caps on manufacturing in labs, locations on manufacturing. I heard it on dispensaries. So I think it would be it would help staff and not waste our time and have us come back to you with something that half of you are saying. No, that's not what I thought we directed. If we could do a little bit of synthesizing, come back to you to do a bit of a check in and then try to move ahead in in a phased way, if that makes sense, or if we're able to answer your questions with timelines, with those kinds of things. And I don't.
Speaker 1: At a special meeting, then, is that what you're suggesting?
Speaker 0: I would suggest we can't we can't introduce an ordinance at a special meeting, but I don't think we're to that point yet.
Speaker 4: But Madam Chair, member matter. I see a city attorney is was the motion inappropriate or not?
Speaker 0: So you can do a motion for direction if that's that if you're you want to do that, but that would be fine. But what you're doing is direct.
Speaker 4: Was out of line making the motion. No, no. Okay, I have a second. And can you a city clerk, can I have have you read the motion again?
Speaker 2: I had stepped away. I'm so sorry. I was in the back. I totally apologize.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: You want to repeat it?
Speaker 4: Yes, I do. Yes. The motion was to take the list that Ms.. Potter read of consensus. To take the input. That was heard from all of us and from the community and have staff go back and give us a second draft. Of this first draft based on the input as well as the consensus.
Speaker 7: And I. I don't know.
Speaker 4: Is there one.
Speaker 7: I don't know if Councilmember Ashcroft was trying to make a friendly amendment to ask that that perhaps occur at a. Another.
Speaker 4: I accept it another day.
Speaker 1: But I think I in.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 4: Special.
Speaker 1: Meeting I think a special.
Speaker 7: Meeting.
Speaker 1: We would have a better opportunity to talk and not keep other people waiting.
Speaker 0: So we have said we.
Speaker 3: Had a meeting.
Speaker 0: So we had a.
Speaker 7: Motion and a second and a friendly amendment.
Speaker 4: Yes, and I accept. Do you accept?
Speaker 1: So we have.
Speaker 3: We're still keeping the one, the 12. So deadline. At this point.
Speaker 1: Is, are we keeping score? That's a good question a member already asked. Are we still keeping the December 31st deadline?
Speaker 4: I don't think we'll know the answer.
Speaker 0: Until we have this week.
Speaker 5: We would still endeavor to do that.
Speaker 1: And and then I want that I'm also asked for clarification at this point. Or is the motion to move forward with the lab testing and manufacturing only? Does it include medicine and what does it include?
Speaker 5: It maybe it includes every taking it everything, synthesize it into a new draft ordinance, present that new draft ordinance at a special meeting where there would be an opportunity for for input and further.
Speaker 1: Direction each item.
Speaker 5: Then on the new draft ordinance.
Speaker 1: But would that include every type of cannabis business?
Speaker 0: Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, it would be discussion to deal with it. This is. That's where it's decided. Love it. It's not.
Speaker 5: But it would it would talk about how it would include dispensaries with the whole analysis that's been asked for the cash business, the cap medical versus recreational. That would have all of that would be part of the synthesis we would present almost as a check in, as the city attorney was talking about at a special meeting, get all of that feedback and if we were much closer, we would have the potential to have that then come back as a first reading, second reading, 30 days. It's possible we could, you know, we would endeavor to meet the deadline if we missed the mark or if new issues come up or we haven't thoroughly answered the questions . It may be that we're sent back to do more, more work. And at that point, the Council may want to reevaluate what they want to do about the the in the upcoming January one.
Speaker 1: So when do you think the special meeting would be? That depends on our schedules. We were going to.
Speaker 5: LA and within the next four weeks.
Speaker 1: Within the next four week.
Speaker 0: No, no. All right. The clerk.
Speaker 3: With that offer.
Speaker 5: Can.
Speaker 1: Call as soon as possible. So I heard.
Speaker 5: Because we would have said I.
Speaker 3: Can call the question to it.
Speaker 1: Just clarification.
Speaker 5: You would only we would question.
Speaker 3: I fully understand.
Speaker 1: I okay. Clarification. QUESTION Yes. Senator Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: The question basically takes preference, but.
Speaker 1: So then we have to take a vote to call the question.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 1: Yes. So then I have let me ask my clarifying. He said call the question. When that said, I actually do. So I need to ask if there's a majority of us that want to call the question. So this is not calling the question. This is asking if we want to call the question, all those in favor of calling the question, what's in it? All those in favor of calling the question and not allowing member Ashcraft to ask her questions is what it is. That's what I'm being asked to do, is cut her off. I have to ask you to do this personally.
Speaker 0: Is that.
Speaker 3: Vote no.
Speaker 1: All right. So that.
Speaker 0: That is when.
Speaker 4: You ask your question.
Speaker 1: All right. So now remember Ashcraft. Thank you. Ms.. Potter, are you also going to look at the question of caps on manufacturing and dis and testing as part of your as we.
Speaker 5: Will synthesize that I made.
Speaker 4: The comment.
Speaker 0: And all the.
Speaker 5: Comments that we.
Speaker 1: Heard, you know.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: All right. As you were.
Speaker 4: Know now.
Speaker 1: So now all those in favor of the motion that was member matter as these motion.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: I was that was I unanimous. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's a very. And now I'm going to call a short recess. Five minute recess. Greatly appreciated.
Speaker 5: By the world.
Speaker 0: Tuesday.
Speaker 3: Night.
Speaker 1: Everyone take your seats, please. And I really appreciate your patience. We're going to get through this calendar now. The balance, hopefully faster. A special joint meeting of city. Actually, I need to adjourn that meeting. I'm adjourning the special city council meeting. I'm now opening a special joint meeting of city council and successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission, S.A.C.. I see. Roll Call.
Speaker 2: So, members here. Here they are, Spenser here. And the other two will be back.
Speaker 1: All right, we have one item consent calendar three. A recommendation to accept the investment report for the quarter ended March 31st, 2017. We have moved. We have a second.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 1: All those in favor.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Motion carries unanimously and may the record reflect member Ashcraft just joined us I will now during that meeting and now I will open the regular city council meeting and it is now a quarter to ten. 945 roll call. | Regular Agenda Item | Workshop on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Section 30-5.15 (Medical Dispensaries and Cultivation) of the Alameda Municipal Code in its Entirety; Adding a New Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses); Adding a new Section 30-10 (Cannabis); and Amending Sections 24-11 (Smoking Prohibitions in Places of Employment and Unenclosed Public Places) and 24-12 (Smoking Prohibitions in Housing). | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09052017_2017-4620 | Speaker 1: Motion carries unanimously and may the record reflect member Ashcraft just joined us I will now during that meeting and now I will open the regular city council meeting and it is now a quarter to ten. 945 roll call.
Speaker 2: We have five present now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Agenda changes. I am pulling five. Oh, actually, I'm just plan to vote no on it, so I just need to reflect that. Are there any items, any other items we need to pull?
Speaker 3: I'm going to pull five. I'll actually vote no on it. So if.
Speaker 1: You're voting no on.
Speaker 3: 505l4, Larry.
Speaker 0: If I make council members, what I want to do is vote no. You can just record that without pulling the item.
Speaker 3: And I'm happy to do it that way.
Speaker 1: Okay. So on this, the balance of the consent calendar be approved.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Does your gender change?
Speaker 0: We're not there.
Speaker 1: Yet. So that's agenda changes. So it's only 500 and five L that I heard anyone speak to.
Speaker 7: Is it possible, Mayor Spencer, to move up at nine B to be heard after the item 60?
Speaker 1: Which item.
Speaker 7: Nine be.
Speaker 1: What is nine.
Speaker 0: It's the referral.
Speaker 1: So I would not. So so that's the and they would not move moving up referrals.
Speaker 7: To move it after item 60.
Speaker 1: Those there. I don't support that. Um, I actually was thinking you might say another item. Um. Ah. Is there more majority that wants to move up a referral to to before 60 or after 60?
Speaker 0: I wanted.
Speaker 7: To. So if I may, I wanted to see if we could move item 60 up in the regular agenda to be the first regular agenda item since we do need to vote on that tonight.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. I would second that motion that that's ahead of me. So is that ahead of our proclamations? Is that what you're asking, that it would be the next thing we go to? Okay. So I'm not in favor of that. Is anyone else in favor of that? But I mean, now she's asking to move up six d to have it be the next thing we go to.
Speaker 7: After the consent item, since we do need to vote on that matter tonight.
Speaker 1: I would support that.
Speaker 3: I would do.
Speaker 0: Oh, right.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think we have a vote in a second. Okay. That follows the consent calendar. Mm hmm. Okay. I thought you were asking about.
Speaker 0: I'm going to.
Speaker 7: I'm going to withdraw my referral.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Okay. So next then I just want to confirm agenda changes. We only have five oh and five oh. We had to know about one on each of those. Any other changes are on that. Okay. So then we can move to our proclamation three, a proclamation declaring September 16th, 2017 as Coastal Cleanup Day. | Joint Consent Item | Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2017. (Finance 2410) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07182017_2017-4486 | Speaker 0: All right. Recommendation took the status report from Operation Dignity on case management services for homeless individuals.
Speaker 1: Member Ashcraft. Did you want? Yeah, I just teared up. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Ms. Wooldridge. This is Amy Walters, our director of Recreation and Parks in Alameda. And the reason I pulled this from the consent calendar, I know we have a really long agenda tonight, but.
Speaker 2: Homelessness.
Speaker 1: Issues are very important in our city and our region. And just recently, in the last week, with the beginning of the site preparation at the future, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, there have been some more visible signs of some of our homeless population. The council has gotten a number of emails and it's not always evident how much work is going on behind the scenes. And so that's for this reason I wanted to pull this up. So in addition to getting two new parks online and doing rehab to some of our existing parks, Ms. Wooldridge is also overseeing our efforts to work with our homeless population. So if you wouldn't mind, this will just to give us an update overview on what's been happening in the city in this regard. I'd appreciate.
Speaker 2: It. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Councilmember Ashcroft, Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director. I also have Margaret Bouchard here, who's the executive director of Operation Dignity, and she can answer any questions as well. You have before you an updated report as of today of of what Operation Dignity has been doing. As reported in the in the staff report, they they have successfully gotten a family of four into into transitional housing. And I'm happy to report that that one member, one adult of that household now has a full time job. The child is in school. They're also working on helping an individual to relocate with their family, also working to house two more individuals at Alameda Point Collaborative and as well as another veteran to get them into into housing. So they're working very actively. Getting people into housing is a is complex it's individual to each person's need needs there also Operation Dignity is also actively working with people that residents are now seeing more aware of out on the streets. They have there's a gentleman that's been living on Webster behind us bank branch that they have transported to a shelter in Berkeley. They've also been working with an individual behind plowshares, and there's other locations as well that they are actively doing case management with individuals around the island. The way people can help is certainly to help continue to report those. They can report it through, see quick fix on our website and or contact me or other city staff who will then let Operation Dignity know where where people are being seen so that we can provide case management directly to them. So they're actively out the community trying to locate people and provide them with services. Yes.
Speaker 1: Vice mayor.
Speaker 7: And this is just to clarify for those who are watching from home or in the audience, this includes any homeless individual, not just veterans. Because we've at least I saw an email that was directed, I believe, to the rest of the council as well, and specifically asking that.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. It's all individual, all homeless individuals. And that may be in cause that that's not even necessarily simply just on the street, but yes. All individuals. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And and I was just going to add that one of the things that Operation Dignity does and perhaps the director would like to come up is they do work with veterans, first of all, identifying which of the homeless individuals are veterans because they are entitled to benefits that they may not be aware of. And just just briefly, if you would, because again, long agenda. But in the in the discussion of Miss Wooldridge, his staff report, they talk about providing services, including nearly 1000 harm reduction supplies, enrolling individuals in the county's tracking system. Could you talk a little bit briefly about what those things are?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So we're so we're out there every day actually giving them food hygiene kits, trying to hook them up with health services or anything else that we think there's an ancient something called an HMO system which registers them, and that's going to be ultimately used for something called coordinated entry. So we want to get as many people as we can into that system. That said, some individuals. Aren't willing to go on the system or we can't follow up with them. They move, we can't find them. So one of the challenges is, you know, locating people and then if they're there the next day, then we try to follow up again. They have to get some documentation. So every support that we get from the police officers, from residents, anybody, it just helps us to, you know, if you're our eyes and ears because we know about the people we know about, we know most of the people who left the Beltline where they are. But there's some that we don't. And then there's a lot of other individuals that are homeless as well. So it's really helpful. And that's why we're going to meet with the police the police department to find out. You know, apparently they have actually more knowledge because obviously, you know, residents have lived here forever. And it's like it's just important for us to get a handle on everybody that's homeless. But every day we're out there doing outreach, following up on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I do see our police chief, Paul O'Leary, in the back of the room. And we do have a very well-trained police force that many of the officers actually have special training and know the resources, know who to connect these folks to.
Speaker 2: And are long term residents of Alameda and know these individuals. Yeah. All right.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you both. Thank you, Mayor. So do we have an emotion? Oh, and yeah, so we we covered the G20. So with that I will move that. We accept the status report from Operation Dignity and Case Management Services for homeless individuals. That's item five H.
Speaker 4: Sex.
Speaker 1: Of all those in favor I motion cares unanimously. Thank you. So five oh was pulled and now five Q We have a speaker. Jim Strelow five Q. But it's the recommendation to accept additional information and renderings requested by City Council regarding the design concept for the Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and | Consent Calendar Item | Accept Status Report from Operation Dignity on Case Management Services for Homeless Individuals. (Recreation 280) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07182017_2017-4371 | Speaker 1: Of all those in favor I motion cares unanimously. Thank you. So five oh was pulled and now five Q We have a speaker. Jim Strelow five Q. But it's the recommendation to accept additional information and renderings requested by City Council regarding the design concept for the Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way. You can go ahead and speak on it.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Honorable mayor, city council to a sentence of alameda that we're talking about, the section of atlantic avenue between webster and constitution way. And the main objection I have is the one going eastbound that currently there are two lanes going from Webster becomes three lanes when it gets up to constitution way. That's the existing model with a right hand turn on on the light if you want to. You'll now be taking away practically one full lane. So it'll be a single lane between Webster going up to halfway block and then there'll be a single lane was a left hand turn only lane. The problem is also as is that that single lane that's either going straight or right hand turn on to constitution way you've somehow created a no right hand turn on red. So therefore all it will take is about four or five vehicles not being able to make the normal right hand turn that they can now off of Atlantic Avenue. That will back up to mid block and then that will block people from getting into the left hand turn lane. So therefore, the delay that the consultants gave of the all they're only be about a couple of seconds delay with the new design as already submitted that it will become to about 2 to 3 minutes for somebody wanting to make a left hand turn because they won't be able to get into the left hand turn lane that they'll be blocked because of the backup from cars not being able to make a right hand turn on the Constitution. Now, you folks want to add a mid-block crossing, which will Diana further create a jam so that maybe only four or five cars will come from Webster to Mid-Block and then cars won't even be able to make the left hand turn from Webster Street onto Atlantic or even come from Alameda Point straight going onto Atlantic Avenue. They'll probably even have to wait out an entire cycle or two of traffic lights at Webster and Atlantic and from mayor up auto. So therefore adding in this mid-block just adds to the problem that's already existing because of the no right hand turn designation off of it, off of Atlantic on to Constitution. So doing this mid-block is just making it that much worse. And I really dislike the the, the concept the consultants estimates of the delay only being a few seconds when it will actually come minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. These are only speaker on this staff. Could you clarify what this agenda item is? Because it came to us before. In regards to the merits. At that time, member Ashcraft and myself requested better drawings and we do have them. However, at that point there was, I believe, a vote on the merits that she and I both voted no on because.
Speaker 0: This was approved by council with a request to bring back the drawings.
Speaker 1: Option two And I do remember the discussion about the Mid-Block crossing and we heard from folks because that's where Independence Plaza is. And we had almost the requisite number of pedestrian collisions, pedestrians being hit by cars. Not quite. We were like one or two shy, as if we want to wait to get that 12th pedestrian hit and then we'll add the crossing. And then we learned that remember that people were actually driving across the street from Independence Plaza. But so your question, though, I think that I really wanted to get to the vote of you raised discussion on the merits, the substance of the whether or not to have the crosswalk, the impact of the different no right turn on, read those things. I believe that discussion was already determined by council at the prior hearing and at that time two of us. My recollection is actually opposed because to have it come back we would have better drawings, but three decided to go ahead on the merits. So at this point, my understanding we're not we're just being asked to accept these drawings and this additional information. But the council is already so.
Speaker 0: City Manager Yes, that's true. It was, yes. But Rochelle Wheeler might be able to explain the rationale of the bicycle going through and that they would be driving or. Right. As a vehicle or in the bike lane.
Speaker 1: And and just so the audience and council can follow along with this, be in your presentation, Miss Wheeler. That's exhibit seven. Yeah.
Speaker 2: If you wanted to bring that up, we can just show the overview. But that's the, the, the section that I believe the city manager is referring to is the section west of the driveway. You have multiple.
Speaker 8: Exhibits in your packet. The first exhibit one, which we can bring up on the screen. But that's that's the one with the overview on it. But so the yeah, the section to the west of the driveway includes a two way separated bicycle lanes, which means the bicyclists will be separate from the auto travel lanes. And to address the speaker's comments, there will be and that is the only section of that block that will have any auto lane reduction going from three lanes to two lanes. One of those so this will be.
Speaker 2: Eastbound Atlantic at Constitution. There will be a.
Speaker 8: Left turn only lane and a through and a right turn lane. So.
Speaker 1: Give us just a moment to catch up.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Can you also.
Speaker 8: All visual that this is the exhibit one that's in your packet. Sure.
Speaker 2: So we're there.
Speaker 8: I'm happy to answer other questions or to do a full presentation.
Speaker 1: So at this point, I think it'd be appropriate to just answer other questions or provide whatever information a summary that you think is appropriate. I did want to ask about so the issue of the no right turn on red. Is this some of this could be considered work. Staff would be reviewing it and seeing if it's working or not. And then there could be modifications definitely as it's implemented. So if something like that occurs, we are always open to feedback from the community. You can email, staff and counsel and we can always reconsider.
Speaker 2: That's correct. And so in the as I said, in the a.
Speaker 8: Point or grade, I know that council can't see the pointer.
Speaker 2: But this in this section here between the the driveway to Starbucks and Constitution, this is where the separated.
Speaker 8: Bicycle lanes will basically use the existing travel lane that's there. That's a right.
Speaker 2: Turn only lane. And that's.
Speaker 8: Because we do not have adequate width to include them in that in that section.
Speaker 2: Of the of the block. It is it's not quite accurate to say that there is no right turns allowed. Right turns would be allowed. Perhaps what's being mentioned is that if.
Speaker 8: There is a car that wants to go straight here blocking that right turn, it's true that if you are one or two cars.
Speaker 2: Behind and wanted to make a right, you would not be.
Speaker 8: Able to make a right until there was a green light at this intersection.
Speaker 2: We did fully study this. We did a multimodal level of service analysis to see what would happen with this configuration exactly as you see it here with the Mid-Block crossing. And we found that obviously it would drastically improve conditions for people walking and biking.
Speaker 8: And there are some small delays for motorists, including.
Speaker 2: A 1/2 delay through the intersection in the morning. About seven and a half seconds through in the afternoon, there would be some additional queuing of cars both in the morning and the evening.
Speaker 8: But there is sufficient capacity for that additional queuing.
Speaker 2: And if in the future there are.
Speaker 8: Problems that.
Speaker 2: Show up here, we could come in and do a retrofit and remove the median there at that intersection and add back a third lane there.
Speaker 1: So if a car wants to get to the housing authority coming down Atlantic from Webster, well, they'll be able to make a left turn to get in there. How do they get there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we we did look at that because that was raised at the last meeting. And our recommendation.
Speaker 8: Is not to allow left turns into that driveway because there's already.
Speaker 2: So much complexity in the middle of that block with the added mid-block and the turns in and out of the driveway into Starbucks. So we are looking at the possibility of allowing a U-turn at Constitucion so that cars that are traveling eastbound could make a U-turn.
Speaker 8: And then go into the housing authority driveway. But that has to be studied further.
Speaker 1: So that is being looked at because currently if you're trying to get to the housing authority from the other side of Webster, you can't make a left. So you actually have to go down quite a few blocks to turn into some parking lot, turn back around or.
Speaker 2: Circle the whole.
Speaker 1: Right block. I appreciate you looking into that as it's accessible from both sides of town. Member matter. I would like.
Speaker 4: To move acceptance of the drawings.
Speaker 1: Second, I think Mr. Odey did. There is second all those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now we're on five. Why? And I think that's the last one. Right. You've covered the rest of them. Okay. Five. Why? I had failed because I had voted no last time, so I wanted to have the opportunity to vote no one more time. So five Why is final passage of ordinance amending the Disposition and development agreement between Alameda Point Partners LLC and the City of Alameda for site at Alameda Point? | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Accept Additional Information and Renderings Requested by City Council regarding the Design Concept for the Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way. (Transportation 91402) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07052017_2017-4428 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Was there a different one? All right. So five innocent, Nancy, five is Anne Frank. And now proclamation special orders of the day, three A We have a presentation by the Oakland International Airport on anticipated air traffic during the closure of runways number 12 and 34, maintenance tentatively scheduled for September 4th through September 18th, 2017, and during Fleet Week, October 2nd through October 9th. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Though Mayor Spencer and council members understand there's a presentation that will come up on the screen.
Speaker 3: Oh. Thanks.
Speaker 7: All right. Well, thank you. I'm Hugh Johnson, senior aviation project manager in the Aviation Planning and Development Department at the Port of Oakland. And I'm here to present a material about the Runway 1230 rehabilitation project we have planned for September. I'll try to go through the material relatively quickly. If you have any questions, please let me know as we go along. So first I just want to indicate this is a project that we do every 15 years or so. It's a payment rehabilitation. We have an asphalt concrete runway that requires an overlay and at the same time, it needs a runway light rehabilitation as well. So the lights typically last 30 years. In this case, we have a series of runway, centerline and edge lights that also have to be repaired in sequence and just in advance of the paving project. We have a few images here that indicate the current condition of the runway is already cracking and we're doing regular maintenance on a weekly basis. But we've reached the point where we have to do an entire pavement overlay. This image depicts the entire south field, a pair of runways, and then the two images on the bottom depict either end of the runway. So what you see above is in yellow. It's a temporary runway that we will build using a a taxiway for the main runway, and that temporary runway will be used while the main runway is being paved. This is a rather unique approach to doing these types of projects, and it was brought to our attention, our air introduced 15 years ago last time we did this and owe a debt of gratitude to Alameda and to San Leandro for bringing that to to the concept. Quick points we've coordinated. This is essentially going to be a two year coordination and planning effort for a two week construction project. We've coordinated with a number of lines of business at the FAA and other at the ATO, ATO as well as community outreach meetings. We held a community outreach meeting in February. We've met with San Leandro City Council a couple of weeks ago here today, and we've made ourselves available for community groups or neighborhoods that want more information. We've also we're also doing outreach through our regular aviation stakeholder committee meeting. We have one coming up, I believe, next week. We will touch on this in the Noise Forum. And I think there's a Fleet Week presentation also scheduled for a couple months from now. And I mentioned the tax away, which is an alternative approach to performing the work. And our intent is to do the painting for two weeks in September. I'll just go through this very quickly. So this colorful graphic depicts essentially a weather chart for the months of the summer months. And as you can see, we have a real advantage to doing this project in August or September. After that, the likelihood of rain starts to pick up. And we don't want the rain overlap with when we're doing especially the markings or even just the paving and light work. This is a graphic of the entire airport. The main thing I want to highlight here is we will have all departures still in Southfield. And but we will have a few large aircraft arrivals in Southfield on the temporary runway. That's different from the way it was done 15 years ago, where it was just a departures only runway and all arrivals came into Northfield. So we're going to use our field for the larger aircraft that require the additional length that we'll have in Southfield on the temporary runway. We have a longer runway, even on a temporary runway in Northfield. There's a lot of numbers here. The main thing I want to point out is on the left, the arrivals for Northfield, there will be 108 commercial jet arrivals and all of the heavy jets will arrive in Southfield. And and then about 60% or so of the commercial jets will arrive in Northfield, and the remainder will be able to be accommodated in the south on temporary runway. This is a maybe a familiar graphic for the noise forum. It shows a typical 65 C.M. Contour for the airport. And this next graphic shows how it will change representative life for those two weeks. And as you can see, there'll be a minor shift in self-heal, fewer operations in Southfield. And then you see the extent extended noise contour in Northfield, mostly due to the arriving aircraft in Northfield. A very, very minor extent into the golf course area and some of the communities there. And then on the whole roots, the focus has been to make sure that we keep our roots on 98th Avenue. There have been some recent discussions about a possible access point off of Harbor Bay Parkway, and we're still in discussions on that to determine where that will come out. And last point I want to make is that we are reusing the asphalt grinding from the runway on our stability berm and essentially reusing all of that material.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions? Council members. So I want to thank you, Mr. Johnson, for coming down here and making this presentation. Thank you for sharing it.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Next, we have coverage. We have a motion for the consent calendar. Accept items.
Speaker 2: If0 we have oral communication.
Speaker 0: Or I'm sorry, work oral communications, not agenda. Do we have any speakers on that?
Speaker 2: We have three speakers. Oh. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. The first one is for a referral to be heard this evening. I see it didn't have a name on it. If someone recognizes this writing, they can come on up and speak. I'm sorry. Could the lights be turned on? All right. I know it's Vernon, and then go ahead.
Speaker 2: I know that we might have a chance to be heard later on tonight, but if the city council meeting has to go past 1030.
Speaker 4: I would really hope that we could.
Speaker 2: Actually have our the referral heard this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Gray Harris.
Speaker 6: Stepped out.
Speaker 0: Ken Petersen. Gray hairs. Can Peterson. Come on up, Mr. Peterson.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Council and staff. First thing has to do with the questions of sound. We've had many complaints about people not being able to hear, and we're told that if we can't hear you, just let the assistant city clerk know and they'll up the volume. The other thing is they have auxiliary hearing devices and we just try and three of them and they're just marvelous. Everything is so crystal clear. They work really beautifully. We have three of them down here.
Speaker 0: Oh, all right. I see. We have three people modeling them this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Let us know how they work out.
Speaker 1: That's really dangerous. People will know what's going on. And I just did another thing that we can't fix, and that is when people are talking, they turn aside. You can't hear because these are directional likes. And so if somebody's going to talk, you need to talk into the microphone and not lean back or off that way or talk into the lectern. As far as the sound of the people sounding like they're mumbling with a mouthful of mush, there isn't a lot that can be done about that. I think that's inherent in the system, and I don't think that it used to be like that. We have a new system so as to improve it, but going back ten years ago and things were much better.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So that's the kind of opening things that the housekeeping. But I want to talk about things that happened the first meeting in June. And good thing I didn't come to the next meeting because I would have said among a number of intemperate things. But I'm going to talk now about yourself. Madam Mayor, I'm going to use the third person because it's talking about you. And what happened here is that you have been subject to scurrilous attacks, vilifying you. And they're false. They're not at all true about and about you or your record. Back in 2009, the school board when you were a member, had an option to have an anti-bullying program, and the anti-bullying program was supposed to take care of all students of what are called those media, California protected classes. Those are people with disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual and gender orientation and sexuality. All of those are required. They're also required to be addressed and taken care of. And so all students are protected under Title nine in the Department of Education, the United States Department of Education. Now, the things that were proposed was it classes for only one group of those protected students, and they excluded everyone else. Now, the mayor at the time, the school board member, was urging the inclusion of all of the classes and particularly the racial and religious.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Your time is up.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Gray Harris, is she here? All right. Thank you. Then let's move on. Do we have a motion for the consent calendar excluding five, F and five? And as in Nancy, that were pulled?
Speaker 6: I will the approval of balance of the consent calendar.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Five f.
Speaker 2: Recommendation to award a five year contract for an amount not to exceed a total.
Speaker 0: Five year.
Speaker 2: Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists Inc for.
Speaker 0: Citywide urban.
Speaker 2: Forest maintenance services.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Pull this. Did you want to speak to it?
Speaker 4: So I had one question that I'd asked the city manager about earlier that was answered, which was why the total expenditure of $8 million. And that's because it's there's an option to extend for four years under the term. My second question has to do with why the golf fund fund to 80.5 is being included under the financing for this provision? And if and and how much of that how much how much of the funds are actually going to be used for this and if it includes maintenance of trees at the golf course.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. We're asking you to basically approve this avoiding of this contract and the numbers actually, as you mentioned, the 10% contingencies that explains and the five year contract, which means that what those numbers are the way they are as far as the golf. The golf course. This is something that is within the. As far as I understand it, it does cover the the trees in the golf course areas. And there is also the there as you can see, there's some private trees that are belong to that are within jurisdictions of what used to be. And and there's also the work that is other work that is done for parks and recs. So it's in the contract.
Speaker 4: So that so the trees in the front, the golf funds being used is how much?
Speaker 1: So I'm I have to look at the numbers. I don't have the numbers right on the top of my head.
Speaker 0: But so is success will.
Speaker 8: Be pro-rated by the number of trees and the funding associated with it.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then I thought we have a contractor that's taking care of the golf course. Does that contract not include maintenance and care for the trees there?
Speaker 1: That's something that I would need to get back to. I don't have the actual information on that.
Speaker 8: These are probably under the city's jurisdiction or it.
Speaker 0: Can we have public commons sized.
Speaker 8: Cities, trees at the beginning?
Speaker 6: Perhaps someone might want to take out a public speaking slip.
Speaker 0: To speak on the item. You need fill slips or. You need to fill out a slip if you'd like to speak on it.
Speaker 4: I would like clarification relative to this before I feel comfortable signing off, because I think that there has been questions about the usage of golf course funds in the past for things not having to do with the golf course. So I would like to understand and get information.
Speaker 1: Right. Unfortunately, I understand this staff report is not clear enough on that. I need to get talk to your staff and get back to you.
Speaker 0: So if there is someone that could help address the answers, it'd be nice if they could fellowship it.
Speaker 6: So I guess Mary Ashcroft, if first of all, may ask the city manager, city manager, is this is this time critical?
Speaker 3: Yes, it.
Speaker 6: Is. Actually, it is. Yes.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: So. As much as I appreciate potential Golf Commission members speaking, I think for the basis of my vote, I probably need to hear more information from staff.
Speaker 2: But I.
Speaker 0: Could you speak into the mic if you'd like to comment, please?
Speaker 2: Well, I was just thinking maybe we can just table this one and we can do a little research internally, and then we can come back to you tonight for an answer to that. Tonight?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I may be able.
Speaker 0: To do that. Well, we do have one member of the public to speak.
Speaker 6: And I'm sure he'd be allowed to speak then, too, unless you want to go.
Speaker 0: I'll take my comment as appropriate, so I'll go ahead and call Joe Van Winkle.
Speaker 1: So I believe the amount is actually indicated far down in the contract. If you read the details. And I think it's about 90 $600. And it's not actually my understanding is it's not actually for anything on the property, but rather adjacent to the property on Otis that runs along the golf course. And I think this has to do with the historical negotiation of that agreement. And I'm sure if staff gets a chance to to look at it, they'll be able to verify that.
Speaker 0: Can you all hear if you can? I hear you need to raise your hand. All right. I need the sound turned up so we can hear.
Speaker 1: I can speak.
Speaker 0: Louder. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, first of all, in the very small print, at the bottom of that contract, way down below, there's an attachment that has all the amounts for all the different line items. And you'll find something down there. I think it's 90 $600. It doesn't specify that it's coming out of the golf fund. You have to kind of.
Speaker 5: Infer that by the location. But it's basically the strip of property that is adjacent to the golf course. It's not on the golf course. It's the Otis.
Speaker 1: I think it's Otis as it runs along there. And as part of that contract agreement, they made the contractor contribute some amount for maintenance around the golf course. So that's kind of like a business park amount.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. So that's five F. So as staff. So do we have a motion to accept this at this time? To approve it?
Speaker 6: I appreciated the assistant city manager suggestion that we. Moves a little later in the. In the agenda. | Proclamation/Special Order | Presentation by the Oakland International Airport on Anticipated Air Traffic during the Closure of Runways Number 12 and 30 for Maintenance (Tentatively September 4 to September 18, 2017) and Fleet Week (October 2 to October 9, 2017). (Community Development 481005) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07052017_2017-4322 | Speaker 6: I appreciated the assistant city manager suggestion that we. Moves a little later in the. In the agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'd like to move that. We accept this. Your second. All right, then it fails. So then I don't know what you.
Speaker 8: You want to make a motion to consider this towards the end of the evening?
Speaker 6: I would be happy to make that motion. And I was just asking the assistant city manager if you would give me a little information about where you'd like to put that at the end of the regular calendar.
Speaker 0: So my preference would be that it be after nine A so that we can hopefully get to my referral tonight. It shouldn't take this much time to approve this contract. And honestly.
Speaker 6: Questions are supposed to be asked in advance. So. And of course, that applause will take a little time, too. No, I'm just saying move it to the end of the regular agenda.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. But this is supposed so there's a motion as there is starting to move it in front of nine is the motion. There a second.
Speaker 5: The motion is to move it to the end of the regular drive. So that would be after six D?
Speaker 6: Exactly.
Speaker 0: So it would still be in front of nine? Yes. I just want to clarify Frank's motion. So there's no wasn't my motion member. Guess you would be the third.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but, Mayor, I hear what you're saying, and I'll try to work toward getting to your item.
Speaker 0: I just say, in the future, we are supposed to try to submit our questions in advance. So we have a motion that was our seminar emotions back and all those in favor of my motion carries forward the one I oppose. So five and.
Speaker 3: A.
Speaker 0: This is on the to. Do we have any public comments on this?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Could you please pass those and staff. This one was on consent. It was pulled. I'd like to go forward with the public comments at this time. Thank you. And if I could ask staff to bring up the slips that we have them ready to go. I need to get through this meeting. Thank you. So if you can look ahead. I need to keep going. Mr. Buckley, did you turn in a slip right there? Okay, well, then that goes at the end. Everyone that wants to speak, you need to turn in your slips. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount Not to Exceed a Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for Citywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25. (Public Works 310) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07052017_2017-4477 | Speaker 0: I need to get through this meeting. Thank you. So if you can look ahead. I need to keep going. Mr. Buckley, did you turn in a slip right there? Okay, well, then that goes at the end. Everyone that wants to speak, you need to turn in your slips. I call them in the order. So who turned in the first slip? And who turned in the first if you gave me two piles.
Speaker 2: Up. Ever a.
Speaker 0: Whatever it is that you gave me to pass.
Speaker 2: Those duties to him first, or.
Speaker 0: They go under. Got it. Charles Hurt HRT. Stephen Aced. And then David Baker.
Speaker 1: You ready?
Speaker 0: Yes, thanks.
Speaker 1: I would like to first point out that I am not against increasing available housing. I am, however, very interested in preserving the state of Alameda. The state is in, you know, the esthetics and.
Speaker 5: The cross cultural mix and so forth. I think what you guys are.
Speaker 1: Proposing, as I understand it.
Speaker 5: Would increase available.
Speaker 1: I think it's considered.
Speaker 5: Right to decide.
Speaker 1: Housing in lots where it could increase the the.
Speaker 5: Density to the point where it would impact traffic and decrease the esthetic appeal of Alameda.
Speaker 1: And in particular, I think that housing, which is added in the front of a house without having a design review, is really a poor idea. Know, one of the things that you know, among other great things in Alameda is, is, you know.
Speaker 5: The architecture in the area. And for you guys to propose that anyone could build, for example.
Speaker 1: A mobile home or a modular home in their front yard just because they felt like it without the consideration.
Speaker 5: Of their neighbors or a design review. I think that's really, you know, a very poor idea.
Speaker 1: Also, I would like to point out that 1200 square.
Speaker 5: Feet is actually quite a large chunk of property. I live on Caroline Street. My house is, I think, 1800 square feet.
Speaker 1: 1200 square feet is a small three bedroom house.
Speaker 5: That's huge. And, you know, neighbors will be impacted. So I would urge you to consider moving back your 1200 foot maximum.
Speaker 1: In favor of something like, you know, say 600 feet, which I think, you know, that's still quite a bit, but I think that's a much.
Speaker 5: More reasonable.
Speaker 1: Number. That's all I have to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Stephen East. And then David Baker.
Speaker 1: I share similar concerns with the previous speaker and has to do with the fact that the. Relative size of remaining 1200 square feet can become excessive in relationship, especially on the smaller lot.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David Baker. And then Scott Brady.
Speaker 1: The issue is whether or not there should be public input in design review for second dwelling units up to 1200 square feet. The answer is a definitive yes, because we all make mistakes and thus our democratic institutions are designed for public input, since everyone, even with the best intentions, makes mistakes. In my world. And this will cause a chuckle with all the carpenters that are in the audience. The mantra is measure twice. Cut once. Since I'm a pencil pusher all day, every day, I put a mental magnifying glass to documents. But the problem is that this is a form of tunnel vision. Which creates a different set of blind spots. The situation is made even worse by the fact that so many documents are produced and read on computer screens. And my experience is that print free documents are not actually read. But only scanned. If we do not have public input into a design review process, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Scott Brady. And if you all could line up so that we're ready to go, then Eric Steiger. And then Renata Frey.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer. Members of Council. My name is Scott Brady and I'm here to talk about the new ordinance or request that the maximum buy right size for new structures be limited to 600 square feet. 1200 square feet is larger than many of the bungalows in town. 1200 square feet is far larger than necessary for a elderly person and a caretaker, which is sort of been described as the ideal use for these types of things. 1200 square feet will increase density, increase traffic congestion and increase parking problems. Many Alameda neighbors already have serious parking impacts. Nothing would prevent an applicant from applying for a larger ADU. And if all conditions are appropriate, it will be approved. So why allow more by right density and traffic than required? Concerns for neighborhood density in traffic are very valid and in a city surrounded by water with limited means to leave, managing any increases in density and traffic are critical for the quality of life in the town. So I request that the limit be placed at 600 square feet. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And remember, if you can't here, raise your hands so I can ask them to speak up. Or we can turn up the volume. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Eric Steiger. I was here when you guys vote on this before, and I just like to ask you to just reconsider a couple of points. I'm not opposed to the 80 ordinance at all. Again, just looking for a couple of I think are reasonable accommodations, one.
Speaker 5: Of which there have been mentioned that the maximum by right limit be limited to 600 square.
Speaker 1: Feet. One of the arguments that staff gave of why 1200 should matter is it would only affect 15% of the housing stock. I find that sort of a double edge argument because if it's if it has limited effect, why not have those extra.
Speaker 5: Steps in it for it? Because when it does happen, you know, you want that for all the reasons I mentioned, we want that additional review. Have the public have a chance.
Speaker 1: To have a say in it, but just making automatic just because it only applies to.
Speaker 5: 1500 homes doesn't seem like a good argument.
Speaker 1: And the other thing is, just from what I understand, the way that the audience was actually worried, the language about design is still somewhat vague. It doesn't say clearly that it.
Speaker 5: Will adopt the current buy right design.
Speaker 1: Guidelines. It's somewhat subjective with respect to detached units are not available from the street. And when this was discussed before, I don't think staff really made that clear. It made it sound like it would absolutely be applicable to the current design guidelines.
Speaker 5: That's not the case where it is right now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Renata. And then Nancy heard in the Nancy Gordon.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is We're Not Afraid and the risk of repeating what we've heard from the previous speakers, I just want to express my support for their points, specifically in the increased density, the parking challenges, and the access to and from the island. And as well as the increased coverage of open space on any given lot if size edu of 1200 square feet were to be added to many of these units, we would lose a lot of our permeable surfaces and the benefits of those. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Nancy Hurd. And then Nancy Gordon. And then Jim Smallman.
Speaker 3: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Alameda has no shortage of developers who want to build market rate housing in Alameda. Few units are affordable to Alameda teachers and service workers who want to live here. I looked at Craigslist over the weekend to see how many units are currently available for renters in Alameda and found that only three were less than $2,000 for a two bedroom and few one bedroom units for this amount. An average square foot for a two bedroom apartment is 700 square feet. I don't think 2000 is affordable for teachers and service workers. A 1200 square foot adu is the size of a house and would probably rent for about 3500 a month. You have an opportunity to open up some new housing avenues to teachers and service workers and still provide more housing to these citizens while reducing traffic on the roads that they travel to come to work each day. I request that you reduce the square footage of the Adus to something that will lead to more affordable housing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Nancy Gordon and then Jim Smallman.
Speaker 2: Mayor and council. Thank you for the chance to speak. Now, I've been in Alameda since 73 property owners and 75 realtor realtors since 78. And I've seen a lot of properties seeing what people have done and the care that they take, or perhaps sometimes lack thereof. Also, there's been an ordinance for parking that you couldn't park within the first 20 feet of your property for many years. Have any of you ever seen it enforced? No. And when you look down the streets, if it were enforced, you couldn't find parking. Okay. So at least most of these cases that I've seen aren't tandem. If you start getting tandem parking and then you don't pay attention to people who are putting concrete in their front yard, and you can end up with, you know, the old song.
Speaker 3: From the.
Speaker 2: Sixties of parking lot. Everything's going to be turned into a parking lot. And if when you have tandem, it's very difficult unless everybody on the property has a key to everyone else's car. What if you suddenly need to go someplace or someone's pregnant has to get the hospital or whatever other situation arises? Very, very difficult. And it could be life threatening. I also think 600 square feet is plenty. Your average starter at her house is around 1000 to 1300. And you can have. Seven more people and depending on their ages, you could have seven more cars on someone's property. In addition, I've let people stay in my house for the last 12 years or so because they can't find another place. I've taken them in as housemates. Most of them have cars. I appreciate being able to do that. I appreciate them being around. It's still an issue when you have to put the cars on the street with everybody else's property. There are a lot of future ramifications of this.
Speaker 3: See.
Speaker 2: A year ago I asked my tenants in a nine unit building on Central. It's a deep lot joy to add more parking. Or do you want a greenbelt? You want landscaping? They all said We want landscaping, we don't want more parking, which means there's only room for one car per unit. And if there are two people there, which there are in several units, they have to find street parking. They're willing to do that because they want the quality of a yard. They want the green, they want the trees. They just don't want a lot of parking. Also, visitors don't follow the rules. My tenants are really good watchdogs and they tell me when someone's friend is parking there. So not only do you have the people who live on a property in that building, but you have visitors and sometimes there's more than one, right? So it's very, very difficult. The tiny houses that I've seen in Portland where my daughter lives. They're in different styles. They paid attention to having variety, and they're basically. Six feet by eight. Something like that. That's plenty.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Moment in the Mary J. J. J. And then Chris Buckley.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the opportunity to say a couple of words. I would like to disabuse some of the Council on the idea that apes.
Speaker 5: And I don't speak for apes as a board member any longer, but I'm a member a long.
Speaker 1: Time that that apes is somehow opposed to.
Speaker 5: Helping with the housing crisis in.
Speaker 1: Alameda. We have never opposed the auxiliary to dwelling units, but we we have some suggestions about how to improve it, retaining the term of Alameda that we all value at the same time and making important contributions to the housing issues. Number one, do not increase the maximum.
Speaker 5: Size of a by rite 80.
Speaker 1: You from the existing 600 square feet to 1200 square feet. Except for to use contained within existing building envelopes. For years, people have tried to put basement units in so-called mother in law units. And and there.
Speaker 5: Are any number of horror stories about how.
Speaker 1: People have argued with the city to try to allow it and and so forth. I think that's a good solution because it doesn't change the architecture and it doesn't improve the footprint. The other issue is design standards. And I think going away eliminating design review.
Speaker 5: Is a for the external buildings.
Speaker 1: Is a slippery slope that we should not go down, that that's that's difficult. And whatever decision is made tonight.
Speaker 5: Or made on this.
Speaker 1: On this auxiliary dwelling unit issue, we're going to have to live with, or at least my children will for 30 or 40 or 50 years. This isn't this is not something that.
Speaker 5: You can decide 20 years from now. Gosh, we shouldn't have done it.
Speaker 1: Because it's too late then. So I want I want you to consider it carefully before you go ahead with anything over 600. And I did have one only slightly. Spacey's argument. And that is, if we could take the backyards of some of the council members here and stake out a 1200 square foot building just to show you what it looks like, because it's hard to visualize. And I appreciate that. It is hard. And if anybody is willing to do that, I think it might be a service for us all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mary.
Speaker 2: And then Chris Buckley mean. Thank you. Hi. My name is Mary Yitzhak. I wanted to encourage you to require the design review for a to use and keep the size at a 600 square foot maximum if the goal and that has been a strong message lately that we need more affordable housing in Alameda. 1200 square foot units are not going to be affordable. I think that the key would be to have if you're going to have those kind of units, to have them be small. Another thought that has occurred to me is these are going to be up against the property line potentially. So now your yard, if you have a yard, will have potentially have a building right on the property line. And that's very different than having the setbacks. It's a completely different feel. It's it increases that sense of density and a lot more than having a unit that, you know, is is there but not so I don't know . Looming over your own backyard which is we all know we're pretty small in Alameda anyway. And the. Having a senior moment here. The the other concern I had was that parking you know, we all we all talk about parking. And I wanted to share with you my experiences with that, that it's not just a complaint like, oh, gee, I can't find a parking or I have to park around the block when I visit my friend. It has been in my neighborhood. The main cause for police calls, restraining orders and issues between neighbors. It creates a lot of stress between neighbors just when there's difficulty parking because, you know, somebody has left their car for too long or somebody is parked in two spots. And, you know, I'm sure I. I don't have to tell you what all those oh, all those shapes that that takes. But the the lack and limit of parking is a big stressor in the neighborhoods. And it creates strife that you may not, you know, imagine would be occurring over parking. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Chris Buckley and Patsy Bear sitting. Time to hear him.
Speaker 5: Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. So I have 6 minutes rather than 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: Minutes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Okay. First, we received several letters from us, most recently June 19th, and then we had an email exchange today. Our June 19th letter articulated the two main recommendations that APS is submitting concerning the 600 versus 1200 square foot law area limit and also the need for clearer design standards. So I'm asking we have a lot of people here who I believe are not planning to speak. And so may I ask everyone who supports AP as he has his position to please raise your hand now. Thank you. I'd like to walk you through a couple of points in the particularly the July 2nd letter that we sent. Again, our first recommendation of the two is do not increase the minimum maximum by right size of an ADU from the existing 6000 square feet to 1200 square feet, except for 80 use contained within the existing building envelope . So if you are wanting to take an existing basement or another existing portion of an existing building and put a 1200 square foot A.U. in that we don't have a problem. It's just a the use that our new construction attached to an existing building or an expansion of existing building or a new freestanding structure. We want to make that clear. The some of the other speakers pointed out a 1200 square foot AEW could contain three or I would suggest even four bedrooms. Even a 600 square foot adu could include two bedrooms, which would be more than enough to handle the needs of a homeowner who needs assistance and have another bedroom for their caretaker. An 800 square foot adu, you could probably get three bedrooms into that. So going this size of buy right for 480 use seems reckless. I would like to remind you that the way the ordinance is written is that the 80 years meet the standards. There would be no public notification, no design review, and no use permit for an 80 use. All they need is a building permit and the related ministerial approvals. The second recommendation is Theresa maintain the existing design standards for detached edu's. We quote those design standards in our July 2nd letter and they are very clear and they're very ministerial in language which is consistent with a ministerial approval. They basically state for detached age to use when detached from a primary building. The design of the second unit, shall I emphasize, shall be consistent with that of the primary residence, incorporating the same materials, colors and styles of the exterior of the primary dwelling, including roofs, materials and pitch eaves, windows, accents, distinctive features and character defining elements. That's very clear. Now, if more flexibility in that's desired, it should be written in a standards based language rather than the proposed language that makes reference to doing something other than the primary dwelling.
Speaker 1: If there is a clearly.
Speaker 5: Recognizable architectural style in the immediate surroundings, what do immediate surroundings mean? Are we talking adjacent properties? Are we talking properties within 100 feet? You that needs to be clarified. It goes on to say that where the immediate context is eclectic, what does that mean? And no particular style of architecture is dominant. We have more subjective language. Dominant, no particular style. A greater degree of architectural variety may be established. What does that mean? This terminology, if more flexibility is desired, the terminology needs to be defined or designed review required. I would. There's also in the last meeting, staff had indicated that the guide to residential design would be used for this language. But this language, which makes reference to immediate surroundings, is inconsistent with the language. In the guide to residential design concerning accessory structures, which we which are use it to use are defined as accessory structures. And the existing language in the guide to residential design is very similar to the existing language in the current ADU ordinance, making reference to the existing building on the same lot, not neighboring buildings. Now I'd like to walk through some of the points in an email exchange, a very friendly email exchange that staff and I had earlier today. I've passed out hard copies to you. You know, staff. You know, we had done a survey of some neighboring communities which we provided to you. And what they're maximum by right 18th floor area is. And we know that that and the communities are Berkeley, Oakland, Piedmont, Santa Cruz, San Jose and San Leandro and Walnut Creek. And all of them had more restrictive. Edu maximums. Then Alameda is proposing staff subsequently brought to our attention that Hayward and Pleasant Hill are using the 1200 square feet. Although we there was some confusion on whether Hayward is actually been adopted or whether it's still a wrap. So at some point we'd like to have to clarify that. But still, those are outliers. And Alameda is very fragile and we believe it's reckless to go ahead with to the max on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: When other community.
Speaker 0: That's thank you mayor Marianne Bartholomew counts Rosemary McNally and then Dorie Miles. Marianne. Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to thank you because I appreciate that you're taking this issue up. I think that I support the new California law. It's designed to address our state housing crisis. And I think that the city taking this issue on to hopefully incorporate some more affordable housing options for people is a really positive thing right now . Both my husband and I are working education. We have plenty of people who cannot actually live in the cities that they work in. And I think that's really critical to sort of think about that big long term solution. With that said, I have been a homeowner in Alameda since the late nineties. We have a family of four living in a 900 square foot house on Briggs Avenue. So I know all too well that 1200 square foot properties are really big. We're lucky enough to have a long lot that has a big we have a big urban garden in the back. I have no plans on putting concrete to sort of mess out that area. But at the same time, if I did choose to actually build a structure or a secondary structure for like my parents as they're getting older, I would want my neighbors input. Actually, I want it to be part of the community. I do appreciate the sort of flexibility of thinking about how it fits within the guidelines. So I differ in a piece a little bit about that. I do think that there are plenty of modern housing options that might actually fit within the framework. So I'm hoping that maybe there is a little bit of meeting of minds and talking about sort of what what modern framework, what might work in with historical architecture. But with that said, I am concerned that we are not that the current ordinance proposal is seeking. No feedback beyond this, up to 1200 square feet. I do support the notion that anything beyond 600 square feet should have sort of a an input from the local neighbors. So I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Rosemary McNally. And if you guys could be ready to go. And then Dorie. And then Joe Van Winkle.
Speaker 2: I agree with.
Speaker 3: Everything that Chris basically said on a number of apps. And on top of that, I have a couple of questions. Is there anything that says these new new dwelling units have to be one story? Can they be two stories? And could somebody build a cinderblock house in their backyard right now? I think these are really important questions that need to be answered. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Dorie. And then Joe Van Winkle.
Speaker 2: Right. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I've been a Alameda resident since 1983. Love the island, but my home in the East End in 1990. The neighborhood that I live in is from the architecture, joked George Noble. There's lots of bungalows that range from 800 to about 1100 square feet, and my home is 1060 square feet. So I know it's plenty big for families, in fact, families to live there before I moved in. So I agree with the apps. I think 600 square feet is a good maximum. I think the accessory dwelling units should be that accessories not 1200 square foot primary type homes. I also agree that the design review should be implemented to give everybody a chance to see what these homes will look like before they're put into place. I don't see any reason why we should allow our density to increase with the ADA use more than our neighboring communities and cities. Okay. Thank you. Please give give your your vote to 600 square feet. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Joe Van Winkle. And then Dorothy Freeman.
Speaker 1: Madumere and members of the Council. Thank you for the opportunity to often citizens are surprised by actions taken by the city, whether it be a housing development or an addition or a remodel, or of course, when we had the cutting down of trees on Park Avenue, Park Street. Excuse me. People don't like to be surprised. No one likes surprises. Now, staff says that citizens should not be surprised. If you pay attention, there's notice, there's hearings and and you shouldn't, you know, be surprised, but not any more. Now we'll have 1200 square feet with no notice and no hearing and we'll have surprises. People will be upset, they'll be frustrated.
Speaker 5: And things could be overlooked.
Speaker 1: Safety issues could be overlooked. Things that when you get many eyes looking at something and somebody made a comment earlier, people make mistakes, but just more eyes looking at things, seek greater clarity and usually improves things. And we have historic neighborhoods in Alameda that are really a point of pride.
Speaker 5: And why would we want to put that at risk? So require the design.
Speaker 1: Review above 600 feet. Let there be transparency. Notify the neighbors. Let the citizens have their input. Encourage the dialog and maintain the great neighborhoods and good neighborly relations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Dorothy Freeman. And then Alexandra safely.
Speaker 2: Good evening and good evening, everyone. I have a 1200 square foot home in Livermore. I can't imagine.
Speaker 6: How you.
Speaker 2: Would put that into someone's backyard. I vote for 600.
Speaker 6: Square feet because I believe.
Speaker 2: That is more perfect for our neighborhoods. And since.
Speaker 6: Everybody else has already.
Speaker 2: Mentioned the rest of my comments, I will not say anything more on that. But the headphones are perfect.
Speaker 6: Please get.
Speaker 2: More.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Alexandra. And then our last speaker on this item is Donna Reagan.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I would like to strongly encourage you to make it use feasible. There's clearly a lot of benefit to a design review process. It includes more people. It prevents some of the, you know, really awful things from happening. It also costs more and it puts a lot more risk on the project for anybody wanting to develop. To use, the simple fact is there will be a lot fewer ADA use if there's a design review process required. And so I'd like to urge you to think about the benefits that would be gained from having the design review process versus the benefits that would be gained from having more ADA use. How many more ideas? How? Who knows? But that's it. This law is coming into effect from the state because there's seem to be an awful lot of benefit to having more to use. We've had to use allowed in this city for many years. So from my understanding is that to have been approved, many people have tried to get them approved. I as an architect, I've had quite a few clients in my little practice asking me about it. The requirements have been too onerous, and we're talking about not changing them all that much. And so I'd like to look for it for all the benefits that the use bring, addressing the housing crisis, keeping people more likely in their homes because they can afford it, keeping families together, keeping older people in the communities they've lived in for a long time, and otherwise they may be pushed out financially. Like How much are the benefits of design.
Speaker 0: Review.
Speaker 2: More important than the benefits of creating more to use? The state law says it's the intent of the legislature that an accessory dwelling unit ordinance get to the important. It that the the the local ordinance not be so burdensome, excessive or arbitrary as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create a use and. We're looking at changing all that much. And we've had two approved so far. Maybe something needs to change a little bit more to make these really viable for people to build. I also about the design guidelines and relating to prefab structures which I've brought up before. If you. I don't even know how this time review would mesh with pre-fab structures of prefab structure. It is or it isn't. Design review is all about tweaking and compromising, but you can't do that with prefab structures. So if you eliminate prefab structures, you've that's a whole other bunch of way to use that. You've eliminated a 600 square foot cottage isn't big enough for an accessible one bedroom.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. You. She's our last speaker on this item. BUZZER Are there any other slips.
Speaker 6: This lady is.
Speaker 0: Did you turn as a speaker? Said you.
Speaker 6: Called.
Speaker 0: Me ma'am. All right. Sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Donna Hagan.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Good, good. Then you're the last speaker. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm a renter here in the area. I've been here for about a year and a half. And I love I mean, it's a great place. Your issue seems like it's been 600 square feet, 1200 square feet. Whatever the square footage is, to me, that doesn't make any difference. The issue is we have zero tolerance on the streets for parking. And, you know, I'm not even talking about the bridges to go here and there. That doesn't make any difference. I'm just talking about street parking where you live. And because of that, I really think that in any kind of design mode, whatever the square footage is, that decided that there should be included in that, that there needs to be parking off street for that unit and not tandem parking, but parking, you know, if they have a big enough slot to put 600 507 on or 1200, however big their lot is, it has to be off the street because there's zero tolerance on our streets now in Alameda for any parking, it's impossible. So to add a thousand or 1200 units or whatever might happen, you're adding a lot of impact to the residents that already live on the streets of Alameda. So it's really important that I believe that it's critical that it be off street parking for these new units and not tandem, which creates issues that have been brought up tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. She's our last speaker. Council members who wanted to go next. A member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: And may I ask staff member Alan Tie to come up so I can ask him a few questions for clarification, please.
Speaker 0: Five questions first, Mr. Chai.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chai. We heard a lot of comments, and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. Literally and figuratively. Would you spend some time talking about this 1200 square foot size? Can anybody decide to put a 1200 square foot edu accessory dwelling unit in their backyard?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of Council, L.A. Planning Services Manager. So the state law sets a maximum of 1200 as a ceiling for an EDU. But the requirement is actually the lesser of 50% of the existing floor area of the main dwelling or 1200 square feet. So in order to build a 1200 square foot adu, your house has to be at least 2400 square feet in size.
Speaker 6: And let me just clarify, is it your house like all two or three stories of your house add up to 2400 square feet? Or is it the footprint on the lot?
Speaker 1: It's a total floor area. So if you have two floors, then that that would be the gross floor and not the footprint.
Speaker 6: Okay. And what about a percentage of light coverage?
Speaker 1: So our proposed ordinance also stipulates that including the footprint of the the you and the footprint of the main building, including any impervious surfaces, including like a paved driveway, paved patio. All of that cannot be more than 60% of the total land area.
Speaker 6: And is there a limit to how many stories an accessory dwelling unit can be, one that's freestanding and not in the basement, obviously. Yes.
Speaker 1: Detached accessory buildings are current requirements are one story. No taller than 15 feet. And 15 feet is actually measure to the peak of the roof. So the side walls, there's actually a special, specific requirement that the walls cannot be more than ten feet tall.
Speaker 6: And what is cinderblock dwelling be allowed.
Speaker 1: Under the current rules? If the main house is built as cinder block, then yes, your accessory building, you're 80. You must be a cinder block wall. What staff is trying to do with the new language is to add flexibility where you don't have to do that.
Speaker 0: But could you answer her question? Your question was could well, you could be under the current proposal. Could it be made out of cinder block?
Speaker 6: So, Madam Mayor, I think I did hear the answer. If the if the main house is cinder block, do we have main houses that are cinder block in Alameda?
Speaker 1: Very rarely. I think there might be a few, but the answer is you would have to go through the zoning reviews via design review staff would review the proposed design of the building.
Speaker 0: Under the proposed ordinance.
Speaker 1: Under the proposed ordinance, staff would have the discretion using our city's design review manual to make a decision whether a cinder block would be appropriate. I would say in most cases we won't come to that decision.
Speaker 6: And you mentioned design review, and we heard a lot of comments to the effect that there would be no design review for accessory dwelling units. Can you clarify for us.
Speaker 1: Yes. When when surface for referring to design review? In this case, I'm referring to the lower case design review where staff is reviewing the plans. We are doing architectural review of the plans, comparing it with our design review manual, make sure that the proposed architecture and details would comply with the provisions. What's different about that architectural review process done by staff? Staff level with the capital? D.R. Design Review is that there's just no public notice. There's not an appeals process, and that's all stipulated under state law. The review process has to be ministerial. If you meet the city's requirements, which includes design standards and design criteria, then you get a building permit.
Speaker 6: And in the the correspondence that you had today with Mr. Bartley from the Architectural Preservation Society. And thank you for copying us on it. You made the point that in Berkeley, in Oakland, because those ordinances were pointed out, they actually allow accessory dwelling units of up to 75% of the existing floor area. But in Alameda, we are limiting it to no more than 50% of the existing floor area. That's correct. And in still, it would have to fall within the limitations on how much impervious surface can be, can be occupied, can be covered. And what about Mr. Buckley always raised this great. I don't see him, but he always raises great points and makes me think he's concerned with. I think it's a permissive language of whether you need to use the same materials as in the main house, the existing home for your accessory dwelling unit. Can you tell us why the language is permissive and not mandatory?
Speaker 1: So I should very clarify. There are different standards for the different situations. Obviously, if you're proposing to add an 80 you to the back of your house so that it's part of one building, our requirement, a proposed requirement is yes, it would have to match so that it's one building. I don't think there's any controversy there. The other option, obviously, would be if you were located on a corner lot or in the rare cases where your main house is built on the back of the lot and there's a lot of open space in the front in your property, that's where you're proposing the adu in the front of the lot. Staff is also proposing in those cases that the the on the corner lot and in the front yard that the architecture match matched the main building. But in all other cases where really you're having a detached unit in the backyard, what staff is putting in the ordinance is we look at the immediate surrounding and and via the amendments to the draft ordinance introduced at the last council meeting, we we clarified it by saying immediate surroundings and, and based on past precedent and how staff describes properties and immediate surrounding really means immediately adjacent buildings. So we would look at what is what is on the property, what is the main building look like, what do the adjacent buildings look like? And we use that as a standard to decide what the EDU should look like. And this is these are provisions based these are based on provisions that are already in the city's design review manual. The city's design review manual tells staff that, hey, when you are deciding on compatibility for new buildings, look at the surroundings. And so that's how we crafted this language.
Speaker 6: And my last clarifying question is talk about if in 80 you were to be built in the front yard of a dwelling, ie, there are some lots in Alameda that probably have a front yard large enough. What kinds of design review considerations applications would there be?
Speaker 1: So in that case, our proposed language would would say that you would have to look at the existing main building and try to mimic that character. So the same basically match the the building, the main building that's in the back.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Mr. TIME and reminder.
Speaker 5: Yes, a thank you, Mr. Tai, for clarifying that and answering the questions that were posed. I do think it's important that. There be a direct reference having heard what people. But what was this question?
Speaker 0: Did you have questions? Answer any clarifying questions. Sorry. Also for that, our vice mayor.
Speaker 4: Is there? There was a question raised about the setbacks, and I know that there's a reference to section 30, Dash 5.7 F, which includes some set back requirements and also some requirements. Are those still going to apply?
Speaker 1: Yes. Or how we're defining to use in audiences. They are a type of accessory building. So the section that you reference in the municipal code covers all of that. And so setbacks would apply.
Speaker 4: So all of the setbacks would apply. Okay. Thank you. And then my other question has to do with when you mentioned adjacent properties other than a corner building, would there be a scenario where staff would be looking at the design of a building on the street behind the house? Meaning the house behind the existing structure on the other street.
Speaker 1: Yeah. With, with AIDS and all new buildings, staff will always be looking at the design regardless of the situation. I think in the case where there might be a street behind the house. We would also factor in adjacency and from that public street what the structure would look like. And so those are all provisions already in the city's design review manual.
Speaker 4: And then relative to the footprint question, there is language that I saw that said that it must be subordinate to the footprint. So what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Subordinate means smaller. So we would we would ask that a for a detached building again because 80 use or accessory buildings and by definition, accessory buildings are really subordinate. They are accessory. I don't think staff would accept then, you know, 12. Well, the maximum size requirement already dictates that it's no greater than 50%.
Speaker 4: So I have a question. So if the building the total gross square footage of the building is 2400 square feet, including a second story, but the ground floor was 1200 square feet. Could the and assuming that the property was large enough and had enough permeable, short square footage and surfaces, could you build a 1200 square foot? Accessory dwelling?
Speaker 1: No. In that case, staff's response would be the proposed building is not subordinate by design, by footprint.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I had asked a question at the previous meeting on this issue as to whether or not we had any information. I know we had figured out that perhaps 15% would be eligible based off of the square footage of the property and the square footage of the house. Do we have any information relative to the impact of the permeable surfaces? That was one of my questions before was how out of those, how many would be ineligible because of lack of permeable square foot surfaces?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, that's not data that we have for each property. So but what we would have to do is look into the 15% universe of 15% a little bit more. And what we found is that the majority of those larger homes are located in Harbor Bay. And previously I've explained that in the Harbor Bay community, it's a planned development. It's these homes are pretty much built to the maximum coverage. There's really, I would say, almost no space to accommodate a detached structure. Another about 300 units are also located at Bay Port. There's also some percentage of units located in the newer developments like Tri Pointe Marina Cove and where where there are strict design requirements and development regulations that I would say preclude detached ADA use. And then the remainder of lots that would be eligible for a detached 80, you would be sort of in the neighborhood of the Gold Coast. Mm hmm. Also and also for inside where you have large lots along the water. But a lot of those lots already have existing accessory buildings.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Member Odie.
Speaker 9: Thank you. My questions were kind of similar to the vice mayor's. So of this 50% number, that 50% is just based on square footage, right? That's correct. So we don't know of the actual lots. How many? I'm sorry. Let's go back to the the footprint thing. So the even though we say you could put a 1200 square foot adu on a lot, that includes a 2400 square foot house. I mean, the reality is, if 1200 is the first floor, it has to be subordinate. Yes. Right. So really that number of 2400, that 15% is like super inflated, right?
Speaker 1: Correct. And it's important to remember that the maximum size is really just one of a list of development standards or setbacks that the impervious surface coverage, the design criteria about subordinate structures.
Speaker 9: And we don't have an idea. I'm sorry I let you finish. I'm sorry. And we don't have an idea of how many of those 15% actually have ads on them now. Right.
Speaker 1: The the 15% to 15%. There are no ideas.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then do we have an idea? And I think you kind of answered this with the vice mayor's question, but how many of those that might be eligible to have a 1200 square foot adu based on the the property size? You know, actually, you'd be able to do that because of the permeable surface.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's not something that we can figure out. We just don't have data about how much pavement people have in their yards or driveways. And and we also don't have information about all the setbacks and whether the square footage is one or two floors. Yeah, that's just not data that's available.
Speaker 9: Okay, thanks. And then the you know, we heard some concerns about parking. I mean, what to what extent can we consider parking in adopting an ADU ordinance under the new state law?
Speaker 1: So under the state law, one of the things that the state legislature legislature did was provide a number of situations where parking cities cannot require parking. One of which is if the ADA is located within a half mile of public transit, and that basically rules out the entire city of Alameda because we are at this point transit friendly.
Speaker 9: And then just a couple more quick questions on on Mr. Buckley's email. I think he he referenced the new ordinance and then he referenced the design manual. And it sounded like the point he was trying to make was the design manual was a little more strict than the ordinance. So how do we reconcile that, given that we're we're not supposed to make it unduly burdensome? Right.
Speaker 1: So the design guidelines are guidelines are intended to support ordinances and sort of expand on it. In this case, we have situation where the provisions in our design manuals is very specific on unnecessary buildings. And but by broadening that, adding flexibility in the code, we're actually able to open that up.
Speaker 9: And then I think there was a hypothetical that I mean, can we build a modular if you lived on Grand Street, for example, could you build a modular home? Edu, in your front yard?
Speaker 1: In the front yard, if the main building is modular?
Speaker 9: Okay. I don't think there are any solar. So I'm thinking like for the moment that they're not.
Speaker 1: So the answer would be no. Okay.
Speaker 0: I won't do that.
Speaker 9: I just want to say thank you. I'm finished.
Speaker 0: All right. I want to ask questions. So in regards to the new California state law requires, could our ordinance require more design review than what is being proposed? Are we? Are we allowing more homes to be approved without design review? More aid used to be approved without design review. Then you think we have to.
Speaker 1: So procedurally, the design review will still happen. But at staff level, as I had explained it, if if you are thinking about the public notification aspect of the city's current design review process, then if the ADA application meets the ordinance requirements, then no, there will not be the public notification. Could the city decide to insert a design review process that that would be possible, but we would have to change a lot of the provisions in our proposed ordinance.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I want to get back to so the comments of 600 square feet versus 1200 square feet that range. Could the city propose an ordinance that requires public notice to the neighbors or proposed to use that are 600 feet or greater and still be in compliance with the California law?
Speaker 1: Yes, but that basically means where we're referring back to our current ordinance.
Speaker 0: But that would be in compliance with the current law. Yes. Thank you. All right. Any other questions, vice mayor?
Speaker 4: What's the estimated cost of a publicly noticed design review versus the internal staff design review?
Speaker 1: So the way the ordinance is written is if you don't meet the requirements and you have to go through the design review, it's design review plus a use permit. So a use permit costs 1600 dollars. Design review is also about another 600. So.
Speaker 4: Okay. And relative to what staff is considering, you said you don't have the data relative to the permeable surfaces or the setbacks. Those would those be things that staff considers as part of their design review process?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: And Brody, did you have questions?
Speaker 9: I think you've started one more question. So I think I asked this last time, but then, Mr. Buckley, it sent around different audiences. And the question related to whether we could require some type of affordability restriction. And back when we did this the first time, I think we talked a lot about the Piedmont ordinance. And then it looked like in the documents that that were sent to us that the new Piedmont Ordinance does include some type of of affordability restrictions. So can you talk a little bit about what we might or might not be able to do regarding some type of affordability restrictions? I'm sorry. Let me because I think the answer I was told last time was that would be an undue burden. But then I, I mean, I think that's the new Piedmont Ordinance that Mr. Buckley sent. So I'm just wondering if you can reconcile that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Steph's position would be that any requirement for affordability or or requirement that's not provided under state law could be interpreted as a burdensome and excessive requirement. Again, understanding the purpose of the state law was to streamline and remove the obstacles. There are other components of the Piedmont Ordinance that staff has looked at as well, such as them requiring a separate design review permit that the first I think it might raise some legal issues, but because it's a another city's ordinance, I won't comment on that. But it would be my interpretation of the state law that if the city were to introduce requirements that weren't provided in the legislation, that there might be some legal concern.
Speaker 9: I appreciate the. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: And. Mr. Chai I think it was some of the correspondence we got previously talked about how and you actually referenced that we have properties that have accessory units in the back, usually not accessory dwelling units because this is the new ordinance we're looking at. But they've in many cases they have been left to deteriorate with this ordinance be applicable to someone who say I long for inside has a, you know, a boathouse or something that's no longer a boathouse. But they wanted to convert it. Could they could they come to the city with an application to make it into an accessory dwelling unit.
Speaker 1: Provided that there's only one main building and one unit on the property? Yes, that's a possibility. And they would still have to meet all of the requirements and the proposed ordinance.
Speaker 6: Yeah. The requirements that you've set forth. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. I believe that completes council question.
Speaker 6: Questions? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Comments. Motion member matter.
Speaker 5: SC I just wanted to clarify because my understanding and I think it's reasonable based on what, what I've heard and of. A review of what we talked about last time, that the fact is a 1200 square foot building is quite large. And this is not about design review. This is design review from everything. And it was confirmed tonight. Design review is going to happen for every accessory dwelling unit. And I think that provides a certain amount of protection. So I think that issue is I'm fine with that issue. The second issue is with what is by right, which my understanding, again, I think it was confirmed tonight, is anything up to 600 square feet by state law is by right and a ministerial review which includes design reviews, small D, small R. So I think that's fine. I think anything bigger than 600 square feet should have the notification and public input to the design review. So I'd like to see that. You know, I'd like to see that in our current ordinance. And I think it does make it different than the existing ordinance. And then lastly on, I think staff talked about a front yard and side yard. I think anything that can be visible from the street and. Visible from the public street should be subject to the design guideline. Those are my comments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Want to go next? All right.
Speaker 6: I'll go next, if you may. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to go back to the preamble to the state legislation. It's section 65852.15 of the California government code. That is the basis of this ordinance we're talking about, says that accessory dwelling units are a valuable form of housing in California because they provide housing for family members , students, the elderly and home health care providers, the disabled and others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create accessory dwelling units benefit from added income and increased sense of security. Having someone there living on the property. One of our speakers, a realtor with a big, beautiful house, mentioned that she likes having people living there with her and Addus also provide additional rental housing stock in California. And because they are smaller, they lower the cost of housing within existing neighborhoods while respecting architecture character. And so they because there were some comments made, about 600 square feet is all you need. You can provide the person who lives there and a caregiver. That's all you need. And I would say we're not really all about one size fits all in Alameda. We are unique. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that, as Mr. Ty pointed out, those larger homes with larger lots that would even accommodate an accessory dwelling unit tend to be in neighborhoods that wouldn't that don't have that extra space. So Harbor Bay, the homes there are lovely and large and I love the way it's laid out. Their backyards are not big. Bayport is similar, but there may be some we've I don't have the cities in front of me, but it's single digit. How many of these have even been approved since the ordinance has been on our but before the state law came into effect. But I am still mindful and but I want to say to all you speakers and I do appreciate you coming out and what I hear from all of you and not the ones just the ones who spoke tonight. But you've been emailing. So you really care about Alameda. You care about the character, what we look like. It's you know, it's a charming city and you're not alone. We do to every one of us on the city council. We don't want ugly things built in our house. And we. In our house. I sorry. I was looking at that adorable young family leave because we got too late, I guess, and just thinking we have this need in our city, in our region, in our state. We are trying to address it. I know it brings up a lot of fear. We fear the unknown. We fear what's happened in the past. In other times in Alameda, when there weren't regulations on the books, we saw Victorians torn down. We saw those what could be affectionately referred to as Soviet style apartment blocks built on some lovely historic streets. We don't do that anymore, and that's good. And I also want to say that we have a city government, a planning department, we have a design review manual, and we and when it was amended most recently and any time it's amended, it's done in a public hearing and there's lots of public input. And so that would be applied. Our planners care about what Alameda looks like, too, which is the reason you haven't seen cinderblock houses going up, by the way. So I do understand your concerns. I've heard a little bit of misinformation about, you know, just everybody who wants to can slap up a 1200 square foot accessory dwelling unit, but they can't. And we have restrictions in place and we also have some very compelling needs. But I think this is one of those instances where we really can address competing interest and interests. It is not an either or. So I certainly support the ordinance that the majority of this council passed last time. Thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I'll keep it brief. I think, you know, at the end of the day, I have concerns with the 600 square foot limit, partially because of, you know, the added cost of having the public process. And second of all, relative to the fact that, you know, if you look at the universal design ordinance that we have been working on, I, I have spoken with several architects regarding the requirements of universal design. And 600 square feet is not going to really allow to meet all of the requirements of our universal design ordinance to make an accessory dwelling fully accessible. And I, I really don't want to hinder that process either. So it seems to me like if we did a design review it public design review requirement at the 600 foot limit, we're almost punishing people for building accessible, 100% accessible universal units, which is something I would like to avoid, especially because a number of people who have contacted me relative to wanting to build accessory dwellings have spoken about wanting to age in place and have a, you know, a unit that or have a unit that they could have a family member who they're caring for stay in. So for those reasons, I think the 600 square foot barrier would be too low. I do hear the concerns relative to the where an accessory dwelling would be built in the front yard or the side yard. I'd be willing to consider something under 1200 square feet for those parcels where it would be out front and center. But again, 600 square foot would be, I think, too low in terms of meeting the accessory accessibility requirement. So, you know, that's the only scenario where I would be comfortable looking at lowering it from 1200 square feet, because I do think that when it's front and center like that and people are going to be seeing it, I don't think that there's harm necessarily in public notice, but I wouldn't want to put the number too far below a thousand square feet.
Speaker 0: Let me ask. Sorry. But 750 square feet notice. Is that too low for you? May I ask a question? Let me let me start asking. And you can but remember memory. I want to speak. But you had raised the comment. So if you could just think about that and then I'll go to member Ody. Member Ody.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of the comments I would have said have been spoken already by my three colleagues. I do feel we do have robust design standards and our staff pays really close attention to them. So I also feel comfortable that we're not going to have adus of any size approved that are out of character for either the individual lot or the individual neighborhoods. What does concern me and you know, except in the situation where, you know, you have a a landlord tenant relationship, I really believe that we should not interfere too much with people that want to improve their property. I mean, it's their property. I mean, unless they're leasing it or and in the business of providing housing, you know, I don't want to see property owners like the property owner on Saint Charles go through that long and onerous process just for a parking garage. I mean, they want to redo their garage now. I can't imagine what would have happened if they wanted to put an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard. And I think that gets to the gist of the entire thing we're trying to do here, which is remove the barriers for folks that want to do that. So I think that the design review process, having it in public I think is a significant barrier. And, you know, I'm pretty comfortable with the existing ordinance the way it's written. I just want to add before I close, I, I do appreciate the input of Aaps and I did have an opportunity to speak with Chris today. And I'm not one who has any negative inferences or thoughts of apps. I really enjoy the letters and your input and your thoughtful analysis and actually talking to you when I have that opportunity to do so. And we're continuing to do that. So I want to thank you for all of all that you do to help keep the charm of Alameda the way we love it. So I plan on supporting this as it is.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: You know I'm okay if you know, I want to hear your comments.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 0: I was hoping to see about reducing so the houses I won't be able to support, but that obviously if you want to make a motion, my preference would be to require a public notice and. So that there could be that conversation with the neighbors.
Speaker 2: At a lower square.
Speaker 0: Footage.
Speaker 4: You know, my comment was really for the properties where it's built, being built in the front yard or the side yard. And the number that I had heard from some of the architects that I had spoken with prior to the meeting regarding the universal design aspect was 850 square feet. So for for the for the accessory dwellings. And I think that this really, you know, reading through the comments from apes and hearing everybody speak tonight, I think it has to do with, you know, making sure we're preserving the kind of overall charm of the neighborhood. And in that aspect, I can understand concerns relative to the design of accessory dwellings in the front yard or the side yard where it's going to be visible from the street.
Speaker 2: And so so I'll I'll make an.
Speaker 4: Well, I'd like to hear from my other colleagues to hear if.
Speaker 0: I think we've heard. I don't remember. Did your state member matter?
Speaker 5: Well, I'd like to make a motion to have the existing of these the existing text of this be amended to, um, have anything greater than 600 square feet, require notice and have to it explicit. In here, the design review will be conducted regardless and for any. The third is for any accessory dwelling unit visible from a public street. It has to meet the design guidelines.
Speaker 0: Is there a second?
Speaker 9: You know what? I have a question.
Speaker 3: Remember, we can.
Speaker 9: Can we make those? Hypothetically, can we make those changes and still qualify for a second reading or.
Speaker 5: Okay. So we would have to have another we have another meeting to have a second reading if this person.
Speaker 0: I have a Ashcroft.
Speaker 6: So I am concerned with.
Speaker 0: Let me go ahead. I'll second and then you can make your comments. Okay. I'll second the motion member.
Speaker 6: So I cannot support this because I we have all been waiting for the universal design ordinance to come along. And I think that we have to in this city be mindful of people of all differing needs. We want people to be able to age in place. We had correspondence from people who talked about wanting to build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard, move into that and rent out their main house. So I don't want to start limiting our ability to apply the universal design ordinance, which I think most people know. But it means when you build, you build so that people who might need a wheelchair or a walker, a greater turning radius, so wider doorways, wider hallways can can be there. It's it's allowing people the dignity of living in their home and sometimes without a caregiver, sometimes with a caregiver. So I, I might consider coming down in the square footage number, but not to something that would conflict with universal design ordinance because the rights of the folks who would need that are.
Speaker 4: Important to.
Speaker 0: Remember matter.
Speaker 5: S.E., I don't have any evidence other than what was relayed verbally that we would preclude universal design in a 600 square foot. And it is.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we had a motion and a second. Can I.
Speaker 3: Go to make my.
Speaker 9: Comment? I mean, what you know, what might be helpful in this is perhaps in six months we hear back from staff, you know, kind of an overview of the 82 applications that we have. And we can look at the pictures, we can have an update on if any of these other cities, more restrictive ordinances are being challenged in court and kind of see if if we put this in place, if it needs to be tweaked, because if we don't have any of these I mean, we had six applications from the beginning of the year. I mean, if we still have six more and they're all backyards of less than 600 square feet like the current ones, the current six are I mean.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 9: Are we really you know, are we chasing something that's not there?
Speaker 0: And so we have a motion and a second. So and I'll go ahead and call that question and then we can have. Right. Okay. So I'll call that question. All those in favor. I, i. Oppose.
Speaker 4: No, no motion fails.
Speaker 0: Is there another motion?
Speaker 4: I'll make a motion to accept the language as is, but to add a requirement that it come back to council in six months time with an update as to what has transpired in the six months relative to applications within the city of Alameda, as well as the laws being passed in neighboring jurisdictions.
Speaker 0: There is.
Speaker 2: May I just clarify that? So that's not part of the ordinance. That's just direction to staff? Correct. Correct.
Speaker 0: Very second. I'll second. Any comments? All those in favor.
Speaker 3: I oppose.
Speaker 0: No, I oppose motion passes. 3 to 2. Thank you. All right. Now we move on to 6:36 a.m.. Oh, I'm sorry. 6 a.m.. Adoption of resolutions appointing Unterberg in Jennifer Barrett and Lisa Hall as members of the Commission on Disability Issues, Ron Taylor and Joseph Van Winkle as members of the Gulf Commission. Amber Bailes, Cynthia Silva, Travis Wilson and Dorothy Lismore as members of the Library Board.
Speaker 2: And Laura Palmer as.
Speaker 0: A member of the Transportation.
Speaker 2: Commission.
Speaker 1: Move approval, Madam Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. So all of those that are here. Would you please come up to the podium with the names that she just read? Our new commission members. Ron Taylor. I'm sorry. I'll start with Aunt Anto. I don't know. Get me in. Jennifer Barrett. Lisa Hall. Ron Taylor. Jo Van Winkle. Amber Bailes. Cynthia Silva. Travis Wilson, Dorothy Whisper and Laura Palmer. If you're here, please approach the podium. Thank you. And you'll be sworn in. You take your oath.
Speaker 1: I got one.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's fine. But no. I just. I just. I was actually on. He.
Speaker 6: But.
Speaker 2: Please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear that you will support the.
Speaker 0: Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office.
Speaker 2: Of the.
Speaker 0: City of Alameda according to the.
Speaker 2: Best of your ability. Right. Thank you. If you would, please.
Speaker 0: Welcome. New commission members.
Speaker 3: Hmm. Okay.
Speaker 9: I'm moving.
Speaker 3: You guys.
Speaker 0: We're going to take a five minute short recess while they're doing that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Is that? Take your.
Speaker 3: Seats. If they really could.
Speaker 0: Please take your seats so we can resume. All right. The next item is.
Speaker 3: Six B.
Speaker 0: Assemble a public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance. Amending the Disposition and Development Agreement between Alameda Point Partners LLC and the City of Alameda for CI eight at Alameda Point. We have a staff member. Let's go. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slips. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Related Rules to Comply with State Law (Second Units). (Community Development 481005) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07052017_2017-4349 | Speaker 6: I. I just look forward to hearing the night when I got back from the League of Cities Conference in Monterrey last week, or maybe while I was there, I emailed the city manager and said, Oh, I just, you know, sat next to somebody who is a consultant with a firm that looks at the taxation issues around cannabis sales and dispensaries, manufacturing. And and that's when the city manager informed me that, well, we actually just had a staff presentation from another consulting firm, so we've gathered good information. So let's share it. We always, you know, you make better decisions with more information rather than less. So I am very. Enthused to see what staff has in store for us in September. Based on the previous council referrals. It's already been brought in. Just one last thing, if anyone knows. It is my understanding that the no smoking ordinance that exists in Alameda is silent on medical marijuana. So that's I mean, if you're a patient and you have your card, sorry, we don't take questions from the audience, but that's it is the ordinance is simply silent on that. So so anyway, I am I am content to wait for staff to come back in September because we're not going to get it on the next meeting and we'll be back to the first meeting in September. And and I think we'll all be able to make a good informed decision are several then. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And remember.
Speaker 3: See.
Speaker 5: You know, I was looking at this referral and I think the question has to be asked and answered. So I don't see a reason not to have the referral go forward as direction. However, I also want to make sure that. We make an informed decision, and that decision will include the experiences of other cities. In contemplating what we're doing compared to where it's already happened in California, as well as other states where there are a little bit ahead of the timeline, Colorado, Washington or what have you. And also, like, whatever comes back, because I think to simply drop these components into an ordinance and approve that in October is unrealistic. I'd like to have that full information. I'd also like to make sure that we take into account the fact that cannabis is still illegal federally. And there is much of the industry, I think, and I would like to know if it's actually true. Is a cash industry. Mm hmm. So.
Speaker 3: And so are.
Speaker 5: We talking piles of money that are going to be. Well, I don't want an answer now, but I. I think we need to look at the impact of that as far as what we plan on doing here.
Speaker 0: Remember.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. I just. I just want to follow up on the vice mayor's point. We do see what other cities do on some of these zoning requirements in these these areas, the Green Zone, so to speak. So maybe when staff comes back with their maps, you know, they can give us options. You know, if we do it like city X with this number of feet, these are our zones. If we do it like citywide, that has a different number. I mean, this is our zone. I mean, just so we can kind of get a picture in our head, you know, rather than, you know, wait for us to give direction on a number. You know, we might be able to be better informed on what that number should be based on the maps.
Speaker 3: Well. Okay.
Speaker 0: So my referral was very specific in regards to including things like preferences for owner operators who currently live in Alameda, conditional zoning regulations as well as limit the numbers of of dispensaries. But I appreciate, you know, the staff is working on coming back on September 5th. And what I would hope is that I would have the support of council to give further direction, to propose these regulations, to have staff be more specific when they come back and and hopefully on the fifth, give us then the options so that we can give clear direction. Of what to come back with at the next meeting in September of what we'll be looking for September 19th, and that's the meeting after. Instead of thinking that we're going on until January, if there's any way to move it along faster. So I. Did you want to add, Brody?
Speaker 9: I mean, I don't want to wait till January either. I mean, so.
Speaker 0: Right. But otherwise, if you want to use the mike.
Speaker 8: That's when the state regulations go into effect and when recreation becomes.
Speaker 0: Right. But in regards to coming up with our ordinance now for medical, we should be able to do that and then be prepared to go forward in January with recreational, but not wait until January to move forward with medical access on the island. So that's that's in fact, my concern. What I want to try to expedite this and at least send a clear signal to staff that that's what we're looking for, that we really do want to try to expedite it.
Speaker 3: But I.
Speaker 0: Think.
Speaker 5: Oh, sorry. All right.
Speaker 4: But I just wanted to understand specifically what so what you're asking for is you're saying prioritize medical to go into effect before January 2018 and then.
Speaker 0: Well, that's. That's what she was saying. Because she's talking about.
Speaker 8: That's what I heard you say. You want the medical dispensaries to come in before it becomes.
Speaker 0: Legal right now within our state. Right. So, yes. That right now medical is accessible at dispensaries in other cities and not here. So, yes, so that is the ask. That's why that's what the referral is about. I mean, I'm happy to clarify it, but that's why I'm bringing in this referral. I don't want to wait until 2018 to be talking about medical dispensaries. I think it's appropriate for us to give direction to move forward with that now. Just like other cities do. Maybe you're not aware you can go to other cities, get medical cannabis at dispensaries. So that's what my ass.
Speaker 4: I've been working on the issue for quite some time. I am aware of that. I'm just asking what your timeline is relative to what you're asking for, because your referral includes a number of different things, including dispensaries, cultivation, manufacturing, purity and potency, testing labs, quality control facilities and other activities. So I don't see anything in the actual language of the referral relative to prioritizing medical dispensaries other than there's a line. Currently our medians must travel out of town to purchase cannabis, but I don't see anything else in here specific to that. So I'm trying to understand what your what your motion is or what your proposal is.
Speaker 0: So to. So I do appreciate member Ortiz comments in regards to low hanging fruit, if there are parts of it that he thinks we can expedite. But at this point, since it's the medical that is legal, then that is what the focus would be to proceed with that and come up with that.
Speaker 3: I ask.
Speaker 9: A question. So. I mean, is it possible to bring back some ordinances? I mean, again, I don't really want to. You confine it to just dispensaries because I do think manufacturing cultivation are.
Speaker 5: Are.
Speaker 9: Opportunities for Alameda but to bring back some draft ordinances excuse me in the first meeting in September maybe not a first reading, but at least some language that we could see. And if it's going along the.
Speaker 3: Right path, why.
Speaker 8: Don't we bring back examples from other cities that we have looked at and feel are good? Places to start. For the council. I mean, we can bring. The, you know, recommendations.
Speaker 9: And then, you know, this discussion, I think, was very helpful because this is the first time we've had a chance to talk about it since the referral. And if we didn't have this referral, we wouldn't have had an opportunity to share additional thoughts, which I think that's helpful. So, you know, some of the other direction that came from my colleagues on what they'd like to hear, what they'd like to see, I mean, we could take that into you can take that as direction also, right?
Speaker 0: A member of addressing.
Speaker 5: Again. I think the question should be asked and answered and. I don't see any problem with bringing in examples as long as it's not the first reading of an ordinance. I think, again, that's unrealistic and I want the the broad public to be able to weigh in on this. I think the I the efforts that are going on on polling and survey, I think are absolutely critical. To in the in the real world, in the world of government governance, is to understand what the broad community thinks. And then I still also want to understand the implications of a business, a business that's only legal in Calif or new from for our point of view, but illegal on the federal level. So our taxes being paid are so our employees paying into Social Security. How do we how do we gauge. The the revenues and in the business license and, you know, all these other things that go along with when you don't have when you don't have a when you have a cash economy. You know, that's those are questions in my mind, I think are worth the public understanding. So and I certainly want to understand that before I make a vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I. So then, so my, my motion would be to move forward with the referral plus the other comments that were made from council members. That makes sense. Remember.
Speaker 9: You know that everyone has a right to right.
Speaker 0: So so that I think. So that I'll try that. So moving forward with the referral by referral along with these other issues that were raised.
Speaker 5: If it, if it, if it matches what's written here, I'd say yes because then this doesn't also doesn't have a timeline. So I'm okay with that because I don't think we'll know what the timeline isn't. We have the information in front of us.
Speaker 1: So I would go second.
Speaker 5: I'll second that.
Speaker 0: All right. And did you have a question?
Speaker 6: No. I just feel like we've given staff a lot of direction. I don't really see what we're going to accomplish.
Speaker 0: Okay. All those in with the vote. Sorry. All those in favor.
Speaker 3: I. Won't let you vote.
Speaker 0: I suppose.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. All right. Ten. A designation of voting delegates and alternates for the League of California Cities annual conference. So who is our current series star with that? Who's our current? Who are our current delegates or do we not have delegates?
Speaker 6: I. I am in his mouth.
Speaker 4: I'm the interviewer.
Speaker 0: So apparently we need. So you guys currently are and that we need another motion for this specific conference. So move there a second.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously ten be marriage nominations for okay at this point the nominations I have. For disability. Thomas Mills AM I. L l s. Our Planning Board, Stephen Gertler and Reuben Cellos. And those are the ones I'm able to go forward with tonight, chipping away at this. So have Historical Advisory Board and Public Art Commission next time, hopefully. That being said, then I can go ahead and adjourn the meeting.
Speaker 6: No council communications, I think.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 0: Can you repeat the council communique? I'm sorry, but.
Speaker 4: Can you repeat the names?
Speaker 0: Okay. So, commission on disability issues. We needed one seat. Thomas Mills and my L. The other commission planning board and my nominations on that are Steven Gawler, Gio, RTL E r and Reuben Kilos. T. I. L o. S. Those and then his travel advisory board and Public Art Commission all need to come back on. Now Council Communications.
Speaker 3: Actually.
Speaker 0: Did you have anything member Ashcroft did ask?
Speaker 6: I did, because you and I both attended the League of California's Cities Conference this past Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in Monterrey. And so we.
Speaker 0: Report back the.
Speaker 6: There were some great sessions there when.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 6: Attended included making housing more affordable. We just can't talk about that enough, but it does help to hear what other communities are doing. I also attended a session on voter outreach and the California Voting Rights Act reforms, and our Secretary of state actually was one of the speakers. There was a session on dealing with outlier city council members. And also that this was really important in today's this day and age is creating a governance of governance, culture of civility and purpose. And that's something that is really incumbent, as I said, upon the council members, the mayor and the council, to set the tone. We often hear from angry people more and more, but hopefully we can be civil to each other, to our staff and. And set the tone and. There were some other are really good over the one on earthquake preparedness and always good to get out there and see what other other cities are doing and and meet your colleagues in other communities. And also, I wanted to say that yesterday I thought the parade was awesome. And then we also attended the Coast Guard festival at at near the Hornet afterwards. And I thought a couple of the Coast Guard challenge coins, I meant to bring one so I could show it. But the Coast Guard did an adorable job of minting a coin that had fireworks and the Hornet and the bridge and all that. But on the other side, it also was very Alameda and even had our little love our island logo little with the rest of some little scenes about Alameda. So there's probably a way you can get hold of them. I think Barbara Price, who chaired the parade, has access to some of them or the city manager, right? Yeah.
Speaker 8: I think you're right. Barbara Price does have access to them. If anyone wants one, they can also contact our office and we'll make that connection as well.
Speaker 6: All right. Very nice. But anyway, and as I told the other Coast Guard folks that I met, we are very grateful that they renewed their commitment to be a Coast Guard city for another five years. And we appreciate all that they do, not just in our city, but while the mission of the Coast Guard is broad and they do a lot for our country. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I attended the Alameda County led abatement JPA meeting, as I typically do as the delegate from the city of Alameda. One thing that we covered was the fact that East Bay Mud did announce that they have lead contamination in some of their pipes in the Berkeley Hills and also in Moraga. I'm sorry, Lafayette. And so they're Lafayette. And so they're currently working on finding out figuring out a pathways forward to remediate that. And the other issue that we discussed was the fact that there is a large there was a news article relative to a publication by the FDA that there is a can lead in a lot of the baby food that is out there on the market. And the FDA won't release the names of the individual companies that are producing food that have lead contamination. But interestingly, Gerber is fighting the publication of any of the names and also fighting the report to say that they think that letter is naturally occurring and therefore, okay. So we are trying to figure out ways that we can partner with the food banks and other groups to get the information out and to perhaps press for more transparency relative to what those tests actually what the results of those tests were. And finally, we have in October. So June was led led awareness prevention month. And in October we have a specific week that we focus on. I think it's the third week of October. And so I was in communication with our city manager about potentially having Larry Brooks, who is the executive director, the new executive director, come to make a presentation to our city council about the work that's being done, what's going on with funding and other legislation that's been pending and and the work that the lead abatement agency is actually doing.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I'll be quick. I just want to give a quick shout out to Barbara Price and the entire parade committee for a fantastic parade yesterday. Maybe we can just. APPLAUSE I know it's against the rules, but. And last week I was in a maybe this requires a referral, so I'll just put it out there and see what happens. But it was a press conference with the public defender and there's an effort to move all arraignments from Oakland over to the new courthouse in Dublin. So that would make it harder for any any defendants and the folks in custody in Alameda and their families to actually attend that hearing. So perhaps the council could consider, you know, weighing in on a letter to the presiding judge.
Speaker 4: It's also going to impact staff time relative to having to commute out there for arraignment. So all of our officers who have to go testify are going to have to tack on the additional travel time to go out there.
Speaker 9: Which could be like two or 3 hours.
Speaker 5: The city manager, everybody says.
Speaker 0: Yeah, all right. So well, that's.
Speaker 6: Which means we'd like to hear all sides of the situation. It sounds very compelling, but there's probably a reason.
Speaker 9: Money.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Remember? Does that complete your comments?
Speaker 9: Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, then I. Go ahead. Okay. Then I wanted to share and I want to thank we have some people here at the live in town that had created a movie in regards to gay marriage that we hosted here in chambers a few weeks ago. And so I want to thank them for sharing it. And the people that attended it was different then from a historical perspective, and I think we'll end up showing it again in the future. Another thing recently we had Relay for Life in our city is Anson High one more year. And that's always for those of you that don't know, it's a 24 hour period where people show up at the track and our police and fire. Our city had a team. We were all out there raising money to find a cure for cancer. Then we had and that member I spoke to, she and I were both down at the convention in Monterrey for a few days to for the issues that she spoke to. And some things that came up there that we might want to consider was having councilmembers speak once and timing council members, not just the public. We may want to look at that.
Speaker 5: We have that in our state.
Speaker 0: We really want to.
Speaker 3: Have 3.
Speaker 0: Minutes, so maybe we want to look at implementing that. That was one of the things that.
Speaker 5: Already been implemented we're not following.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I appreciate that. We also had we had young Dongguan Mayor Park Si Bok, the delegation from our new sister city that we of we supported at the last council meeting. And then we formalized the employees. They were here. They came on Saturday. They were here through the parade. They participated in our parade. And I know and I want to thank our meetings because I know on the parade route there were Alamitos. They had signs congratulating them that I thought was really, really good. It's just great when our in our community steps up. So and I want to thank all the businesses that supported that. It is, of course expensive. And so you know thank you to all the businesses and he Xiong Matz who was the chair of who is the chair of that sister city delegation and then U.S. Coast Guard . Base. Allen made a pact and did it one more time, stepping up with our inaugural festival. There were over I heard 2000 people attended. They do plan to do it every year in the future. And it turned out really well. Of course, the parade was was amazing. So thank you, everyone.
Speaker 6: Member Ashcraft I'm sorry, I forgot when you and I both were at Relay for Life on that Saturday, and then I went later in the day to the ribbon cutting for the Center for Independent Living. And a lot of you know that it Center for Independent Living started, I think, in the sixties in Berkeley, and they have just opened up a headquarters at Marina Village Parkway. And they also presented a lovely gift to the city, which was this beautiful, streamlined, mechanized wheelchair that would allow you to go on the beach and even into the water if you are confined to a wheelchair. And they presented it to our recreation and Parks Department. You have no idea. Well, maybe you do. I didn't know how beautiful and streamlined wheelchairs have become. They're going to be working with our school district. And I said, you know, we're getting ready to finalize this universal design ordinance, so maybe you can weigh in on some of that. But it's it's very nice to have their presence in Alameda.
Speaker 0: And I want to thank you. So I was late to that event. And so member Ashcraft was there for the actual ribbon cutting. But then I was able to tour the facility and encourage them to participate in the run yesterday morning. Midway Shelter to benefit Midway Shelter. And you may have seen we had a few people here in wheelchairs from from that center participating along with Admiral MEJA and Coast Guard members. So that being said, I will now during the meeting at 1230 to goodnight, everyone.
Speaker 3: I guess. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and Safe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on June 6 or 20, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06202017_2017-4408 | Speaker 1: Recommendation to award a contract for the publication of legal notices to the Alameda Journal for fiscal year 20 1718.
Speaker 0: Remember. Did you want to share this?
Speaker 6: Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess the reason I put this will one to have a discussion, because I think we had a discussion last year on this and it was too late to include a competitive bid from the Alameda Sun and. You know, we received and then we have a copy of this up here correspondence from the Alameda Sun that question the. Question the verified audit. So I wonder if if staff could clarify, because I think we do have an updated letter from the Journal. That says their audit is 18,000 and the letter from the Sun alleges that is 23,000 plus. So maybe we can have some explanation on the difference on those two numbers. And if it makes a difference in our and our bid. Bidding process.
Speaker 4: Well, I can I can respond to part of that. First of all, the way it works for legal newspapers is it's part of the government code that talks about what a legal newspaper is. And they have to be adjudicated by a court that they meet the requirements of the government code to be a newspaper of general circulation . There are a couple of tests. Frankly, the audit is not part of those tests. So the Alameda Journal many years ago, I think it was 1992, I have it here in my file actually was adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation. So eligible then to be considered by the city to to get that contract. The son had not been. The sun now is the sun also has received from from the municipal court an adjudication that they too are a newspaper of general circulation. Our charter requires that annually the city clerk put out a request for bids and solicit bids from.
Speaker 9: Adjudicated newspapers to submit what you.
Speaker 4: Have before you and the and then to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder. And so that is what the staff report shows. The city clerk did it, did that. I don't if you want to add anything here, Laura, but appreciating the comments from the sun. But frankly, none of them are relevant to the fact that a court has adjudicated a journal to be a newspaper that is eligible for this. And the process would be for the Sun to petition the court if they believe that any information they might have could affect that adjudicated result.
Speaker 0: Is there any other?
Speaker 6: Are we? I'm thinking minimum. Are we obligated to go with the lowest bidder?
Speaker 4: That's what the charter says.
Speaker 6: It does say that.
Speaker 2: Charter.
Speaker 4: Charter Section three Dash 18 says the Council shall annually after advertising in the manner provided for the purchase of.
Speaker 9: Supplies, which is the bidding.
Speaker 4: Process award a contract to the responsible bidder who.
Speaker 9: Submits the lowest and best bid for publication of legal.
Speaker 4: Advertising in the city for a newspaper adjudicated to be a newspaper of general circulation within the city. You are allowed to reject all bids.
Speaker 9: But you have to give it to the charter.
Speaker 4: Responsible bidder who.
Speaker 9: Submits the lowest and best bid for publication.
Speaker 6: Is there a definition of the word best? I mean.
Speaker 4: No, sir. That's what the charter says.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So. In regards that lowest and best does best give us some opening in regards to evaluate you know in evaluating beyond just the lowest.
Speaker 4: If you believe there is some finding.
Speaker 9: That you can make that makes one of them.
Speaker 4: Better than the other. When they're both adjudicated legal newspapers and have the capability and they have and responded with prices. I the council can discuss that.
Speaker 0: On their member matters.
Speaker 2: I would submit to the Council that the local ownership and local operation of Tell Me the Sun qualifies it as being the best.
Speaker 6: And I think I would add to that that there's speculation locally based on the audited numbers is actually higher.
Speaker 2: So two points. So I make two. We make a motion to accept their bid over at the Journal.
Speaker 4: Yes. We'll do it with the findings that you part of your motion should be those findings that you just stated, which is why it is the best since it's not the lowest.
Speaker 2: So I move that in evaluation of the bids, it was determined that they are in the sun by virtue of its higher circulation and its local ownership qualifies as the best and should be awarded the contract for legal notices for the City of Armenia.
Speaker 0: Second Vice Mayor. Thought I heard.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, I think rather than just say that it's got a higher circulation, I would like to clarify for the record how much higher I mean, the prices are. Daniel. A different voice. I would like to at least clarify that for the record.
Speaker 0: So and I appreciate that there's a motion a second. One thing that I had heard discussed was possibly looking at six months and six months of each, if that was a possibility, and I don't know if council would entertain such a thing.
Speaker 5: Nebraska, I have a question which was in this staff report on the. So it talks about the cost. The city spends approximately $18,000 annually for legal notices, of which approximately 4000 is from the general fund. Awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun would cause the costs to triple. So remind me. Is that the general fund portion triples from 4 to 12000, but then each department's budget has to cover the rest.
Speaker 4: Yes. So the total costs instead of 18,000 would be closer to 60,000. And it would be spread between departments who use it and also the general fund portion, which is. Now a quarter of that. And.
Speaker 0: I'm vice.
Speaker 4: Mayor. What departments typically use this primarily planning?
Speaker 0: So I'd like to make a friendly ask if you would consider a friendly amendment to the motion to actually consider to have six months and six months of each of them actually thinks all people get one or the other. Not necessarily both in my neighborhood. I don't know who was mentioned. That was sorry. I think it was never Odie. Sorry. Sorry. Um. Member matter. I see.
Speaker 2: I can't I can't split my determination of what's best and worth essentially $40,000 in local investment. So I don't think I'll accept that amendment.
Speaker 5: Forget about you proposing me.
Speaker 0: Well, I was suggesting some people had actually suggested to me that we consider looking at six months and six months. But the reason was that some people get one and some people get the other that many neighborhoods don't get both newspapers. From my understanding, I know. In my neighborhood. That's true. And.
Speaker 5: I don't see the logic of that. I mean, maybe I missed the thing, but.
Speaker 4: I have one other question. People are saying that the sun has higher circulation than the journal. I don't see those numbers either in the staff report and I've asked for clarification on that or in the in the letters that I've received.
Speaker 1: You want the exact numbers?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: Where? Where is that?
Speaker 4: We're being told it's substantially more so. Okay.
Speaker 1: Let me let me just pull it for you.
Speaker 6: I thought.
Speaker 4: Okay. I've got it.
Speaker 6: Not in this email, though.
Speaker 4: It's not me.
Speaker 2: I need.
Speaker 1: The number included in the Suns bid and. Is the total is 23,500 is 175 and free is 22,000 930. And then this urinal can observe.
Speaker 5: Can you learn which.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sure.
Speaker 1: Okay. Got it. So this is for the sun first and their total that they say is 23,500. And of those, 22,930 are free. Circulation, free circulation and paid circulation is 175.
Speaker 0: And numbers for the Journal, huh?
Speaker 4: There are no. Hard to see.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Two more.
Speaker 1: Lines. Okay.
Speaker 2: They're small.
Speaker 1: 4471.
Speaker 0: What was the number?
Speaker 1: 3471? Although I believe their letter says something different than what they've 18,000, 18,000 tonight. So I think I'm looking at the wrong thing all the. Okay. Wait, I was thinking.
Speaker 4: I've got to go further.
Speaker 1: I have like a whole.
Speaker 4: Thing of all of their.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that one. I'm sure that letter has arrived, but the 18,000 number? Yeah. I can't.
Speaker 0: Imagine. I have 18. Seven.
Speaker 5: The note, the letter. We had an.
Speaker 0: Open.
Speaker 5: To the day dais from the Bay Area News Group from.
Speaker 1: Submitted today.
Speaker 0: 1801 to is now 15,012. Okay. So that being said, so we have a motion and a second. All those in favor.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: I. I. All those. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: That was five E. That completes the concert calendar. Is that right? Yes. All right. And now we go on to our regular agenda.
Speaker 1: 6 a.m. adoption of resolutions reappointing McCormack as a member of the Public Utilities Board. Christopher Griffiths is a member of the new advisory committee. Sarah Murray is a member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee and Claudia martinez, a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Award a Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices to the Alameda Journal for Fiscal Year 2017-18. (City Clerk 2210) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06202017_2017-4284 | Speaker 1: Considered directing staff to create a stop straws on request ordinance and review ordinance 2977 to address that to-go footwear, including straws be compostable or recyclable.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I had brought this referral and we have a couple of speakers on this that I had brought. It is a two part referral to create a straws on request ordinance and that other cities are at other cities. Not very many have started this, but when we do, our coastal cleanup and our plastic straws are really one of the things that we find that are like all over. And it's it's also you probably many of you probably seen the video of the damage they can do to our I'm going to say wildlife. But for instance, sea turtles, they get in the water. These straws also get in the water and can really damage our wildlife in the sea. And I also received I don't I don't know if this is in here, but quite a few classrooms from our local schools submitted handwritten letters in support of us doing this. And but what it really means is that we would be discouraging the use of plastic straws and and and that people would if they wanted to use a straw, they would have to ask for it and then they would, you know, receive straws that way if if the owner decided they wanted to have straws at all and you know how they wanted to do it. But, but they wouldn't it just automatically give you a plastic straw. And then the second part is other cities also looking at this, trying to move away from plastics as of plastic food, where there's just your forks, knives, the lids, the types of cups that are used to try to use more compostable and or recyclable materials. And again, it really primarily goes to trying to do our do our part as a city. And I would actually say be one of the cities leading the way on this effort to protect our environment long term. And I also want to thank Costa. They recently shared this movie, Time to Choose Many. And Alan Sean, he offered the theater out at the point for the viewing. And then we did also have many local vendors that offered food. And I actually forget the name of the company that did the food that volunteered that. But we had a pretty good turnout and I believe it was the night of a playoff game. So that just demonstrates how important this issue is to our community. And so that was why I brought the referral. And then I was going to go ahead and call the speakers at this time. All right, Andy Huntoon, Ruth, Abby and then Pat Lamborn. Did you want to speak on this one? Do you? This is a straws and plastic. All right, I have a slip from you.
Speaker 2: Actually, I just. Real simple. I'm not a straw person. But without actually requesting it, I cannot sit down to dinner at a restaurant without having a straw presented in my drink. Usually I just take it out, set it on the table. But I think I'll. I'll try to start working it out that I don't need a straw. I really have no use for me all the time. I use them as driving in my car. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Ruth. Abby.
Speaker 4: I'm Ruth Abby with the CASA Community Action for Sustainable Alameda, which was formed in 2008 to assist the city in implementing its Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. This issue actually came up back in 2010 when CASA worked with the Alameda Unified School District to implement their recycling and composting program, which was a part of the local action plan. At that time, the schools identified that straws, disposable straws, plastic straws were really not necessary for students to drink their milk's. And it was banned straws. They also banned spork packets. You now just get a spork or a napkin. You don't have the whole packet. So that was a great little reduction measure, waste reduction measure, reducing greenhouse gas reduction measure leadership by our schools and by our students. Last year, the students saw a presentation from Jackie Nunez from the Last Plastic Straw. And Mayor Spencer made reference to a movie that they saw that was very impactful for them about how straws and other plastic items impact sea life. Because Alameda is an island, because we are a city of homes and beaches, we are ones that are mostly impacted by this stuff. We have the responsibility to take leadership in this arena. Something like an ordinance like this might take some time to consider. Fortunately, when we did a little research on this, we found out that our ordinance is very similar to the ordinance passed by Santa Cruz County back in 2008. We already have an ordinance on the book that says all food wear needs to be recyclable or compostable. Straws are not recyclable or compostable lids and other things that are not necessary for eating food at a restaurant are not recyclable or compostable. And so we think that just like Santa Cruz County, we can interpret our local ordinance to say straws are already banned. This is something that might take a little bit outreach, education of our restaurants. We've reached out to the business community and got letters of support from Downtown Business Association and the Greater Alameda Business Association. Everyone that we've talked to have been very supportive. There does need to be kind of a level playing field because we are also working on a voluntary program. Very proud to say that Alameda has been selected over Oakland and over Berkeley as the community that will be hosting the Clean Water Funds. The packaging of Alameda is business community on Park Street. Maybe that was embargoed and I should have said it. But anyway, it's super exciting and we heard about that at the Davao Green team meeting. So we have been selected to, on a voluntary basis have the restaurants on Park Street going all the way down to South Shore to de package to reduce impacts on a voluntary basis, something like an interpretation of our ordinance to say and oh by the way, recyclable and compostable materials are required would really strengthen that voluntary program and create a level playing field across all of our restaurants communities. So really encourage the City Council to support the referral and have the city staff research this issue. The reason that we would like to separate it from the oops from the the planning process for the local action plan is because that schedule goes through 2019 and we think this could be happen much faster.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Pat Lamborn. And she's our last speaker on this. We got to speak on this. Please submit your slip.
Speaker 2: But hey.
Speaker 4: I debated whether to do this.
Speaker 3: Or not, but I decided.
Speaker 4: That you might like it. Mary Spencer. So I decided to do it. We were Girl Scout troop leaders together, so.
Speaker 3: You know how.
Speaker 4: It goes.
Speaker 3: I am passionate about this this referral. And I my husband and I walk all along the beach. He's passionate about collecting all plastic trash. And recently after I saw that.
Speaker 4: This referral was on.
Speaker 3: The was on the agenda committed, like, I've got to come and do this. And I said, Save every straw you pick up for me. And he's not here very often. He travels a lot. So but on two walks, he picked up this enormous amount of plastic straws. And this is between the, you know, the bridge, you know, whatever, you know, the one that goes to Harbor Bay and the LC Roemer Bird Sanctuary. I said, save them given to me. I'm going to my art class at Mastic Senior Center, and I'm gonna create an art piece with all these straws. Summer Spencer, out of gratitude to you for bringing these kinds of referrals. And sometimes when I come to the meetings, I'm like, I feel like I'm at a staff meeting. Should I stay until ten or 11? And in Your Honor, for bringing these issues up and listening to us, I have created an art piece. You also have the ability. It's up to you whether you take it or not. But it's a bird, and it's a fraction of the straws that my husband has created. I'm doing a series of pieces. I showed the folks from CASA the other piece. It is an enormous amount of straws. I'm not sure anyone will want these.
Speaker 4: Art pieces because they're kind of gross. And it's like, really? Those are straws. Yes, they're straws.
Speaker 3: From the beach. So it's yours. I want to put one condition on it. Right. If you take it and you want it forever, it's yours if you don't want it. The minute you guys pass a straw ordinance, you give it back to me. I would like to say. Right, because, you know, not everyone wants this. I would like to say I got so excited about this, you know, and really in honor of my husband, you know, because he picks up another item. Won't give you this one. Pics of syringes at the beach and usually finds one or two at a time. He has the opportunity to walk on the beach.
Speaker 4: We can't stop this. This is really a difficult.
Speaker 3: Behavior to control. But we can stop the straws. I would like to say I think OnDemand might be a good way to go in that I think we could do an amazing education program. And I would think we could encourage all the people who the people in school who sent you the letters to create straw art and ask merchants to post it. I already talked to West Café.
Speaker 4: That is a big old jar of jumbo.
Speaker 3: Straws, or someone with two jumbo straws in one smoothie. And I said to the manager, What do you think of that and what would you think of this ordinance? And he said, I think it might save us money. All right. So in some ways, I think if we created the right outreach program. Council member Ashcraft asked about, isn't this great? We're all recycling in a way. And in a way the only thing that's great is reduction in this could reduce. Thank you. It's yours if you want it.
Speaker 0: Yes, of course. I'll hang it in my office tomorrow.
Speaker 6: Under $50.
Speaker 0: Under $50 value, I assume.
Speaker 3: Member of the jury.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I guess I'll go first. So yeah, there are many way. I mean, I have my little handy dandy little straw, which you can also use. So there are other options besides besides plastic straws. So I appreciate that this referral in between the last meeting and this one now includes, you know, it's expanded to include more disposables. So I hope that we can give staff direction to come back with with some type of process, maybe an ordinance. Is it needed? I think, Ruth, you you sent us that email that if we interpreted our ordinance that we existing our existing ordinance like Santa Cruz, maybe we already have them. So I'd like to see if we can either do that or try other things, or even if we do have to do a new ordinance. There are a lot of other things we could do, and I just want to kind of rattle some off because I do serve on Stop Waste and I did have a chance to speak with or email the executive director on this, and I encourage businesses to participate in these local green certification programs. Bay Area Green Business Rethink Disposable. That's the clean water funds everything disposable. I mean, to the points that the speakers made, we did have a chance to honor Lola's Chicken Shack. That was in the in the presentation. I actually got to give them that award. And one of the maybe it was Pat who said that they do save money. I mean, they did this program and they reduced their the disposables and they actually are saving money. So encourage businesses to do that, offer pledges to be straw free, where businesses and individuals can like sign a pledge, just maybe kind of in a way to get the community involved and to increase awareness because we could pass an ordinance. But if we don't do anything special and encourage people to be part of it and buy into it, you know, I don't know how good it would be. You know, just looking at our own events, you know, city events require that city events be straw free. I mean, that way we could kind of lead, you know, lead by example, you know, and, you know, put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. And then, you know, when the from stop waste. Shared with me their students in Albany working with the Watershed Project, so similar to the ideas that the speakers shared, you know, getting students involved and making sure that they can help us, you know, understand that protecting watersheds and reducing litter in the watersheds is super important. So, you know, I like I'd like to see this happen. I don't know how it happens, but I like to give staff direction to work on it and come back with something with the goal of of reducing all of our disposal. So I appreciate that the referral was expanded from straws to other things.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Vice Mayor. I think it's great that we have something in place and I know we've been working towards getting to zero waste and we're all going to continue to work towards that goal. I think as much as we can, rather than just reinterpret or expand the interpretation of our existing ordinance, really add our intent into the ordinance in terms of what we're trying to get at regarding disposables, I think that that could be helpful into our existing ordinance to clarify that we do intend it to include all of these other disposables. I think education on this issue is key and we've seen it be effective, especially along Park Street. I'd love to see that education expand to South Shore Center, especially with the number of, you know, fast food restaurants that are there. I often walk on the beach as well and pick up a lot of trash and find a lot of it does come from, or at least based off of the branding comes from the nearby shops. And so I think if we can, we can work there. I do also want to be mindful of ableism issues relative to this. I have a friend who when Berkeley passed their straw ban. She has a life altering disability and needs straws in order to be able to ingest liquids. And so I want to make sure that whatever we do and this goes to the education piece, there are so many other types of straws available, paper straws which are compostable. There are about other biodegradable options as well as the metal straws. And so in terms of helping our businesses make sure that they're as we consider universal design and all these other things, really educating them about the different options that are available. I would like us to look at that because I really do worry about the efficacy of of these sorts of ordinances. And while I think we can make this great point of changing our laws, if we're not able to enforce them and really educate people in terms of how they can comply with the spirit of what we're trying to achieve, it comes up empty. So I want to make sure that we're doing all of those things. But I also think the Mayor for bringing this referral near there.
Speaker 0: Comments member Ashcroft.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor. So a couple of things. One is we did hold a priority setting workshop a while back, and I think this would probably fall under quality of life slash environment, which we the council rated as a medium priority. I also would like to hear before we finish discussing this and take a vote, I'd like to hear from staff about what we're already doing in this direction. And I did meet with Ruth Abbey, who I have great respect for, for all our hard work over the years. And Debbie Ryan, is that the correct name? And when we sat and had our drinks without straws on the patio, we I talked about an ordinance means you create this law. What's the enforcement mechanism? What who does that do? How do you. Because it you don't want just paper, you know, words on paper. You want it to be meaningful. And so I did think that public education is really an important piece. And in fact, you talked about that when you talked, Ms.. Abby, when you talked about the ESD efforts. I don't think the school district created, you know, a mandate and said no straws, but working through the children and that's powerful. But I also did mention our business associations, the Chamber of Commerce that and as cost savings is one of the one of the selling points, it just might be that you could reduce your your cost by not putting those straws out there.
Speaker 0: And I'm sorry, I need to interrupt because it's about to be 1030 and I need to see if we have a motion to consider the two remaining items, nine B, which is the cannabis referral, and ten A, the league appointments and then the nominations are not part of this process.
Speaker 4: So just.
Speaker 0: Is there a second, second all those in favor.
Speaker 4: I, I.
Speaker 5: Know.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then does that mean we can't consider these other items means.
Speaker 5: You can't add another item after 1030.
Speaker 0: After 1030. So we will not get to the cannabis or the league tonight. This is my understanding. We need to designate early.
Speaker 1: You have time. We can bring it back.
Speaker 0: We have a.
Speaker 1: Meeting, but.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: The annual conference is until September, right? So anyway, my my point is just that I think the effort is worth taking the form it takes, whether when we update our CASA regulations, whatever or guidelines, it folds into that. I think remains to be seen. But I would like to hear about what staff has in mind.
Speaker 4: So at the pleasure of the mayor, either after you're the last.
Speaker 3: Two.
Speaker 4: Council members, but Liam and Liam has done some information. So whenever you want to talk about his plans, they are very consistent with what we've heard so far.
Speaker 0: All right. So now I'm happy to hear that I personally and remember Madison, did you want to speak at this point?
Speaker 2: Yes, I.
Speaker 0: Would. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I'm vague because we're talking about a specific referral here. And I think this is important to do. We have the local action plan, the mandates, we do things. And if it's not written down, it doesn't count. So I do think I agree with the referral that we direct staff to come back with to us with a broader than just straws, but the disposable food items including and highlighting straws and, but taking into account the comments of my colleagues as input, I think we need to do this posthaste. And I also think this is the people's business, these ordinances and a lot of them, you know, we have to figure out how to how to accomplish them. And if we're going to fulfill the the direction that's given in the approved plan that we do have, which is also being updated. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then. I'm sorry, Mr. Gardner's comments, were they going to be in regards to this referral or they.
Speaker 4: Yes. In regards to this program or the plan here, you're at a staff level of how to implement this.
Speaker 0: I'm happy to hear your ideas before I comment.
Speaker 2: Great staff is definitely in support of the referral. In fact, the timing's really good. As Ruth Abby mentioned this embargoed grant. Hopefully we're going to finalize that very soon. That kicks off a big outreach and education process with 80 or more businesses here in Alameda, where there's going to be individual support for those businesses to rethink packaging in those businesses. That's a big step forward and like what we've done in a fair amount of our work. There's a nice sequence to it, which is your your push on the voluntary, the outreach, the education. And if there's a need to go mandatory, then you do that after you've done the outreach and education. Obviously, we've talked a bunch about the Climate Action Plan. I'm going to be back in front of you in December presenting the scope for that. And that might sound like not a lot, but that scope is going to include a menu of policy options for the council to then direct staff to run out and achieve on a pretty quick basis. And so what I'd urge and in considering approving this a referral is to think about not just this policy action, but the whole menu of actions that Alameda can take to help be as green and environmentally friendly as we can be. And the best decisions about which policies to take are when you see that full menu. What are the easy ones that we check off the list? Potentially this is one of those what are the harder ones but potentially get us more bang for the buck earlier. Those are the kinds of decisions we'll start engaging in in December after doing this outreach and education, working closely with CASA, who's already routes, already been sitting, one green team meeting with us and building the case for which policies to move forward with.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. I don't support that. There's no way I want to wait until December. I brought a referral because I think it's critical that we move forward on at least this part. I don't think it's that hard. I think it's very clear cut. Other communities are doing it, so I want it to move forward. I am hoping that staff can actually interpret our current 2977 to include this and that. It's not that long to turn this thing around, but no, I'm sorry. With all due respect, I just I'm not supportive of waiting until December for this pardon.
Speaker 2: What's the timeframe that you're thinking would be right now?
Speaker 0: I actually think that they can look at it, staff can look at the current ordinance, do what Santa Cruz did, interpret it so that it does actually cover this and that we can start, I would say, of. No later than when we go on break. And it's probably July's probably falls out in August. We're on break, but I'd say September. But I want to separate it from everything else, because that can just drag everything out. I mean, let's look at just what happened. I've had a referral. It's 1035 and I couldn't get four votes to go past 1030. So at least this one. What I'm hearing from council is that they are supportive. So when I hear that, I actually will do want to move forward. So. So, I mean, that's, that's nice that I have the support from counsel at least on this referral. So I'd like staff to be able to separate this part from the other climate stuff. And let's move forward on this part.
Speaker 2: I just want to clarify something, which is, as I understand it, this Santa Cruz ordinance that does that is not about this draws on request. That is more about the the fact that.
Speaker 0: You're saying a different material.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The to go.
Speaker 0: Right which is actually.
Speaker 2: From all. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah, but it's. But that would allow paper straws, as my understanding, just a different material. But I'd like to move forward with the referral. I heard support from Council Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I just have one question. Do we would we have to do are we looking at new language in our ordinance? I mean, are we able to just reinterpret our ordinance or do we actually have to change the language? Because I have a question whether that's something that we have to do and if we do have to change the language, what's the time frame for actually looking into that?
Speaker 0: Can I can I just. Okay.
Speaker 2: So let's look at Santa Cruz and what they did. What Santa Cruz County had is a polystyrene ordinance. Much like what we have with some similar language. And they had their Department of Public Works issue a rule that was approved by their county board of Supervisors. So in essence, was an amendment or a clarification of the language within their their ordinance. There's another critical piece here, which is, I don't believe that all of the business associations have replied to say that they're in support of this move. There's still more public input and outreach to be done before we could come back. I shouldn't say that. You can tell me not to go do that.
Speaker 0: Right? No, no. But that always happens as part of the referral is simply that staff looks at the substantive part and tries to bring it back in. And at that point. But so there will be another hearing. I mean, another agenda item, right. When then people from the community can come here and say whether they support it or not, that referral is actually pretty clear.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, I think what we're saying is we're starting now on the first steps of outreach to the businesses, education to the public and not and skipping the step of coming back and starting it by. Here's the plan because we wanted to start now. And so we're saying instead of approving this referral, coming back in July with a plan of outreach, Liam is already outlined. We're going to go start the outreach to all the businesses, the 80 businesses, do the input and then come back.
Speaker 0: That is not the referral process. I really don't understand what's happening here. We have okay, we can we can act on a referral staff and I would have really so. So I appreciate that staff has their own idea but that I don't think that's what the referral is and I feel like I have the support of council , so which is to move forward. And I appreciate vice mayor's comments. If the ordinance can be interpreted and do it this other way, maybe we need to add some additional language, maybe we don't. But then that could be it appears that it could be a relatively simple fix. Either it needs additional language or it can be interpreted in and we can start enforcing and letting our our businesses. But it would still come back to council with that answer yes member matter.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor, I really appreciate that there is an effort to get out there now to start the educational process and lay the groundwork for what's coming, for what's come in. I would like to make a motion that we direct staff to create a start. A start draws on request ordinance. With the appropriate additions that include the question of capacity composability the question of innate. You know what you said about people who need straws and to also the alternative to put in a reading on the current ordinance to see if it covers the intent of this.
Speaker 4: But Vice Mayor, would that also include other disposables or just straws?
Speaker 2: I think that the question here expanded beyond the plastic to go where I think was the as as written in the body of the referral. And the reason that I'm making this motion is I understand that this other process is working, and it's good that it's working. But if we don't get this in the queue now, it will not happen. So I want to know what could happen sooner rather than later. And then we can move on that when that response comes back.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Member Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll be happy to second that with the, you know, add on that we start the outreach. I mean, we don't have to wait to start the outreach. I mean, we can do the outreach now.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brody, I think that's I agree with you. And I think that's where I understood from the manager and Mr. Garland that the outreach is starting now, regardless of what we vote on tonight. So we.
Speaker 6: Should still be.
Speaker 2: Clear. I, I accept that there's a second.
Speaker 6: And I'm happy to be.
Speaker 0: A member.
Speaker 5: Ashcraft So what's the time frame on all this?
Speaker 0: Are you asking staff?
Speaker 5: Mr. Councilmember Meadows. He made the motion with the time frame.
Speaker 2: Well, we're we're probably not going to have it for the next meeting because of the time that it takes to put this together. But I expect something back at least a determination on which way we're going to go before we hit recess. And then it's going to take if it's an ordinance that we're a new ordinance we're going after or a revised ordinance, it's going to take two meetings. And then I'm looking at the ranking here.
Speaker 4: But that gives us a week.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think we're going to get there.
Speaker 4: If we go before the break for July 18th to get it into the queue.
Speaker 2: Is that. Yeah. I don't think that I think is at the earliest practical moment and that's September basically.
Speaker 0: September was about it suggested then you have August and then I would hope you have plenty of time to at least that part of it. Right. So there's a motion and I believe the second.
Speaker 5: And can.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I need clarification. Are we talking about a new ordinance or are we talking about amending the ordinance that is also.
Speaker 0: Staff that.
Speaker 5: Is within the.
Speaker 0: Emotion.
Speaker 2: Of the rest of your question. It.
Speaker 5: Well, what is it? You're. Because we could. There's two possibilities. Well, at least two in the staff in the council referral considering directing staff to create a stop straws on request ordinance as outlined in the attached. Also consider directing staff to review Army's current polystyrene foam food service wear reduction ordinance, which I think was what the vice mayor was asking. How long would it take if we're just talking about amending language in an existing ordinance?
Speaker 2: And to answer your question, I put that is an order that staff would come back and say which one we which one they recommend us doing.
Speaker 4: Okay. We still have to do it.
Speaker 5: So really, we applied it to staff to make that decision.
Speaker 2: No. To provide us with the options and a recommendation, we would make the decision.
Speaker 4: So I think what we're asking for, or at least what I think I'm asking for, is for staff to come back to say, yes, we it is possible to amend our ordinance. This is what it would look like potentially, or we could create a separate ordinance or we could go through a rule process.
Speaker 0: And it was the easiest.
Speaker 4: And then we're asking and then we would make a determination then. And then we would go into a first reading, second reading after that.
Speaker 5: And the mayor said, Whatever is the easiest way I understand.
Speaker 0: That's my understanding is really what it's going to come down to. How do we get this happening in our city as quickly as possible?
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna say the easiest, but what's the most effective in. In a timely manner?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I want to. I do. I agree. It has to be effective. That's the point of the speaker in this case.
Speaker 4: And so what I'm hearing is the council wants an ordinance regardless. We have spoken stop waste. And we've spoken to a number of different people who said the most effective way to do it is to start with education. And but I'm hearing that the council is directing just one of two ordinances.
Speaker 2: My motion is recognizing that you're already starting with it, because you said the most effective way is to start with. I want an ordinance because if it's not written down, it doesn't count. So that's my motion is to have an ordinance. And I got a second. All right. With the conditions.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. All those in favor. I opposed.
Speaker 5: Abstain.
Speaker 0: A case of motion passes. Four in favor. One abstention. Thank you. And now we jump to ten B I actually. Chen is counsel of communications. Any matter of I'm going to do ten B first at this point. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Create a “Straws on Request” Ordinance and Review Ordinance No. 2977 to Address that “To Go” Food Ware, Including Straws, be Compostable or Recyclable. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on May 16, 2017 or June 6, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06202017_2017-4446 | Speaker 0: A case of motion passes. Four in favor. One abstention. Thank you. And now we jump to ten B I actually. Chen is counsel of communications. Any matter of I'm going to do ten B first at this point.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. So the duration of various nominations to various boards and commissions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Commission on Disability Issues. There are four seats. There were three that we looked at at this time that are on this list. And so I will be appointing those three. You want to read their names? This one is kind of her.
Speaker 1: And so I could pick in Jennifer Byrd and Lisa Hall.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. The golf commission. I'll and I'll actually I want to say, for all of these, we quite often have quite a few applicants. And these are, you know, so thank you to everyone that has applied that did apply. I know we are in a community that we have a lot of volunteers, people that want to step up. And after the interviews, speaking with the different candidates, then these are the people that I am nominating. So for golf, I'll be nominating Ron Taylor and Joseph Van Winkle. And then I'm going to jump to a library board, historical advisory board we didn't get yet. Library board. Okay. It's my understanding there's actually four seats. So the force, the four people will be the nominations are Amber Bailes, Cynthia Silva, Travis Wilson and Dorothy was more. All right, planning board. That one. I'm actually going to come back on. I didn't finish those in which everyone that applied public art didn't finish that one yet. And Transportation Commissioner Laura Palmer. All right. And that takes us to are there council comments at this time? | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission and Transportation Commission. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06062017_2017-4339 | Speaker 1: Five e is a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a maintenance service operations and maintenance agreements with PGE.
Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor. Council members jennifer. Director of base for use. We had this on concern. We did find out from pge today that they held a meeting with their safety and enforcement division of the CPSC yesterday. And that commission.
Speaker 5: Or that.
Speaker 2: Division of the commission had a couple of minor tweaks to exhibit E of this agreement that really wouldn't affect the body of the agreement. But the Exhibit E, which is the annual costs for services, and they've asked that they would like to make some tweaks regarding reporting and risk management. We think conceptually these make sense. These are about doing additional reporting.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 2: Taking some additional steps for safety purposes that we think.
Speaker 5: Are a good idea conceptually.
Speaker 2: But they were not able in time for this meeting to provide us with the exact details of these changes. So we would just like to ask that you approve this tonight, but that you authorize the city manager to finalize these tweaks through negotiation or through the final details as part of that exhibit. We don't think they're substantial. Substantial. We think at the most they would increase the budget by about $10,000. So the total budget.
Speaker 5: For this agreement.
Speaker 2: Is about 100,000. So no more than an additional 10,000. So we'd ask for your direction tonight to move forward with this, but to authorize the city manager to make these final tweaks to Exhibit E? I'm happy to answer any questions. And I'm here and Jacob Penick is here, too, and he's helped us on on this agreement.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, counsel. Any questions? Do we have a motion? But remember matter S.E..
Speaker 6: I move that we authorize up to $10,000 over. Would that be enough? Yes. Over the budget and approve this agreement with Piccini.
Speaker 0: I'll second all those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The now around five k.
Speaker 1: We have a sticker on this item, which is why it was pulled. And it is a recommendation to approve a 36 month services agreement between the City of Alameda and Housing Authority for 1.15 million to administer. Rent Review, rent stabilization and limitations on eviction ordinance. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Gas Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement with PG&E at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_06062017_2017-4369 | Speaker 0: And it's because I'm only nominating it'll come back where council have the opportunity to them but we're not voting tonight so for that so for the nominations there's only there's three of the different boards and committees that we've been able to interview for it to date. Public Utilities Board are being nominating the reappointment of the incumbent and McCormick. Grant Review Advisory Committee. There are two seats open. I'll be reappointing the incumbent, Christopher Griffiths, as a tenant position and the housing provider of being nominating Sarah Murray. And then for a social service human relations board, there's one seat and, um, of the nominating Claudia medina. Those are the three. Maybe those are the three. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 8: And on page four of.
Speaker 0: I don't think we have done the interviews on that one yet. Those we haven't.
Speaker 2: Finished interviews on.
Speaker 0: So, no, there's a lot of there's a lot of these that so and I do want to share that we always have a lot of people apply, and it's a tough decision. And those are my nominations. And now I will adjourn the meeting at 1242. But is it now? It must be Wednesday, June 7th. Thank you and good night, everyone.
Speaker 6: Thank you. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Rent Review Advisory Committee, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05172017_2017-4341 | Speaker 1: Budget workshop for fiscal year 20 1718 and 2018 19 to provide direction on funding requests for budget adoption on June six, 2017.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor.
Speaker 0: Question a member matter.
Speaker 2: Public speakers want to speak to a certain item in the budget. How is that going to be managed? Because the time to speak is before and after. And there's no.
Speaker 1: Oh, they can speak on the item.
Speaker 2: But again, how is that? Can we manage? Are we going to go through a block? What's, what's let's.
Speaker 3: Just have this broken up into sections and there can be question and answer from the council after each section. And we can open up to public comment if there is public comment on that particular section. When we get to the departments at the end, I think ideally we would like to go through there is eight departments that have requests, not all 15. And so if we go through those eight requests at the end, we have them all together. So the public and the council can look at the the holistic list of requests. And I think that would be the ideal time for the Council to ask questions about that and the public to comment on it.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm going to start this off first by just giving a little bit more overview of what we talked about. We're going to start out by talking about the big picture. The revenues are historic trends. Look at the five year projection. And if you look at our two year budget, because this is the start of the two year budget, and the reason we're having this workshop tonight is because the council asked for more direct input into what the departments are asking for. And if you look at just the two years, we are fine. Yeah, what we want to do is to give a five year projection and especially with CalPERS and changing assumptions in the future, what happens in year three and five is much more dramatic than is what is happening in year two and three. And so we want the council to look more at the long term. We have invited a consultant to give us more detailed information about CalPERS because it's affecting every city in California. So the decisions you make tonight or today or next year might be fine in the short term, but we want you to also look at it in the long term and what we have. So they will talk about the purse and the steps taken to date. And then we will go into the departments that I talked about earlier. And we also want to talk about two different revenue sources. One is one term revenues, and that's basically our fund balance above 25%, which is the council policy. And then also we want to get council direction to staff and we will bring this back hopefully June six, depending on what the input is today. Or Council adoption. So our overall vision goes back to not only what the Council did at the prior to goal setting. There was a quality of life survey that was done last year and we have our budget challenge that is online right now. And amazingly or not amazingly, all three of those inputs are very consistent. They all say we want a stable, financially sustainable budget into the future. That on all three of those is one of the top priorities. We also want to make sure that we have public safety. Public safety has ranked really high. We homelessness has ranked very high. We have a well-maintained community. So public works and maintenance has been strong. And all three of those areas, housing has been critical as a need to provide a variety of housing needs. And especially looking at the homeless issue in Alameda. All three of those inputs have ranked that very high. The budget challenge has also talked about the importance of historic structures and preserving those. And it did also in the Quality of Life survey. So we're going to go through some of that tonight. And I also want to thank all the department heads and staff and the consultants for putting this together. We don't expect to have a vote specifically, but more general direction tonight.
Speaker 0: Any questions from council at this point?
Speaker 3: And so I'll turn it over to our finance director, Elena Eder.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'll consider that being evening.
Speaker 0: We're going to need to talk on the mike loud.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 4: Elena, dear finance director. And I'm going to go over quite a few slides that are more financial in nature. And of course, we're going to start out with the citywide proposed expenditures. So just as a reminder, all of these numbers are. In draft form at this point. So we're continuing to refine them. So you will see potential when we bring it back in June six or June 20th depends on the timing. They may change a little bit, but likely not significantly. To show this particular presentation is a pie chart. The three top departments are police and fire and public works, which may kind of pose a question why is public works there? And the reason is that includes all of the capital projects that the department is doing. So all the spending on the capital and as you can see, it actually makes public works be one of the larger departments.
Speaker 0: Okay. Before you move on, doesn't does public works use general fund moneys or do we keep those money separate?
Speaker 4: It's a combination of various funding sources, which includes general fund in this particular presentation. This is a citywide expenditure regardless of what fund is.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are you're going to break it out at some point? Just general fund moneys? Yes. Sorry.
Speaker 4: And then just to bring that up, also in 1819 fiscal year, generally, the spread of expenditures between departments is very similar. So we didn't presented in this particular slide, but they're very similar. So moving on to a Zoom meeting really on a general fund, this particular graph really represents a historical trend as well as five years look forward on revenues and expenditures and primarily where we've been and what it looks like where we're going. Again, with just a reminder that a lot of the graphs you will see particular in the general fund, all the requests that were submitted by the departments are not included in this graphs. So should those be approved? These definitely graphs and the numbers will change. So before looking forward, we're going to look at the current year, even though we are not done with the year. And again, these numbers are not final. They haven't one. We haven't finished the year or two. They still need to be audited and confirmed. So at this point in time, generally, it's very similar to what you have seen at the mid-year mid-year update. However, at the time, the expenditures weren't looked at as closely just because the departments haven't really had an opportunity to do so. So this time around, what you do see is as departments were preparing for the next two year budgets, they also were looking at the current their current year expenditures within General Fund. And we're currently projecting that we will be under budget by about 2.7 million.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 4: As we usually look at general fund, we'll look at both sides, the revenues and expenditures. So in this particular chart obviously represents various revenue sources of the city. One of the bigger ones is a property tax. But I wanted to point out also the second largest source that we have is a sales tax. And normally that particular source is quite volatile, particularly if the economy is not as great. However, Alameda made really good progress in building up the base for its sales tax revenue, particularly after the autos left the city. And so the base sales tax base actually went up higher. And because because of that and business to business sales, the revenue is somewhat stable. So it's not fluctuates as much. It does fluctuate, but not so much. I also wanted to let you know that we've looked at various sources and evaluated the revenues in various ways, which included use of our consultants, whether it was a deal for sales tax and property tax. We also looked at the data provided by the county county assessor and obviously some of the things that are now set, such as the transfer tax from AMP that's been approved and update on the utility that happened. So to zoom in on a couple of different revenue sources, particularly property tax, as I've mentioned, this is the top revenue source for the city and represents 31%. This really represents a trend where the property tax been since 2006 in this case and where it's going. It actually is fairly stable revenue source. Even though we had the recession, as you can see, the property taxes decrease, but they didn't decrease as much or certainly it didn't decrease as much as some of the communities within California. Another revenue source that has been a. Congress. The topic of a conversation and also concern from the council members is transfer tax. And I'd like to focus on this particular one a little bit. And what we try to do is really present even greater trend for this particular source going back all the way to 2003 and see where we have been, how we budgeted for it versus what the actual revenue has been. I did not include the dollars just because it would be so busy on the graph, but hopefully you can actually see that by looking at the axis on the side. So what you see in here is the budget versus the actual. And we do understand that traditionally the concern was why are we under budgeting? And a couple of items that came up for the requests were always to exclude one time revenues. And because transfer tax is volatile, we don't know what might come in at what period of time. As so we try to exclude potential large one time revenues from property, from transfer tax when we do the budget. So as an example, in the current year 2017, so far through March, the revenues were received. We've had four transactions that occurred that were over $100,000 and actually those four transactions amounted to about $850,000. Whether they're going to occur again or not, we don't know. But those are potential fluctuations that we try to expect.
Speaker 0: Before you move on. Sorry. What year did it go up was 28. The transfer tax?
Speaker 4: Yes, it was increased in 2008.
Speaker 3: So I'd also like to point out on this graph, if you look at the year 2007 through 2009. Those are the years that we actually budgeted more and received less. And I think that is based on our. Our tendency to be conservative in our budgeting. So every other year we've actually budgeted less and received more. And so we've had this at the end of the year, a budget surplus as a result of. The property transfer tax primarily. And so it's a policy question from the council. We're trying to close the gap every year to be a little more accurate. But because it's so volatile, it's very hard to do. And it really depends so much on a few transactions of large properties. Especially commercial.
Speaker 1: Properties.
Speaker 4: And I think it would be also kind of important to note, as you can see in some cases, our property transfer tax revenues went down or were as low as $3 million. Even if we don't take the lowest one and would take somewhere in the range of 5 million and what we currently receive was nine. So if we're really over project, we may potentially have a significant drop in revenues.
Speaker 0: Okay. And you look at 26 to 7. Why would we budget so much more? That jump is more than double.
Speaker 3: Because we were reflecting a large increase of actuals in 2006. We usually look back at the actuals of the previous year and we were conservative. We e we. Budgeted less than we received the previous year, but. It dropped much farther than anticipated.
Speaker 0: So you just look back one year. When you're doing your budgeting, well.
Speaker 3: It looks like it. And that if you follow your dream.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: I remember.
Speaker 5: Just a follow up. Thank you. On the mayor's question, I mean, how relevant are those pre measure P or whatever it was increases? I mean, you say it was as low as 3,000,023 or 24. But I mean, is that really relevant considering our rate was so low compared to the way it is now?
Speaker 4: Well, as we can see, it actually did go up and could be at the same time because it was around 2008 that that particular change happened. That could have been one of the reasons why the budget was maybe higher. It could also be because, you know, maybe it has been under budget traditionally. I can't say I wasn't here, but maybe was. Staff's a reflection of trying to be more realistic. And so they also budgeted a little higher. But the flipside of it is that if you're budget hire and you expect that money to come in and they don't, what do you do then?
Speaker 6: The other thing, madam, if I may, one of the things that we're looking at is the volume of sales as opposed to actual value because of exactly what you're saying council member about in 2008, the actual number is going up because of the the ballot measure. So we're actually looking at the volume of sales and seeing if we can trend the volume as opposed to the actual dollar amount.
Speaker 0: So do you have a chart for that?
Speaker 6: We're working on it.
Speaker 0: Got it. Well, we have it before. Wendy anticipate we'll have that.
Speaker 6: We'll have that before the sixth.
Speaker 2: Member matters for the 1718 through 22 rejections. Do they take into account? Do they anticipate, say, day and other developments along? The Northern waterfront.
Speaker 4: Not a one time large transfer. And we actually tried to figure out what would be a transfer tax when the original transfer happens to the developer. And the dollar amount actually didn't come to that high of a number. So potentially the transfer tax is going to be higher once the developer builds the homes and sells.
Speaker 2: When they sell it to somebody, there's a transfer tax. This doesn't we don't you didn't factor that into this. No, thank you, Erica.
Speaker 1: I'm writing one last question.
Speaker 5: So on the 2017 number, is that to date.
Speaker 4: Though, that's a projection through the end of rejection.
Speaker 5: So that's not the actual. Okay. No, thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. Before we move on. So we're going to be using these numbers then to come up with our budget. We're going to assume and we're looking at expenditures, we're going to be assuming that this is income.
Speaker 4: Right. That's one of the revenue numbers.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then I'm going to ask you, so you have a steady increase. Do you ever have a correction? I don't see you know, if you look at the other right, it goes up and down. You just have it going up.
Speaker 4: Correct. So the assumption is it's going to go with a assessed value increase. So you're correct, there's no necessarily prediction that it's going to be a recessionary period. So I don't necessarily have that in my crystal ball.
Speaker 6: I think the other thing is we do mid-cycle adjustments and midyear adjustments. So if we see that what's coming in during the year is less than we were anticipating significantly then we will adjust that revenue in midyear. We'll come back and say, you know, this is way off the mark, it's not coming in the way it is , particularly if there is the beginning of an economic downturn. So we will make those tweaks mid-cycle or mid-year.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: The other item, obviously a through number of last few years, we've tried to spend down our available balance in 2015. But since then, because revenue has been coming in a little higher as well as we didn't necessarily spend everything we've budgeted for, we have accumulated available fund balance that is greater than the policy and the current policy . City Council policies 20%. However, it was increased by an additional five and so it's at 25 currently. And at this point, again, draft numbers, but we calculate about $10 million to 10.8 over the 25% of available balance that is available. Again, these are one time funds, meaning they don't necessarily just come in every year. It's an accumulation over a number of years. And so the best way in the best policy to spend this type of funds are on non-recurring type of expenditures or one time expenditures. So moving on to expenditures. And one of the things, obviously, it's the biggest the biggest one for us is labor. And this particular represents the assumptions that really relate to labor costs. We will talk later in greater detail about PERS, but we have included the assumptions for CalPERS. Again, it is the current rates that have been provided so far by CalPERS to the city includes their smoothing. However, the recent change that happened with their discount rate is not necessarily been calculated yet. They were expected to provide those to us sometime during the mid-summer to early fall. Once we get those, we will see how close we got. But they've given estimates a range. How much will the rates change? So we've tried to incorporate it, but again, it may be adjusted. The other assumptions we included are the increases in health premiums 3% in each year. We used to have a greater increases built into the budget before and in the past few years they haven't come in as high. So we're trying to be a little more realistic in that sense. So 3%. Again for both the active employees health as well as the OPEB premiums. The other items.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So speaking of increases in health care funds and I know you don't have a crystal ball, but we have been operating up until now under the Affordable Care Act out of Washington, D.C. There's certainly talk about doing away with it, changing it. What what, if any, impact do. Does the uncertainty at the federal level. That certainly impacts the state have on these numbers and your projections?
Speaker 4: Right now, they're not necessarily built in. It's one of the risks that is out there in terms of us putting together a budget. So should those come up? We would certainly be addressing them as they occur.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 4: So other items.
Speaker 3: Just one more point of those are all contracts. And so we would have a year for the current contract to in order to respond if it changed. So it won't happen overnight. That and then we'll go back to the mid-cycle.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah. And before we move on, on the prior page, you talked about excess fund balance. You have over 25%, if I'm reading it correctly, is that 10.8 million? But the policy was 20%.
Speaker 4: Write the overridden policy or the one that we always talk about is 20%. However, back in either 2014 or 15, through a suggestion from staff that dollar or that percentage was increased to 25%, but it's not actually set into a policy was a temporarily increase and it's just stayed at 25% still.
Speaker 0: So the number if we just add the 20%, that's excess. You know it it's not on this.
Speaker 4: I would calculated but. Yeah.
Speaker 6: 5% and 90. Yeah. He had another three. 3 to 4 million.
Speaker 0: Another 3 to 4 million. Okay, great. Thanks.
Speaker 4: Just as a quick one. So what has been also incorporated are all the ammo used per ammo you provisions. However, miscellaneous bargaining groups ammo use are ending in 2018 and so potential changes that could be negotiated. We don't know what they may be, but they may also affect the budget.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor Are we at all.
Speaker 3: Participating or following in relative to the health care increases, the public hearings that have been occurring regarding insurance companies and insurance rates? Even having them in the state building in San Francisco, they had one in February. Did we participate in.
Speaker 0: That at all?
Speaker 4: No, not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 3: But there's there is conversations and webinars all over for finance directors and H.R. about those changes.
Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, this was specific to there was.
Speaker 0: Legislation.
Speaker 3: That was passed last year having to do with more transparency surrounding our insurance rates here in California.
Speaker 0: And the rising.
Speaker 3: Cost of premiums. Right. So I think if we could at least I don't know if we've considered it or looked at the reports that have come out from those hearings. Aptly. Well, it's in our predictions. I mean, just.
Speaker 4: I personally have not. Our rates actually are set by CalPERS. So it's not something the city can choose unless we choose to get out of CalPERS on the health insurance side.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 4: And that definitely would be part of negotiations before that can happen.
Speaker 3: So. And it's very expensive. Yes. Well, you have to move everybody out.
Speaker 0: But my question has to.
Speaker 3: Do, I mean, because PERS is also participating in these hearings relative to what's going on with the premium rate.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 3: Those are the 3%. Their prediction then in terms of the increases?
Speaker 4: No, we actually used our actuary predictions or not predictions, their assumptions that they used when they produced actuarial valuations for our OPEB costs. Mm hmm. So we use those. So here's a chart by department strictly for general fund that breaks down the costs of each department. And again, that same thing. It's very similar for the 1819 fiscal year. So we didn't present it, but it's generally the same. And here is the five year. Chart. Again, this is drafted numbers. We continue to refine them. They also do not include any of the requests, additional requests that you will hear later from the departments. This slide obviously does not show a really good, great picture going forward, but this also assumes we are at the status quo and nothing changes. So one of the things that we do is we generally present a balanced budget when we bring it to council for adoption. And what that assumes is that staff is not necessarily going to do absolutely nothing and leave it as is. But that kind of shows at this point, if we do nothing, this is what happens.
Speaker 0: City manager.
Speaker 3: So this is the end of this section. If the council has additional questions or wants public comment. And then I'd like to introduce our two consultants after that.
Speaker 0: All right. Any council questions on this section? Any public comment on this section? Okay. I do have a question back on page 11, you have assumes no inflation increases. Or non personnel that scouts for each of these years when you move forward.
Speaker 1: Can you?
Speaker 7: She's asking about the last bullet point on page 11 says assumes no inflation increases. That correct me right.
Speaker 0: And it says in all years but years, is it just 17, 18 or is it through this 21, 22 year, five year forecast? Is it so it is assuming no inflation increases for the five year forecast.
Speaker 4: For the five year end. What generally happens is we don't assume an automatic increase. So for services and supplies generally, those are not as much obviously as Labor. So we don't just automatically say departments this year you're going to get two or 5% increase. We request them to hold the line and manage within what they have or what has council already approved is when certain contracts are brought to you for approval. They are already have built in adjustments going forward in each year. So those are included. No, this is vendor contracts.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Correct. So those do already have built in.
Speaker 4: In some cases. Yes. And those are generally already approved by council. So those do assume increases, but there's no automatic increase for cost of living.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then do we know, like what percentage of our supplies in those types of expenses are not covered by contracts that have the built in?
Speaker 4: I would have to go probably through each department and get every department to review that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we.
Speaker 4: Don't have the detail of.
Speaker 0: That idea, but the dollar amount is overall just so we can see, in fact. So it's not built into that, but it's not built into.
Speaker 4: So about 76% or so of general fund expenditures are labor. So everything else is going to be transfers out and vendor contracts or services.
Speaker 0: And some of those contracts do in fact already have a built in, but some replies don't. I don't know the percentages that are most of our supplies. Covered by these contracts are few of our suppliers covered by these contracts. We have and I.
Speaker 4: Wouldn't be able to answer that question right now.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. So for the next section, what we wanted to do this year was to do quite a deep dove into the CalPERS. There's been a lot going on at the state level and throughout the whole state on CalPERS and OPEB. And we've hired an H, a advisors. So we have a principal here, Craig Hill and Mike Meyer, who is Vice President, and they are going to go through this next section and answer questions that are that every city right now is struggling with. And they've specifically looked at our data and our CalPERS data.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Spencer, and honorable council members. My name is Mike Meyer. I'm here tonight with my partner, Craig Hill, and we're excited to be working with the city on its upcoming budget. Before I get into, we have prepared about seven or eight slides on CalPERS and pension costs. But to address Mayor Spencer, your question on the transfer tax, we are actually doing a deep dove on that as well with city staff and looking through a couple decades worth of numbers with the county. And so we're a bit dependent on them to send us information, but we are looking at various factors that we can use to help it get more comfortable in predicting that number moving forward. So we will be bringing something back shortly.
Speaker 0: And then you are aware there was an increase in the tax of what we charged at 2008? It went up. The voters vote approved an increase in the transfer tax percentage.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. Thanks.
Speaker 2: As I mentioned, we are here to talk about CalPERS and the city's pension plans. I'll give you a brief update on cost trends over the last 10 to 15 years and talk about a few recent assumption changes that are going to be impacting the city in a big way. And we've taken those assumptions and done some projections to look at costs over the next 20 to 30 years. And so moving on to Slide 15. As you're aware, the city does have two plans, the first being the safety plan, which covers all police and fire employees and all non safety employees are covered by the miscellaneous plan . The city makes payments on both of these plans each year to CalPERS. And there's two components of this annual cost, the first being the normal cost, which is the annual cost for current employees. And then there's what's known as the unfunded accrued liability or. And this essentially is the difference between how much the city actually has versus what it should have. And so this gap or shortfall is it's not repaid all at once, but it's amortized over a 20 to 30 year range with the city making principal and interest payments each year just like any piece of debt. I do want to note that the uel balance does fluctuate each year depending on actual investment performance by CalPERS as well as any changes they make to assumptions such as their investment, target rate, mortality rates or any benefit changes to the plan. So this it is kind of a moving target, but we do have very up to date info in these slides.
Speaker 0: And before you move on, when you say how much we should have, but does that actually mean what we know.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 2: To be 100% funded?
Speaker 0: 100% funded?
Speaker 2: Yeah. What happens is if CalPERS doesn't meet its investment targets, then you are lower than 100% funded in the plan and you are on the hook for making that up to CalPERS.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I actually like that language like with a footnote or something, what we should have because. Right to clarify that language that you just used.
Speaker 2: Okay. The concept of the UAE is relatively new. Back in the 1990s, CalPERS was earning above 10%, and I don't believe there was many cities across the state with a jewel. This is a recent phenomena, and it's due to the fact that CalPERS has been earning less than 6% on average over the last decade, which is well short of their investment targets. So their investment target prior to O3 was eight and a quarter, which they had to reduce to seven and three quarters in a three. They reduced it again in 2013 to 750 and they are going to be phasing in a three year reduction to 7%. And so those those are the two big factors that combined will impact a city's unfunded liability. So actual performance as well as changing the assumptions. And so in terms of what that has done to the cities, Jewel, just in the last ten years, the miscellaneous plan has grown from 17 million to 63 million, and the safety plan has essentially tripled from 50 million to about 150 million. And this those numbers are based on the CalPERS valuation reports that were published this past fall, and that totals 215 million total for the city member.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So two quick questions. So do we know from that 17 what the percent was? I mean, did it go from.
Speaker 2: Oh percent funded of the plan. I mean, we.
Speaker 5: Have the 0304 numbers, but so last decade would be what?
Speaker 2: 070708 that 17 million, I'm guessing, is for the miscellaneous. It's in the mid-nineties. And then on the safety plan, probably high 80%. But I could.
Speaker 5: I could it might be helpful to have that in the future. And then what is the best practice? I mean, is it 100% funded? 115 80? I mean, what's the number that.
Speaker 2: Well, ideally, you'd like to be at 100%. That caliber sends you a bill each year in the cities paying that full bill every year. So they're making 100% of the annual required contribution. This number is really outside of the city's control because it's purely dependent on investment performance. And so to get that percentage higher, you would have to pay more than they're asking you to pay, essentially. And so there are some slides moving forward about what the city's already done because it has set aside extra money already back in 2015 for OPEB and person. And that's really the main option that main tool cities across the state are using if they are in that position to use excess reserves.
Speaker 5: But you're going to share like the different options. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So I'll hold those questions till then.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Member Ashcroft I have a question. So I assume you work with different cities around the state on these issues?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 7: So where does Alameda fall in terms of the the percent percentage funded we have of our two funds?
Speaker 2: This is a common theme across the state. So as we'll get into the percentage that we're expecting the up to to grow even from this 215 million, I'd say is slightly below the average I've been seeing.
Speaker 7: But that our percentage funded is slightly below what you see.
Speaker 2: It's I'd say it's slightly above above, but but in general, this is this is where most cities are are at.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thanks.
Speaker 2: And I think the as we'll get into that since this is part of the budget workshop, you know, it's it's almost easier to look at these cost in total dollars and also what those dollars are becoming as part of the budget. Because as as we'll see in the future slides, next year's total costs are a little above 18 million. And in just five years those will be that'll be about 30 million. So it's quite an increase. Slide 17. This chart shows the annual cost that the city has made to purchase each year for both the normal cost as well as the payments to amortize. As well as the cost to amortized the fuel which are shown in the gray top bars at the normal cost being shown in the purple. And so, you know, the big takeaway here is that normal cost is the city has really done a good job at managing these costs. It's it's it's been steady at around about the 6 million mark. This is it proactive reform manageable hires. It's really the fuel that is the uncontrollable factor and has risen. Significantly over the last 14 years. And so overall, you can see back in oh four, the city was paying 6 million to PERS and next fiscal year 1718 , we estimate that that payment will be between 18 and 19 million. So that payment has tripled over the last 14 years. Moving on to Slide 18. There have been two recent developments. One actually piece of news that was released. A second actual change to CalPERS assumptions. Last year's returns were very poor. They were barely over, barely positive, to 3.6%. The second factor that's going to be impacting costs moving forward is, as I mentioned, Purves is reducing their discount rate assumption to 7%. And so these are factors that have not yet been incorporated into CalPERS reports that's going to be released this summer. But we have we have our own models and we have projected that the combined impact of these two changes are going to drive up the UAA from 215 to 290 million over the next few years. And all of that really comes to this Slide 19 and this bar chart, which is an attempt to project out estimated costs for the next 30 years. And so these costs are based on this is the combined normal cost as well as this new 290 million uel that. We just discussed on the prior slide. And just to point out with what each color represents, the bottom portion is the city's normal cost in dark purple. And you can see in light purple, there's a slight increase to the normal cost from this new discount rate reduction. Directly above that in blue. In the light blue is the miscellaneous plan payments, and in dark blue is the safety plan payments. And these are these are based on last year's CalPERS valuation report. And so the two colors at the top are really to demonstrate the impact of these two recent developments. So in green, you have the impact from last year's poor returns and. I should note that those are spread out over 30 years. As you can see, the yellow bars is the impact from the discount rate reduction. And CalPERS is going to be amortizing that over a shorter period, 20 year period, which puts a little bit more pressure on on cities. Mm hmm. In terms of overall cost, you could see that the 18 and a half million for next year is quickly growing to about 32 million by 2022. And then we estimate that that number will be 40 million in 2030. So essentially doubling more than doubling over the next 13 years. Hmm. The next two slides are. Basically these same costs shown as a percentage of payroll going back five years and also projecting forward five years. And so this first chart on Slide 20 is for the safety plan. You could see that the employees are picking up 15% and the city is shown in blue, picking up the employer rate. And you could see that the overall rate is going from 63% next fiscal year to above 90% over the next five years. And then on the miscellaneous plan, you can see that the total percentage cost as a percentage of payroll is going from 30 to 48% over the five year period. And to to to finish up. You know, the city has, as I mentioned earlier, taken some proactive steps to address these costs through pension reform, which was to increase the employee share of costs to 15%. There was also the Peprah Reform Act of 2013, which will ensure that new hires are also paying their fair share and increasing that employee share of cost. In 2015, the city did set aside 6 million after four years and half for OPEB costs. And those are going to be if they're not already, I think I believe they're in a Section 115 trust, which is a separate retirement vehicle that's solely dedicated to funding OPEB and PERS liabilities. In terms of.
Speaker 0: Brody.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. So, can staff confirm? What where is that? 6 million.
Speaker 6: We still have it. It's. It's it's sitting in a restricted.
Speaker 5: But is it in a fund that's actually earning income.
Speaker 6: Or is it just sitting there? We have it. Hours later.
Speaker 5: Because it's been about a.
Speaker 6: Year in life. Right. That in life.
Speaker 5: For two years. I think we.
Speaker 6: As part of it in our pooled investment. So we're just waiting after this discussion and discussing with the council to determine, you know, what are we going to do with that 6 million? Okay.
Speaker 5: I mean.
Speaker 1: Just.
Speaker 6: We just as you recall, we just set up that 115 trust.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I remember. But I think on the OPEB, we've actually earned a substantial amount of money in one year. And, you know, it's a little unfortunate that, you know.
Speaker 6: Oh, that amount that amount that we were contractually obliged to deposit absolutely has been deposited. That was 5 million might be put into the trust.
Speaker 5: That wasn't my point. My point was we put 5 million there and I think it's grown to, what, six? And we've had we said six aside that, you know, maybe could have grown a little bit more if we had done something earlier. And, you know, I mean, I guess it's water over the bridge now.
Speaker 6: We're moving as fast as we can.
Speaker 5: Nice if we can make that decision.
Speaker 4: That's part of the $6 million that is actually currently sitting set aside as a reserve balance in general fund. One of the things that we tried to determine on our end internally is what is the best way to set the funds aside? And we are actually working with the consultant to figure out is it best to put it more in OPEB, more in pension side? Is there a combination of of some sort or is there a hybrid where maybe some of the money needs to be sent directly to CalPERS? And that's part of the decision that we end evaluation we're making.
Speaker 5: You're going to go over these now with us, right?
Speaker 4: Not at this.
Speaker 1: Time.
Speaker 5: Oh, okay. So I guess maybe the bottom line is at what point are we going to actually start earning and investment income on the $6 million? Because we haven't really.
Speaker 4: No, not yet.
Speaker 5: So at what point.
Speaker 7: Here was a question.
Speaker 3: So after this.
Speaker 5: Has been over a year, if I remember correctly. And I guess that's what's frustrating that, you know, we could have been earning. A great assessment in come on. This that. You know, based on your performance on the OPM one, you know, could be quite substantial. I guess more of a complaint, but it'd be nice to know what the answer is on the.
Speaker 3: Well and what we're planning on after this June six budget adoption and H. A we'll come back with an analysis of whether it's best to put I mean, we're assuming that there is going to be more than to a total of 6 million based on the council direction tonight. And so we'll have additional funds and we want to do an analysis of whether it's more cost effective to put that in the Section 115 trust or to give that to PERS to directly lower our unfunded liability.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. So, you know, and to that point, I mean, the governors may revise kind of had a similar thing where he put away $6 billion and he has the same rat in the snake picture in his that we have. And then over 20 years, you know, that's estimated to save 11 billion. So I think the sooner we can get this money invested and start earning income on it, whichever option we choose, I just think it's best. So, I mean, this is really a lot higher priority to me than a lot of the other stuff we talk about.
Speaker 1: Remember Ashcroft?
Speaker 7: Well, I was just going to ask, so what will we how will we be making that decision? Because that was a question that came up in my mind of, you know, what? What is the better option to invest? But what will you what will you be taking into consideration and in making that recommendation?
Speaker 2: That's a great question. So the the the two main options that are shown on this slide are really to take excess reserves and to either fund more into the Section 115 trust, which is a separate vehicle that will grow over time. You have flexibility to use those funds in any year to make payments on your OPEB liability purse. Or you can just let it grow over time and perhaps it'll, you know, at a later date will be in an amount great enough to it fully extinguish or useful in theory. Or you can give the money to pers directly. You'll see a direct reduction in the fuel as well as the payments associated with that component of the fuel. So mechanically they're a bit different. We've gone through this analysis in other cities and it's a it's its own work three hour workshop. And so I think the goal here tonight was to show big picture eye level numbers and why why they're changing. Obviously, any analysis really boils down to how much money are we talking about, setting aside, what years does the city need to see savings? And so that's some of the analysis that we'll be doing, as well as just talking about benefits and risks of both of these options and whether doing one makes sense versus the other or perhaps some sort of hybrid approach, which is what we've we've seen all of it before.
Speaker 7: And and is it is it an election you make each year? You did mention a hybrid approach.
Speaker 2: So so that that could be an option. But I think right now we're talking about one time funds, excess monies.
Speaker 7: This sounds like a discussion for another time. So but but it is I mean, because we're paying debt service right now on the right, the balance. And so but you that's what the analysis.
Speaker 1: Will.
Speaker 7: Include.
Speaker 2: And in in concept, while they are mechanically a little different, it's similar objectives. It's to earn more money over the long haul, which will hopefully make a bigger dent in these liabilities than if the money was in something else, earning less than 2% think.
Speaker 3: And then. So that's this section. And so we can have the council ask questions and provide feedback in section and open it up to public comment.
Speaker 2: Member mARASHI I think the two things that I take away from this is we need a sense of urgency on it. So that discussion for another time should be another time soon. And to Councilmember Otis point, let's get the $6 million and whatever contributions that might come out of this budget deliberation. Into a. Investment return bearing account. Quickly.
Speaker 5: I completely agree. Completely agree.
Speaker 7: And I just commend the city manager for bringing in the consultants because I think that's extremely important. We all know how dire a circumstance this is that we're facing on into the future, but I think we can use some good direction to help us address it most effectively. Thank you all.
Speaker 0: I swear.
Speaker 1: How much will the.
Speaker 3: Actuarial report weigh into the recommendation that you're going to give?
Speaker 2: I don't think too much. CalPERS is actually over the last year or two, but for the first time, actually a little bit more transparent about what's coming down the road in the past. It's one report. Unless you really want to enter some modeling of things, it's all you really see is what am I paying next year, maybe two years out in terms of a percentage rate, they've sent out a five or six year forecast. And so we are using something a little separate, but we are comparing that and we're pretty much right on. So we feel comfortable that the next report is going to be similar to what we're projecting.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: My second question is, I mean, especially with the direct pay down that that really is impacted by how much money we're looking to put in at a given time, correct? I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that money is if you decide to give CalPERS the money, it's it's it's gone, right.
Speaker 0: I have a question if you want to go back to that page, 1962 of 62 pages. Okay. This is each year how much the city would accumulate on a yearly basis.
Speaker 2: This is what the cost will be for person payments.
Speaker 0: On a yearly basis.
Speaker 2: Yearly basis.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then is there a way to have some kind of chart or do we have something like that that shows year after year, depending upon how much we are action that we pay? Out accumulates over time. Are you suggesting we're going to be writing and doing the 40 million or. But. And, you know, so so the top point of this is approximately 40 million.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: So if if there was nothing done today and CalPERS met all its assumptions moving forward at 7% growth each year in the year 2031, this would be your payment to CalPERS, which is the combined normal cost. And you how is your question related to.
Speaker 0: So if we don't have 40 million, like what happens? I mean, I would actually expect a chart that does this at some point. Just instead of like this is going pretty much straight across small increases. Yeah. I mean.
Speaker 2: They would they would have to continue to earn very, very poor returns for it to be, I think, steeper than this. But as I mentioned earlier in that. Presentation. This will fluctuate each year based on actual performance, but the general shape of this is not going to change. A whole lot.
Speaker 0: But this is each year. Okay. So what happens if the city doesn't have that much money each year to pay it? We as we accumulate over time.
Speaker 2: That's that's a good question. If you don't have the annual 100% of your annual requirement and to be quite honest, I haven't run into that situation, but I can find out.
Speaker 3: And one of the the Section 115 trust of putting money into that is a way to in times when we couldn't make it, you could use that 115 trust to pay.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 3: And that portion in the U. A L continues to grow.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 3: And flexibility and.
Speaker 2: Flexibility, I would say, is one of the biggest benefits of the Section 115 in a year, when you might not have the money in the general fund just to make your annual payment, you can withdraw funds out of the Section 115 to make that payment.
Speaker 0: Okay. But we're talking about a doubling over the next decade, year after year. So right now, we may be able to come up with a 17 five. But then the city is going to be obligated to pay the. 40 million year after year. The high. Right. Yes. So. So if you look at the amount of money we have in our. You know, left over in our reserves. Okay. We could do that maybe one year. But where does this difference come year after year?
Speaker 3: Right. And that's part of why we were saying we could meet the budget in the two years. But what is most concerning is year three and beyond when all of these. Unfunded liability grows and our annual amount triples.
Speaker 0: Okay. But you're saying you haven't run into it because guess I mean, when I look at this is because you're not at that point where it's doubling right year after year.
Speaker 3: And that's what that's our focus, every city in California.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. But I'm looking for the chart that actually shows that issue. That's so I appreciate you said okay you have run into it because look at the numbers the difference between 17 five and 44 multiple years. And if you look at how much we have in reserves.
Speaker 2: I think I see where you're going with this. And I could create another chart.
Speaker 0: I think you have a significant. You're talking about human to human have. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Based on this year's was the cumulative impact.
Speaker 0: Right. Because we have reserves that will be exhausted. You're one. You're too. Okay. What about the rest? I mean, when I look at this, I see a I'm actually seeing a chart missing. It is actually devastating. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know where they are. The reserves will be exhausted in year one or year two. And you have a chart that goes on for year after year after year that not only goes on and on and on, but it increases from 17.5 to it looks like 40. And I don't see that chart. And I think that is a significant problem because if you use our so I guess the chart I'm looking for, we'll have our current. Revenues. One chart, current revenues. It's going to have that line, right. And then it's going to show. Paying this off year after year. Where is that money coming from? And that's what the chart I need to see, because you're going to have your gap and it's going to be dramatic. And that's not here. So, I mean, I don't I don't think that you have a chart that projects the crisis that is a serious problem. That's missing. So we need to see that. I'd like that when you come. And it comes back. And feel free to go up to 2048. Because I'd like to actually be very clear why I continually vote no. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: So can we project revenues out to 2048?
Speaker 0: You can use whatever number you want. I mean, it.
Speaker 5: Doesn't make sense that the current the current revenue is going to stay the same for the next.
Speaker 0: It's not going to double 30 years.
Speaker 5: I don't know what the answer is. That's what I'm asking.
Speaker 3: And I think some of the answer might even be at the state level that the state is struggling with this as well, and so are all the cities. And it is going to have to get into the details of CalPERS and look at CalPERS directly, because it is it could bankrupt a number of cities in California.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor, I think could is a is a kind word. It will, because if you look, all you have to do is look at the other charts that have been presented and draw the line.
Speaker 0: And that's their job they should be visiting.
Speaker 2: If you look at the charts that we've been presented, and I think the utility of of what the mayor's talking about is that next time you come back and we talk about what to how to address this, because we're not going to be able to address this tonight. We have to go through the budget. We have to see what's been project, what's been requested in the budget. And we have to see what the revenue projections look like as well as what the expenditures are. But a dynamic chart, because you can do that in a dynamic presentation that says, okay, plug in $3 million set aside each year, see what that does to this line. And also the line that the mayor is looking at is when do we run out of money?
Speaker 0: And then right in the gap.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 0: Out here.
Speaker 2: And I think putting something together like that would be far more useful when we have the amount of money that we can we can use based on our fund balance in the next few years trying to address it.
Speaker 0: And and honestly and I appreciate that at some point we're going to have to think about the how. But I'm really more focused right now on at least let's have the honest conversation with the honest projections as best you can come up with over time. So at least we see your estimates of what these numbers are in the gap number Ashcraft and then Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So on page 13, we have the general fund budget overview. And I mean, we saw it in a pie chart on page 12, then we see it in line line items, columns going from the fiscal year 1718 to 21, 22. Is there a reason we don't project out beyond five years in a in a forecast.
Speaker 2: I'm going to defer to Lena.
Speaker 4: There's a few reasons. So generally we could build a model that's going to look into ten, 20, 30 years. And some few cities do that. The issue becomes, though, it's very difficult to really predict revenues generally beyond three years, really. And five years is kind of like the max. After that, the revenues really don't necessarily make much of a sense.
Speaker 7: So the farther you go out, the correct. The more reliability.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Okay. Correct.
Speaker 7: So I understand what the mayor the point she's raising. I think it's very valid. But I also think that we I would like us to go out as far as we can. And I want our assumptions to be as conservative as possible, because I would rather think that we are bringing in less revenue and in our expenses are higher than and then be surprised the other way. But at the same time, I want a measure of reliability to. So thank you for that question for that.
Speaker 4: And I just want to remind on this particular slide. When we were talking about it, the idea was here is this is if we do absolutely nothing and the goal is that we are going to do something and it's not going to happen. We are presenting this to you today so that you do have an idea of what the future looks like and what we may have to deal with.
Speaker 1: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: Actually, Elena, I have a sorry.
Speaker 3: Since you're up here. Of course. So, with regards to this slide, the within the estimates relative to the revenue, however, estimates lined up. I mean, I think it's good to have the perspective forecast, but I also think it's helpful to be looking at this side by side with what our previous forecasts have been for the previous five years and where they actually lined up. Right, because we were somewhat conservative in our estimates. So how far off the mark were we in terms of the previous five years? But also, I mean, I was at a different presentation in a in another municipality recently and their forecasting showed somewhat of a market stabilization. So they saw huge or relatively significant growth in their revenues in the end of this year, the year prior, like the past three years. And then they're predicting more of a stabilization in terms of their their market to maybe, you know, their estimates are 3 to 4% revenue increase may be over the next couple of years. And then outside of that, they're they're less certain, but they're seeing more kind of a stabilization as opposed to that kind of significant growth. Is that the same sort of trend that you're seeing here or you're forecasting?
Speaker 4: Yes. And we've as I mentioned, we've talked to our consultants as well on things like sales tax. So they're predicting it or their prediction is that it's stabilizing and it's going to grow as much. Right. In terms of property tax, what would be helpful to us? Obviously, our base on the property taxes are fairly solid and fairly high values. What assessor has seen so far is regular, perhaps 2% growth unless we have new developments or new homes that come in. So that obviously is going to increase it and show greater growth. So it really depends what may happen. And again, those are dependent on what the economy is.
Speaker 1: Going to do as well.
Speaker 0: Right. Okay. But I just want to add, remember, there is the chart where I brought up, we don't have a downward cycle shown. We just show a stabilization or small growth. We don't anticipate this in these over a downward cycle, which we all know is not reality.
Speaker 3: So and then my other question is, and I know that the state has done modeling relative to different, you know, different scenarios with different set asides and what they do. And I think for me, what I'm what I'm looking for is I'd like to see, you know, those longer models knowing that the, you know, the accuracy of
Speaker 1: . Them.
Speaker 3: Might fall off. The further out we go. But I would really like to, at least from my perspective, focus on the next 2 to 3 years and really see the different options relative to the models, especially when we're looking at a two year budget, what the impact of a decision in the two year budget could look like relative to the modeling that that's being put forward. That was discussed by the mayor.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Ms.. Adair, when you mentioned sales tax, and if I recall correctly, it's something like 10% of our general fund revenue. So I understand that we've seen steady business to business sales tax with some of the new businesses we've attracted to Alameda. But I keep hearing in the news that brick and mortar retail is dropping off, that consumers buying habits are changing. So are we factoring that into because people just aren't shopping in stores as much even for things like groceries? Not that you pay a lot of sales tax on groceries, but it's just so easy. I think they say clicks rather than bricks is what is driving the retail market these days. So how are we factoring that in?
Speaker 4: So. The clicks actually work really well in Alameda County, and we do receive a significant amount of revenues from people buying whatever they purchase online. And it's a quite a high percentage of our sales tax quarterly that we do receive.
Speaker 3: And and if the city voters wanted to do a local sales tax, that would be significantly more to get all the, you know, other sales tax that, you know, by people who purchase in Alameda. Our local residents especially vehicles and boats and.
Speaker 7: I don't think we sell vehicles in Alameda anymore, do we?
Speaker 4: But the way.
Speaker 3: They use it, it's it actually it is determined not by.
Speaker 7: Where you.
Speaker 3: Go, but where the registration is. Only on a local tax and not on the Bradley Burns.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 0: That is something. So we at the end of this section.
Speaker 3: Yes. And so if we can.
Speaker 0: Just my comments. But I think we had a public comments also on the section.
Speaker 1: Yes. But we have a of.
Speaker 0: All right, gentlemen, for you both speaking just one of you, whose did you want to speak together? How do you want to do this? All right.
Speaker 6: I think we have.
Speaker 0: One more seven Kennedy. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: I might have one more.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: Actually, actually. I was going to wait till the end, but most of my comments are related to this issue. As you can probably imagine. So I figure I'll jump up now. Also, hopefully, maybe too you're asking some great questions on it. If there's anything I can do to help clarify it too. I think Lena and staff have done a wonderful job with that, but I've spent a inordinate amount of time with.
Speaker 7: It a little louder.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 7: So soft.
Speaker 2: Spoken. Sorry.
Speaker 0: It's people are watching at home. They want to hear.
Speaker 7: Yeah, don't be so shy and retiring.
Speaker 2: I'll try.
Speaker 0: Now. He's our auditor.
Speaker 2: No, I'm.
Speaker 0: Sorry I messed up, Treasurer. Sorry. I'm going to blame the auditor. If you.
Speaker 7: Gotta see him side by side to tell you we're.
Speaker 2: Interchangeable. He's the CPA. I'm the planner. But I wanted to comment about this. But first I did want to acknowledge staff. And also this council and past councils the past couple of years have worked out very well. That's undeniable. We're in a great position where we can have an even have this kind of a conversation about being able to maybe pre-fund some of this or prepare ourselves for what's coming. And I think it's great through a combination of conservative budgeting where the economy recovered faster than we thought. Some good luck with some one time things that came in and and some smart decisions. We're in a spot where we can do some positive things. Also wanted to commend staff on allocating such a good chunk of time towards an issue. That's not a lot of fun. This deserves the attention it's getting, and I appreciate that they're spending the time to educate everybody, including the public, about what this looks like, because as you all, I think, have been commenting the last couple of minutes, this is a ginormous issue and it's important for everybody to understand the dynamics that are at work. This is something that the auditor and I spent a ton of time on. We've spoken up here many times. We did a report on this ten years ago, the Fiscal Sustainability Committee report, which projected out a lot of these things. A lot of this now we're starting to see come true. Unfortunately, you're starting to actually see the impact of it, which doesn't make anybody happy. The scary thing in my mind with this is unlike some of the other liabilities that we've talked about and we highlighted in that report, like deferred maintenance, you know, fixing streets and sidewalks or even for that matter, putting aside money towards retiree medical, a program which was started in 1992 or three, but up until recently hadn't really been funded. This is a bill that we don't have the discretion of whether or not we want to pay it in that current year when CalPERS sends us the bill. We pretty much have to pay it. So we might decide, you know, the budget's tight. Let's not fix as many streets this year or let's not put aside money for OPEB. But when it comes to this, it's going to it's going to basically hit us and we're not going be able to to defer that. And that worries me because that's a different dynamic than what we've seen with some of these obligations in the past. And as was so eloquently, as the word pointed out tonight, it hits us like a tidal wave. It doesn't hit us in this budget cycle, but it certainly does in the next one. And again, I think it's great that staff is is looking beyond just this budget to talk about that because it's going to be pretty dramatic to the to the mayor's point, some of your points. It absolutely continues what you see as a five year projection. I've spent a lot of times with time, with projections when we built our model. And also look at this. I think the projections at staff houses are good. And I don't think going out beyond five years is hugely constructive. But I think the stories told right there in the first five years, and if you want to take it out of sixth year, assuming you do nothing but save that money that we have as excess right now in the sixth year, that general fund balance basically goes to zero. So I don't know if we need to carry it out a lot further, but certainly the problem continues out a lot further. Based on all of that. I would tell you that I think there was there was some talk last time I was here last month about is the city a business? And I think clearly the city's not a for profit business. But I would say absolutely we have to run the city like a business. And in that regard, the people entrust you and us as elected officials to make sure that we deliver a good product, that we deliver it at a good price to them, and that we are very conscious about the fiscal stability of the city. And I think you all are very much in tune with that. So I think we do have a business mentality here, and I think it really needs to be on high alert here for this next cycle in terms of how do you address this? Again, I think it's a bill that's pretty much immovable. So it's not an option of, well, can we wait and pay this down the road or when we have one time money? Again, this is going to be there with the one time money we have now. I think it's pretty clear the prudent thing is to try to set aside as much of that as possible, to prepare us for what we know is coming, to make sure that we make decisions between now and then that don't exacerbate the problem. That we're very cautious about any spending. Otherwise, as you saw from that slide with the five year projection, we're looking at pretty material cuts every year, which are disruptive to our workforce, disruptive to our people. And to some degree, I think can be mitigated. What I would prefer not to see what I think maybe isn't the best policy is to spend a lot of that money or to to to exacerbate the problem, to have hope as a business plan. I had. One of the first things I learned in business is hope is not a business plan. And to hope that maybe something's going to fall from the sky or the feds are going to do something or or something magical will happen to help us out. Boy, I hope as much as anybody that that happens, but I don't think that's a business plan. I also am not a big fan of the idea of of not doing what we can today and then asking the people to deal with it via any kind of a tax. I think we have the ability to deal with this to some degree right here now and to not do that and then ask hardworking Albertans who are already facing high rents and high cost of living to pony up more dough to deal with this, I think, is also a difficult thing to do. So I think there's a great opportunity for us to get a little bit ahead of the curve. Your questions about if we put this money aside, what is it do are very valid and I and I as much as anybody would like to see those projections, but in my mind, there's no question that we need to prepare as much as possible for something that we're just not going to be able to dodge. And this, again, unlike street fixing streets or something like that, is really an immovable object. My biggest concern and the reason for 20 years, 17 years I've been treasurer and been talking about this stuff is. I live in Alameda. I have a business in Alameda. My son's graduating high school in Alameda. My teacher my wife is a teacher in Alameda. He retired a few years ago. I don't want to see alameda have to make decisions for economic reasons. I don't want to see us have to think about selling or swapping land or building homes simply to balance the budget. I don't want us to have to compromise our quality of life because the economics force us to do that. And as these things start to grow and as those numbers start to go up, if we're not prepared for it, we might find ourselves in a position where we do things that maybe aren't the kind of things that we would prefer to have to do. But we don't have a choice as we have to balance the budget. And I think the citizens appreciate that, that you individually all live in Alameda. You appreciate that being prepared for this lessens the chances that we have to make decisions that maybe aren't entirely what we would prefer to do, but are a matter of necessity rather than a matter of desire. And that's why I've been talking about this for so long. And I think it's very important at this juncture also to think about that, because three years from now, we're going to have some very difficult conditions to deal with. So with that, if there's anything else I can help you out with, I'm happy to. Again, I think Steph's giving you a really good look at this, and I'll offer up to you individually, too. I know many of you taking me up on my time. I'm happy to talk with you individually, if there's anything I can help you out on this. But I think you're in very good hands with the presentation you've seen tonight in terms of the information, the quality information. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kevin Curry, did you want to speak? Thanks.
Speaker 2: Mayor Council staff. I also wanted to thank Elena and all the department heads and the staff for putting this presentation together. And in particular, I think it's great that the fellows from NH Advisors for their expertize to really, you know, provide a little bit more guidance in this area. As the Treasurer said, you know, we've talked about this for a very, very long period of time and we were on a committee that basically predicted this was going to happen. And I'm glad now there's some. Uh, if I had some other outside guys and, you know, they're involved with it. But the bottom line is, as the city manager put it, when you get out a few more years, when it's a $10 million deficit, you know, it gets worse. The next column over that's not there becomes worse and it becomes worse. And as the Treasurer mentioned. You have to pay it. So? So, I mean, for everybody, we're citizens here. We love aluminum for everybody that's at home. What does that mean? You have to pay it? Well, it means you have to really pay it. So all the other great services that we're used to having as citizens of Alameda. They have to start getting cut because there's not the money to provide all of these, you know, the dollars to provide all these services. And if on the page on page number 12, there is a there's a nice diagram that shows what the. With the other two apartments other than fire and police, what they get, it's what their expenditures are. It's $22.9 million. Elena did a really great presentation. I don't know, maybe six weeks ago. And one of the slides in there, which I think is a really great slide, it says estimated prices increase. The public safety per se increase or the dollar amount projected for 2223 is $23 million. So the projected increase, which I have a feeling is going to be pretty doggone accurate, is what we pay now for all of the departments now. So in 22, 23, how do the other departments get money? How do they get it? So I mean, there's there's you guys have, you know, you guys got a really hard job. You know, you guys didn't start the ball rolling, but now the ball's kind of in your court.
Speaker 5: And there was another slide that was up here on 23.
Speaker 2: I believe it said me find 23 because I think it's important. Alameda Response Only Critical Hires Using General Fund dollars. There is your opportunity to at least put a little bit of a dent in this. Going forward. There's going to be departments asking for money. There's been an apartment that asked for money three weeks ago. That's something that you can do right now and be aware of the nice presentation.
Speaker 5: Where we.
Speaker 2: Saw from the other fellows about when you pay money for somebody, what the percentage costs of the benefits are. This is the snowball effect that I believe has happened over this period of time. And so you guys have all the figures. You guys are smart people. You guys got to make the tough decision. But sometimes it's some real smart person in this room once said, sometimes you have to know when to say no. And so good luck. I'm going to live here forever. I know you guys love Alameda. Please do the best you can and keep Alameda as great as it is. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Hey, if we're. If that was the last speaker, we can continue. So we obviously didn't.
Speaker 7: We should spend time on that slide that Kevin Kennedy. Just Kevin pretty high chart. No, no, no. Not the famous page 23.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's where we're headed.
Speaker 1: Okay. Perfect.
Speaker 3: So we didn't want to sugarcoat this because this is like the most critical issue that is going to face Alameda and it's going to face every city in California. And we as we have made strides in the past to help address that. But it's getting critical and it's going to get more critical as CalPERS can change their assumptions in one year, that will have a dramatic effect and double what we owe in our unfunded liability. So Almeida's response just from a short term response is we need to, as we have all said and we said at the beginning, our number one responsibility, our fiduciary responsibility is to have fiscal sustainable, structurally balanced budget to our best possible ability. And that could mean and it's our recommendation that we look only at critical hires using general funds. Special funds are easier for us to justify because it is not our general fund dollars. Those are tend to be outside funds like the sewer funds or the gas tax that are actually increasing. But we have to really look critically at general fund any use of general fund dollars. Our use of one time funds for one time effort. And what we mean by that is that every one time fund should have a efficiency in the future. So efficiencies, hopefully three years and beyond, so we can start being more cost effective in the future. And then focus on reducing our expenses over the next two years. What we said is we're going to bring h a back. Immediately after this budget is adopted so we can start doing options for the Council consideration and spend the next two years as our number one focus of how are we going to address this going forward? One. Thing I'd like to have the council look at is a policy that does something along the lines of every time we have a budget surplus, X percent, 50% goes automatically into either whatever you decide, the Section 115 Trust or CalPERS or a combination. But it goes to addressing this issue directly.
Speaker 0: So we're going to be seeing a chart that has our contracts that carry out that we've already committed to. Our country have current contracts that are multiyear contracts.
Speaker 3: Yes. And that goes to your question earlier. But those are contracts that this council can look at as they come up. And we can also those are less important, from my perspective, than this big looming unfunded liability for pensions and OPEB.
Speaker 0: Okay. But the.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 0: But that is the result of contracts that we currently have.
Speaker 3: Oh, you mean labor contract, correct?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: I thought you meant contracts that we were talking about.
Speaker 0: So. So do we. Okay. So when you look at our contracts, people that work at our library, for instance, do we have a long term contract with them? Are we committed to having so many librarians, people that work at the library? They have a multiyear contract with them.
Speaker 3: So you're talking about our future contract negotiation for current?
Speaker 0: No. No. Currently, do we currently have a long term contract? Which departments do we have long term contracts with?
Speaker 3: All our contracts with all our employees are long term.
Speaker 7: Isn't it? By bargaining unit more than.
Speaker 3: Short miscellaneous contracts are up in December 2018 on the safety ones our 2021.
Speaker 0: Okay. So are we going to have some kind of chart that shows things like that that we are already committed to?
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I think if you look back at that chart that we showed tonight, that also includes our. Our pension and liability and benefits going forward for the next 30 years.
Speaker 0: Projections that are obviously based on our.
Speaker 3: Current contracts, the.
Speaker 6: Five year the five year forecast includes all of the contract obligations that we have.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I like a chart that actually calls out the different departments and contracts that we currently have so we can see what we're committed to and what we aren't. Because at some point, if I heard or. Public speakers correctly, we may very well have to cut what we can cut and some things we won't be able to cut. So we need to be prepared to know where our cuts, where the some choices will be made for us because we won't be able we will already be contractually committed to those.
Speaker 3: On in the second bullet down from in addition to looking at our pension and designated reserves, we have a bullet in there for future contract negotiations. The bullet above that also looks at our excess dollars for we have one closed pension fund that we are reducing over time. And so another policy choice this council can make is to those savings or it's about 2 million annually, could be also put into resolving this problem on an annual basis.
Speaker 0: Okay. But that's not the problem. The problem is.
Speaker 3: Although that what we're trying to do is help close the gap, whether it's 2 million at a time or 5 million at a time, it's something that we should have counsel look at.
Speaker 0: But the increase in the fuel goes up from 17.5 to 40 million per year. So you can talk about 2 million. That's not the numbers. That's not close to the numbers. So we I do want to have a chart that has all of our contracts long term that we're already committed to. So then we can see really what the problem is.
Speaker 3: Or bring back a chart that has our pension and benefit costs going forward with under reflecting our current contracts.
Speaker 0: No, no, that's not the question. That's not the ask. We currently have contracts that we have are committed to. Yes. That I'd like to see a chart of those. Because what I think is that anything that we don't have a contract for. We're going to be cutting.
Speaker 7: Mayor. QUESTION Yes.
Speaker 0: MEMBER Ashcroft.
Speaker 7: So, Miss, come back, if you could talk to us a little bit about these, the closed pension dollars that could be directed to fund our pension obligations. Can we give a little explanation of what that means and how we could do it?
Speaker 1: Certainly. Yes, I think so.
Speaker 4: But it's very quiet. So when the council approved on the same night, actually the. The 115 Trust for OPEB and Pension at that same time were presented funding policy for the pension and OPEB. One of the items that is in the policy is to use any excess dollars in the closed pension plans and contribute those funds into the trust. So Council already taking that action and determined that yes, you are willing to do that. And as part of the budget that we're going to be presenting to you, we incorporate that access. In essence, you froze the dollar amount contribution.
Speaker 7: So from. From. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off so you can tell us how much we've put in from these.
Speaker 4: So it's about $2 million a year that we've contributed, and it's about because we have passing of certain retirees or their dependents. So we have about difference. Um, currently about, I believe, 400,000 that has been accumulated over a period of few years that would go in as a contribution. It would be a one time. So on the ongoing basis, that amount may not be as high, but that's going to be part of the one time original contribution in. And so as the benefit payments and those close plants reduce, we will continue keeping that dollar amount contribution from general fund the same and that greater delta is going to continue going into a pension component to.
Speaker 7: Redirect it to 115 or whatever it is. Correct. Okay. So, I mean, my feeling is there is no one magic bullet, but I'll take any money that we can get to help pay down that liability. And if I can just stay on the mike for a minute. So I know I've talked to our city manager about a couple months back. I represent Alameda on the League of California Cities East Bay Division, and we had an entire evening that was dedicated to the OPEB and CalPERS liabilities. And, and I know I can't remember which city, though, because one of the speakers was a city manager from Concord. Concord. Again, they have a policy in Concord. I believe that the council adopted that. It sounded quite attractive that whenever there's one time many I want to say it's 50% of it automatically goes to paying down that debt, whatever it is. I think she said the other half goes into infrastructure now. You know, we might decide that maybe a little percentage could go for something on a one time basis, but I think it is going to take that kind of discipline and just, you know, programing in like an automatic deduction from your paycheck every pay period that just goes straight to to savings and you never see it. I would you know, I hope that we can come to that some up to adopt a policy like that when when the decision time comes.
Speaker 0: Member matter.
Speaker 2: So just to follow up the comments on the closed pension dollar excess, we put the policy in place when we set up the trust. Has there been any set aside from that close pension to between then and now? And it's kind of waiting to be a deposit or it's an automatic, it automatically goes.
Speaker 4: So we just signed all the paperwork for the trust. So once the accounts are set up, the goal is to actually move the funds over. But again.
Speaker 2: When would that be?
Speaker 4: I can ask trust pars when the accounts are going to be done, but as soon as they are available, we can do that.
Speaker 3: That was approved by council on March 21st.
Speaker 2: So in a month, three months.
Speaker 4: Six months should be probably sufficient.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That. But it will be automatic. We won't have to have a council action to say, Oh, we should do this. It's done. No.
Speaker 4: Because you already have a policy in place.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And they discussed the pie chart that had the 23 million, or is that what that number was? Other than our public safety that we currently spend on everything else.
Speaker 1: Um.
Speaker 0: I think it was page 13 or something like that. 17. Let me see. They pitched 12. So the total money, money from general fund that is not spent on public safety, do you have that total dollar amount?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm going to use Kevin and say it's 22.9 million.
Speaker 0: 22 point what was it?
Speaker 4: Point nine.
Speaker 7: 3 million.
Speaker 0: So let's say 23 million. Okay. And then I want to jump to the other chart that has the purrs you will increase on an annual basis. There it is, page 19. Okay. See on page at your 2018, these numbers are. 17.5. But before you know it. Let's just jump to 2030. What is it, 20, 22? 23. You go from 17. 227 to 37. On an annual basis. The amount of the hour nonpublic safety costs were 23 million per year. So I don't quite understand how we're going to be able to have anything other than public safety and still not have enough money to pay for the fuel.
Speaker 4: So the impact wouldn't on the general fund specifically, even though it's going to be high in probably the most, it's not the entire amount that shown on this graph. This graph representing A represents the entire city. So. We would have to extrapolate the component that relates to general fund provided safety is general fund. So primarily, I would say 100% of it, we can assume by portion of it would not necessarily only come from general fund, it would come also from other funds in the city. But yes, you're correct, those payments are accelerating. And I can say that even CalPERS representatives say that the biggest impact or full impact of this change in the discount rate would not be necessarily felt within the next two years. It's 5 to 7 years.
Speaker 0: Right? You can see it. You can see the jump. Okay. So if you're if you're only looking. So our budget actually is not that large. Right. We're 80 million or whatever it is. So if you jump to the 23 million, I mean, this increase. With our current expend our current expenses, not even anticipating any increase on an annual basis. I don't think you have to project out that many years and not have funding for those things if you want to go back to the pie chart. What are the things that are in that pie that we're not going to have money for?
Speaker 6: And that's assuming you take a library.
Speaker 0: Recreation and parks, all these other things. Right.
Speaker 6: And assuming that's where you take it from.
Speaker 0: As opposed to our.
Speaker 6: You can take it from any place on that pie chart.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I don't know if you all can hear it. Do you want to sit. Speaking to the mic clearly?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, you're making the assumption that you're going to take it all from other. Other weaknesses. Right. You have the entire. Hi. To to look at.
Speaker 0: That's right. Okay. So I was we have long term contracts, right. That we have a commitment through 2022. Is that what you said earlier on our public safety contracts, 20 2021, 2021. So at least we know.
Speaker 6: And we have going to. Right. Yeah. And we have. Yes.
Speaker 0: So that was why I was talking about having a clear chart of what contracts we currently have, how far they go, because you're going to see we have a long term commitment on the public safety contract through 2021, apparently. Right. And then when you go back and forth, 2021, it's already starting to climb. So you might be able to extrapolate just based on our current contracts.
Speaker 6: Right. And I think but I think also the discussion of right now, you're looking at expenditures. You're not looking at revenues. You're not looking at your increases in revenues. You're not looking at the things that we can be doing between now and then. So I think the point that the city manager made on this is I mean, it's not to try and be alarmist, but to be aware of it and. And I think staff is mate has made a commitment that we're going to be working towards solutions.
Speaker 0: If you look at 2021 and I don't want to be alarmist, I actually want to be real, though. If you look at 2021, you're got you jumped from 17.5 to 27.5 for this projection. That's not alarmist. These are real numbers that we apparently paid consultants to come here and show us. So I think it's important we do look at these charts. So if you look out through the 2021, you see a jump of around 10 million per year. Of of expenses that we have to write a check for. So, so and then in regards to our revenues during that time, we did not see that climb. But you're right. Based upon if you look at based upon the projections that staff presented with which. Assumes we will never have a downward correction, that we're going to have a steady increase.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was just on the transfer tax.
Speaker 0: But but these are things that we are committed to having to pay even during a correction year.
Speaker 4: That's correct. So but again, I just want to remind everybody that the chart that chart CalPERS chart you're looking at is the entire city.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 4: And we're only referring in this case to general fund. General Fund is not going to be paying for benefits or increase in benefits that are associated with staff that are being paid out of restricted funds. Okay.
Speaker 0: Do you want to come back with a chart that speaks to that, separate that clearly what the city's recommendation is?
Speaker 4: We could do our best to extrapolate.
Speaker 0: Remember, I never remember how the.
Speaker 2: Revenues that fund those other funds don't climb at the rate of.
Speaker 0: I'm trying to.
Speaker 2: Say. So I think I think it's real. We we get it. And having been here during the downturn and having to having to reduce staff, because that's how you people get laid off. That's how you balance the budget. So that's that's the that's the real part of it was when you need to make that payment, as the Treasurer said, that payment is not an option, it has to be paid.
Speaker 0: But what's different is the significance of these numbers.
Speaker 2: Okay. And that's why we have our work cut out for us on the next step. So I'd like to get to the next step, to the real numbers, and let's continue. It's the.
Speaker 3: Answer. Okay. And then so we've already talked about this one. We're looking at how do we protect our quality of life, how do we look at technology infrastructure to reduce expenses in the future, increase our efficiencies? How do we also look at creating a. Vibrant community. Maintaining what we have in our aging infrastructure and protecting the environment. Next. And so when we go back to the beginning of the funds, the one time funds that are currently available over the 25% that we are looking at as a conservative amount that we should keep in the reserve. If you recall, it was 10.875 million. What we're going to be asking the council for is direction on some of these one time council efforts for funds. And it goes to what we put in there was our total unfunded liability for years as 163 million. And that is based on and this goes back to Councilmember Otis question is what do we consider best practice? Cities typically consider 80% as a best practice for unfunded liability, because I think, as our consultant said, this is a snapshot. And so depending on the rate of return of CalPERS, it can go up and down dramatically. We also want direction and want to look at additional funding for OPEB, other post-employment benefits trust, and that currently is a need of $90 million. And then also from a community perspective and we had we have the results of our budget challenge that I mentioned earlier. We have it's been up, I think, a week, and we have 1100 responses so far. And there are a lot of strong support for all of our. Values, including investment in the historic civic core. And then we also have the purchase of up remnant parcels that go from Tilden way through Jean Sweeney open space, their narrow property that from the railroad that we could look at purchasing. And this is a relatively small amount of funds to enhance and make turn parkland back to the community. And in particular, it looks at some parcels at Jean Sweeney Open Space Reserve.
Speaker 0: Can you explain that number? GRANT Plus 800,003.
Speaker 1: Million.
Speaker 7: It's quite a delta.
Speaker 3: Yeah. It's there's a, a grant that we got for children way. And then the other is based on appraisals that are done and we've done our appraisal and now you yuppie is doing their appraisal and it's somewhere in.
Speaker 7: Union with the Union Pacific Railroad because this is old railroad right away.
Speaker 3: Right? Right. Right. So that is going to be coming back to council as soon as we hear back from Union Pacific.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: And then we also have guns. And going forward, looking at ongoing funds and as the council has said previously, we do budget conservatively. We are trying to look long term and be conservative in our ongoing funds. We do have some recent additions compared to our last two year budget. One is the Fire Prevention Bureau with three new staff that was adopted in April. The Friends of the Animal Alameda Animal Shelter is anticipated to come at the next council meeting for council consideration. And at $804,000, we ask a.
Speaker 5: Question on that.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 5: But that's not an incremental increase. There's some that we give already, right?
Speaker 7: Yes. On the animal shelter, it's a.
Speaker 3: Good point we give about it increases with cost of living. But right now it's about 358,000. So we subtract that out. So the incremental. As.
Speaker 1: 400 415.
Speaker 5: And the first one doesn't reflect the income that is going to be generated has partially offset it.
Speaker 3: You write, these are not net but gross. There's infrastructure investment of we had a city facilities report and again this is. There funds that if we don't invest in the community, this unfunded maintenance will increase. Those maintenance costs will increase over time. So we're looking at things that are supposed to be prudent in the long run. The Homeless Assistance Program. If you look at the cost of one homeless person from a social services and fire response and police response time, it can be very costly rather than providing direct service to housing those individuals. If you look at it from a financial point of view, it's this is legitimate funding to spend. It is also a high priority both in the community and on the council. The Alameda Police Department is receiving or could receive a grant for approximately half this amount. They have received the grant and they are willing to contribute it to this project. And so the net on this is 61,000. And that is for. We'll talk later on in the program more specifically about that. And then there was a request for a housing trust fund. Which could be in the neighborhood of what we're paying for the rent stabilization program, which is one about 1.3 million. Annually. So this next section is we're going to ask, I mentioned at the very beginning that there were eight department requests and all of these requests are looked at from a long term perspective. There were. Several requests that I just want to highlight that did not come in from six different departments. So the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office did not have any funding requests outside of what they got previously, so no additional requests. Finance and H.R. also are not asking for any additional funds this year, although there is a technology ask that directly assists and improves the efficiency in finance in h.r. Base for use is not asking for any additional funds and AMP is not it either?
Speaker 0: We had a public speaker four back on page 25.
Speaker 3: Donna Lieberman or maybe what we could do if if the speaker. What I'd like to do is to go through have all the departments go through.
Speaker 0: And look.
Speaker 3: At them holistically. So you're not saying yes to one without looking at what the next request is?
Speaker 0: I just want to let her speak. We won't we're not making any direction right now. But then she can speak and not be here for the next how many hours? Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I have to the light so I won't be able to see you.
Speaker 6: Thank you for this opportunity. I'm here as the president of the Downtown Business Association and specifically to talk about what is the fate and future of the Carnegie Library. The Carnegie the outside is stunning. The inside is awesome. That word, you know, is overused but doesn't really describe this incredible building. This building is about history, it's about art, it's about architecture.
Speaker 0: And it's about a rare and unique experience. You only have to walk into.
Speaker 6: The door to feel that it's a very special building and art and architecture have a tremendous effect on our everyday lives. Resilient communities need.
Speaker 0: Access to.
Speaker 6: Good quality physical infrastructure.
Speaker 0: Where people can bond and connect places that enhance.
Speaker 6: Our opportunities for social interaction and enhancing our quality of life. There is no getting around the impact of the design and architecture of this building.
Speaker 0: Being able to give us that specific opportunity by not just saving it but by inviting us in. Why is this important.
Speaker 6: To let me just downtown.
Speaker 0: So if this.
Speaker 6: Gem of a rare.
Speaker 0: Space is current is.
Speaker 6: Completely or even partially.
Speaker 0: Used as a public space for art.
Speaker 6: For the Alameda Museum, treasures for pinball machines.
Speaker 0: The fact is.
Speaker 6: That it invites us in and inside to be odd, wooed, educated and inspired. Almeida's downtown needs to always.
Speaker 0: Position itself as a.
Speaker 6: Resilient community to avoid economic decline. Our downtown has a challenge in order to.
Speaker 0: Maintain its viable and vital future, and some of that is in. Why do people want to come to our downtown?
Speaker 6: Why do our why is our community going to want to come there in the future? And why are people from off island going to come here? Especially when the base starts to build up and offers retail and restaurants and recreation, and so do all those other four or five projects on the.
Speaker 0: Waterfront offering the same things. So why come downtown? I believe the people will come and they'll continue.
Speaker 6: To come if we.
Speaker 0: Add value to the.
Speaker 6: Community by the decisions we're making now to make sure that we are resilient in our downtown, how do we accomplish is improving the downtown's competitive edge, making it a.
Speaker 0: Destination. And certainly the Carnegie would contribute.
Speaker 6: To this embracing the arts and culture and the creativity not only of our heritage, but of our local community. By celebrating it in this building, by attracting new and visiting populations.
Speaker 0: Giving them more reasons to come, play, stay and spend.
Speaker 6: Their money in great places, hopefully helping our budget out.
Speaker 0: Drawing the attention to.
Speaker 6: Customers away from that one dimensional shopping experience that they're used to having before to a trip that's more valuable and culturally anchored. Downtowns across the country are.
Speaker 0: Being revitalized because our society is seeking something.
Speaker 6: New. They're seeking community.
Speaker 0: Places of authentic. I almost.
Speaker 6: Had it. 3 minutes. Sorry. Places of authentic experiences no longer homogenized shopping and.
Speaker 0: Buying, but authentic experiences offering.
Speaker 6: Uniqueness. A sense of place. A place of belonging.
Speaker 0: So how can our.
Speaker 6: Alameda Downtowns continue to promote.
Speaker 0: Attract anchor this sense of wanting to be here? If we cannot.
Speaker 6: Elevate our offerings, our values and our uniqueness. Invite us in.
Speaker 0: Invite us into the Carnegie, this cultural destination. Make it a place of work and experience a legacy decision.
Speaker 6: To honor its cultural value to our community now and in the future. Andrew. Andrew Carnegie is quoted to have lived by this.
Speaker 0: All is well since all grows better.
Speaker 6: So let's grow better. Invite us in. And as one of our speakers said.
Speaker 0: Tonight, keep Alameda.
Speaker 6: As great as it is.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other public speakers besides. All right, so the Archers are here. Did you want to speak at this point or did you want. It's another ten pages. The presentation before we get to Richmond Park. Your choice. You could speak now or do you want to wait? You want us to jump to rec and park? We take that department out of order. Maybe. What would you like to do?
Speaker 1: If you want. But.
Speaker 0: And Norma's eating her time, too, Lil. So he'll have 6 minutes.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You're welcome, Mr. Arness.
Speaker 8: We have to be up for 630 tomorrow for the golf for the children at the golf course. So we're happy to be here this evening. They always say. The best laid plans of mice and men are due to come true today. So I'm going to try to take my time in the time of my wife. To address two things. One will be a verbal presentation. And a second one will be a thing that happened today to me, which I think you're going to be interested in. And you will hear later from our Director of Recreation and Parks regarding our request. What I plan to do during my verbal communication is basically this. Probably outside the three arches, my left, which is he and Frank and Trish, who know Alameda very well. Alameda is a third city in L.A. in California to be recognized as a recreation commission beside Los Angeles, number one, San Francisco to Alameda, number three. 1907. That was done. Over the years, the city of Alameda is known for its recreational attitude in all aspects, from water to land in terms of James and the estuary in the bay. They have been recognized by the California Parks and Recreation Society. In the early sixties as one of five top recreation cities in California. Now that is no mean feat. That is in a tribute to the people that laid the foundation for you today. And here is what I'm trying to say. Parks and Recreation are a vital part of this community. Nothing. Nothing means more to me than the Parks and Recreation. I love all the other department fire, police, public works, you name it, and they will tell you I've supported them. However, there's a definite flaw here that's evolving, that has evolved. And I hope that you up there will finally take the time and horsepower to change it. 72% of your budget goes to police, fire and public works. A piddly 5% go to recreation of parks. That is what you call taking it to the lowest level. The City Council in the past 15 to 20 years have cared less about recreation and parks and to prove the point, they wanted to sell the golf course. As you well know, the par three. And until I put on measure and 92, they wanted to sell off ten acres of the South Court of the Jack Clark. And what happens when you get the money, you spend it. After that's gone, you have nothing. But she'll always have a part. You go to San Diego, you got Balboa Park, you go to San Francisco, Golden Gate. You go to New York. You have Central. You go to many places to New Orleans, which are rife with parks and playgrounds. So what I'm going to do now in terms of telling you what has happened in the past. We're very proud of that history. I'm going to have passed out. Q Which will be a visual? Just play, and I'd like you to follow me in it and I'll take up most of my time at that. So with the help of my wife here, she's going to give these out, I think. No, I'll take it. This is the mayor of Spencer and to Frank and. Please follow me in the presentation. And you will see all the history done by the very capable Woody Meyer. I do not know how many of you have read this book or have even seen it. It has a wonderful history of the city, of the parks. It tells you where the parks were. It tells you about the homes that were built on it. It tells you about the history of the Neptune beaches and parks. Mastic Senior Center and Alameda in general. It is a most informative recreation book. Yeah, it's been posted by any city in the state of California. Page by page. Park by park, trim center, waterways, golf courses, you name it. I can see you are very enthralled with him. Thank you. You should be. Haven't been a recreation leader in the city of Oakland across the bay which couldn't hold a candle to us. Anyhow, said that in this booklet I'm going to have you refer to Page. 55. Page 55. In there, you'll see parks and facilities. Oh, that's my 3 minutes. Now it's up to my wife, and she'll certainly assist me by being quiet like she always does.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 8: That's already made it just. What I'm showing you here is this. These are actual facts. From 1995 till the president, we have taken on 11 new park areas. In here. We have had not added one person. On a path to maintenance. In almost 20 years, we have not hire a park person. That is death to all part. You cannot buy a home and maintain it with a nice lawn and flowers and new roof unless you put money aside to take care of it. Why people do this. Something I can't understand. I would like some of you to do what I have done for 20 years. This is a fact known. The last 20 years, I have put in personally between 501000 hours a year volunteering at our parks, painting bleachers, cleaning toilets, restrooms, playing slide, tightening bowls, you name it. Not only tens of thousands of people come to these parks a year. I'm talking hundreds of thousands go by any park in the morning and see the mothers congregate there with their children, getting ready for a lunch and breakfast. And her husband. Why should people having picnics? Why should people just laying down sleeping? Watch Washington and Lincoln Park on the weekends where there are sports programing. Hundreds of thousands of people. You don't get it. And I want to reiterate. Alameda is known for its recreation and parks. And I quote this to be a fact. Whenever surveys were taken by the late David Kauffman as the Elevator Times Star, they'd have a survey done about every five years. Recreation and parks were always number one by the people. Always, without a doubt. If you pick up a paper on a weekend, it looked at home for sale. Look at them. What? What do they say? They don't say located near a fire house, police station, whatever they say. Located near a nice park. Located near a school. This is what you represent. You represent the people. You represent people that use our facility every day. So I am here tonight. And I have to tell you, I'm getting near the end of my talk. I understand. Yeah. I was up there like you for 11 years. People would come before you with a wish list, like a kid in a candy store. I'll take one of those. I'll take one of these. Give me this. Give me that. I did it for 11 years in a castle. Yeah. When I came on the council, we were at a deficit after Prop 13. And when I left with Bill Norton, we had a 25 to $30 million reserve because we watched what we were doing and we budget it properly. So we're asking you to look at some of the requests in here by other departments, which if I was up there, I would certainly question. But I'm not going to because they have their own reasons. But. The park workers. I do not know if you'd understand if. You just aren't. For example, let's say each one of you assigned to Linkin Park, you don't do Linkin Park. You might do it in the morning. Get in your car and go do Woodstock. The next day you're Linkin Park. You go out there, Godfrey, you jump around. You jump around like a fly on a window. They don't keep you in one place. And so therefore, the park is not getting the attention. And if there's one thing you love to hear, it's people say nice things. Now, in closing. You are going to be opening up the gene sweetie part. You will all be there that day with a shovel in your hand and you're going to be busting buttons all over your chest. How proud you are. But unless you find the damn thing properly, it's going to look like the railroad tracks they are today. Lousy. So unless you have a commitment to take on the additional 35 acres that the city will take on to this coming year, not only with the Gene Sweeney Park, unless you are willing and able to take this on, then don't fund the park. Just leave it later. But I don't think that you're intent. I think that this council is a very visible and viable council and will certainly hold true to our commitment. You ran with that on your platforms. Every one of you. You said Jeff, you said that. Stick to it. Let's not be a term what we call a cheap. I'm trying to think of the right word. It's not nefarious, but it certainly amounts to a show that a mayor, member of the city council staff, I respect all of you at all times. You have a tough decision to make. And if you think the decisions are tough now, you wait on two years. When you see that first pension come in, you're really going to be upstream. Thank you so much. I always feel so welcome here. You are all very good, decent people. I know you mean well. Oh, by the way, I forgot that this was a caveat. Today's Chronicle. Peter today. That's when I started to say my talk. San Francisco, number one in the nation. For Parks. And if they have a park within walking distance of 10 minutes. Did you read that? Well, let me give you something else. Our city fathers planned it. You could take a circle, stick it in any park in Alameda. Frank Franklin, the park. Draw a one mile circle. You'll hit Washington. You think in Washington you'll hit Longfellow. Stick it in Longfellow, you'll hit Woodstock. Every park is within one mile of a veteran or citizen of the city. One mile. Godfrey Kellman Harrington on Bay Farm Island, it's in here today. And I would just like to turn it to page three. And then did Laura get the bell ready in the lower right hand corner, it says. It speaks volumes about this city's commitment to open space. Lower right hand column. And finally, they end up saying these parks are not just nice amenities. They are very important for the public and environmental health that make for a better and strong community. Don't let it get past you. Readers, I'll be looking for you to the dedication of this park and others. I'm counting on you. I'd have a real look at his budget. There are some frills in here, but. That's up to me. Thank you so much. On behalf of my wife, Shay. Thank you, dear. And for everything.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Enormous.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'm sure.
Speaker 1: The kids.
Speaker 5: Of when my kids went to school, they. They're grown young.
Speaker 1: Men now or an older man now.
Speaker 5: And they still.
Speaker 6: Remember their times at the park.
Speaker 5: They still come up to Lill and say, Gee, the parks are just.
Speaker 1: Our our childhood.
Speaker 6: Was the best. And so think about that.
Speaker 0: Thank you very.
Speaker 8: Much for your time.
Speaker 0: Have a wonderful evening. And we're actually going to take a five minute recess. Thank you. This came. We're on a roll here. We're almost done.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Mr. Potter.
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, I'm glad that we took a break, because I was wondering how I.
Speaker 0: Was going to follow Lill.
Speaker 6: So it was good that we did this. And, um.
Speaker 7: Do you have a present for us?
Speaker 6: Well, the one thing I can say, that's good. I think about our department, which is community development. And I'm Debbie Potter, the director is that we are almost exclusively a non general fund funded department. So I'm going to talk broadly. Jill mentioned that the departments that are before you this evening are departments that have requests to be made for for the upcoming budget cycle. So we are requesting 2.75 fte eas non general fund funded coming from our building and planning fund. And the first is that we are requesting a one new building inspector. We have seen over the last two years a 40% increase in building permit valuation and a 17% increase in the number of inspections over the last two years. And we expect that trend to continue. And our goal with the new inspectors to move from 2 to 3 day response time to a same day response on inspections is our goal with our new inspector. We are also requesting one new permit, TEC three, which is a permit check for planning who would help out at the permit center, which is open from 730 to 334 days a week and is going to the new permit. Tech for planning will help us re to redeploy our planner ones and planner tools so that we can get to work on a number of the referrals that the Council has directed our way. Things like bird safe buildings. Heritage oaks. Some of the other projects that we think we can really focus our attention on if we have a permit. Tech Who is. I'm relieving some of the workload for our planner, ones and twos. And then lastly, the 0.75 is an i.t systems analyst. And we do everything our whole planning process which is also connected to AMP and fire police, public works, SLA. We have not been able to keep up with all of the upgrades and emerging technologies. We've just been so busy and we are committed to trying to go green and move to electronic plan check, which we think will save personally a couple of thousand or at least a couple hundred trees a year if you saw the rolls of plans that come in. So electronic plan check is huge for us. We want to improve our permit tracking more online permits, mobile inspections. But without the IT support, we really can't get there. And that position is is one FTE, 75% of which would be paid from from building and planning. And then 0.25 of that position would be paid from the general fund. And Carolyn Hogg, the IT director, is going to talk about that. But the 0.25 would go for citywide technology work, lots of laser fish and GIS work. That really needs to be done. And then the the last thing when it comes to staffing is that we're requesting a reassignment of an existing general fund funded position from 50% to 100% time on SSA Hrb and the Collaborative for Youth Families excuse me, and children. And really we with the referrals that have been coming from council regarding the homeless, you know, the importance to be tackling the homeless policy for the city, the immigration services and policy and some of the other service requests that have been coming in. We do need the redeployment of of that position. As I mentioned, we are almost exclusively non general fund funded. This is a list of all the various revenue sources that fund our department. Our projection is a $7.3 million budget that goes up to a little over 8 million next year and then up to 8.2 million in 1819 . And that really reflects the increased staffing positions that that's being requested. And then just over half of our budget is spent on staff and then services and supplies is the other big 35% or so, which is our consultant contracts, our facade program, the marketing materials that we put together to fund economic development, those kinds of things. And I did go over our new request. I talked about our staffing, and then with staff comes the need to provide the inspector with a car and reconfigure the office. And we have a carryover request for a project that we didn't get to this year, but we plan to do next year. And then I just wanted to point out the public art, which is a general fund transfer. The upcoming public art ordinance is going to clarify that we want all the money that's collected coming into the art fund to go for actual public art so that the general fund would then cover the cost of administering the public art . That is the request, and that's an ongoing $10,000 a year to do the work to administer the public art fund. So that's a quick overview of the Community Development Department. And now I'm going to pass it over to Doug Long, the chief who's going to talk about the fire department. Thanks.
Speaker 0: But even in chief.
Speaker 2: Even Madame Mayor. Council Member. City Staff. The Gong Fire Chief. Okay. I'll start off with revenue for the fire department. So. Most of everything that we have is comes from the general fund. But. We gain revenues through our ambulance transports, our GMT fund reimbursements and our inspection fees. We get general fund support for our personnel costs and we receive funding through the SAFER Grant to fund. Six of our firefighters at this time. That grant is scheduled to run out in January of 2018. However, because we don't have all those positions filled, we've lost people in academies. If our extension to the grant is granted through FEMA, our funds for those firefighters will extend out to approximately January of 2019. So we can we can extend those funds out. Without without the extension. We're looking at about. $956,000 in overtime, which would cover that that year of of 1819 if the grant is extended. We are looking at about $398,000 in overtime that will be needed for five months and that will be a maximum amount based on sick leave usage and vacation leaves. We have our community paramedic and program, which is completely grant funded at this time. It goes until November of 17. At that time, if there is additional funding through Alameda County or Alameda Health Systems, who is funding it currently will continue with the pilot program. Our expectation is, is that program will be continued for another year as a pilot. We also receive funding for our CERT program, which is of Citizen Emergency Response Team. That is Alameda County Grant. We also receive. Funding for our senior safety program and. The $12,000 is for personnel costs, an additional $20,000, which we don't actually receive, or modifications for senior safety, which are grab rails and things like that. That's funded through the housing authority and a community development block grant.
Speaker 0: Before you move on, I want to ask on the ground, is there a commitment from the county to pay that for those years that you have here? Is that each year that they evaluate.
Speaker 2: Continually rolls over and we generally actually receive more than that.
Speaker 0: And I do highly recommend the program to anyone for you. You sign up, you take all these classes, and then we have a disaster. We will be calling you to step up.
Speaker 2: Our expenditures. Most of our expenditures are for personnel costs. We also have funding for our services and supplies. Capital outlay. In 1617, we purchased a ventilation prop for practicing ventilation drills. That was EMT funds. And the remainder is for the funding for the Fire Prevention Bureau. Also have debt service for our for also funding I bank loan for our new fire station EOC an internal loan for vehicles. The Fire Department's request going forward to continue to provide the service that we do for the citizens of Alameda. We have some vehicle requests. We have an aging fleet. First requests, which would come from the general fund, is for $922,000. And that would replace the existing engine three. It would move down to a reserve status. And the oldest engine that we have would be retired, which is 26 years old and nine years past its maximum life for our fleet manager with the city. A second request is for replacing an ambulance. It is currently 21 years old, which is 13 years beyond its maximum life. And. Not replacing these vehicles will continue to have high maintenance cost or the inability to actually put these vehicles in service. We're finding that they're so old, it's actually hard to find parts when they do break down. Our third request, which will be for from General Fund for a division chief, which would start in the second year of the budget 1819, which would be a division chief slash fire marshal to oversee the new Fire Prevention Bureau and the and disaster preparedness with the construction of the Emergency Operations Center. Continuing and scheduling. Training. Resiliency for the city. There is a lot of interaction with outside agencies to develop a plan and coordinate. The needs of the city.
Speaker 0: Before you move on. On the not on the engine. That's 26 years old. Do you look at mileage on. Those are just years.
Speaker 2: We look at mileage and years. Per fleet services manager. We should have our our. Engine companies front line for 12 years and then in a reserve status for five years. But means they are the backup. And when the front line vehicle goes in for a service or is damaged or needs repairs or for whatever reason that reserve is is able to move up. Our reserves are also used for recall personnel when we have large events and we need additional staffing and additional units put into service are recalled personnel, staff, those reserve rigs.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm like.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: On the engine. I just want to before you move on, you.
Speaker 2: Got to the criteria is total life is 17 years or 85,000 miles.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then at some point, can you share how many thousands of miles are on this that that kind of information, not just the years. It is part of the some friends or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, how many miles.
Speaker 1: Is.
Speaker 0: Good practice or whatever and how many miles are on these?
Speaker 2: I don't have the miles for the reserve engine, which is a 1991. Your engine is 26 years old, which is nine years beyond its maximum life. The Pierce Engine and existing Engine three is a 2007. It has 56,000 miles on it. We'd like to get that into its reserve status so that it still has remaining life in it as a reserve unit. This Engine three was scheduled to be replaced in the last two year budget. We were asked to bump it to this budget so that we would spread out our vehicle purchases so that they wouldn't all be due at one time because they are costly and. You know, maintaining the service and staying on the schedule will keep us from having these large costs for maintenance. I was asked by Councilmember Ashcroft when I came back for an additional $879,000 for outside vehicle repairs. What we can do to eliminate that happening in the future. And it's it's staying on schedule with with the maintenance and replacing them when they need to be replaced.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft.
Speaker 7: So I'm speaking of vehicles, and I should probably know this, but last month, the council approved the personnel for the Fire Prevention Bureau. I think it was three positions, and we also approved the purchase of a couple of vehicles for the inspectors. And those are just like cars. They're not emergency vehicles, is that correct?
Speaker 2: They are emergency vehicles. What we do is we we purchase the same vehicle at the authorization recommendation of the fleet manager so that they are all the same. That standardizes the fleet and without them being. Position specific. We can move them throughout the fire department. As far as mileage and age so that we get the full life out of them, so that if they're a vehicle that's starting to rack up some miles, we can transfer that vehicle to a person who. Doesn't doesn't rack up as many miles so that we get the full life out of the vehicles.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I actually was thinking in terms of of pools, because I think it was Miss Potter in the Community Development Department. There's a couple of vehicles I think budgeted for or being requested for those inspectors. And so I you know, I realize we'd be crossing lines, but does the city do we do any sort of a vehicle pool where there's you know, if you need a car, you check and see the availability or you schedule it ahead of time. And so that's something I'd like to be considered and maybe hear more information coming back. And the other thing is, I think we all need to be mindful of environmental impacts of our our transport and and especially when we're talking about building inspections. Those are short run trips. Those are hard on engines, too. It's you know.
Speaker 2: And that's part of the emergency, right. Vehicle purchases. It's my understanding that they have larger rotors for the brakes. They just they just tend to last longer. We have the week manager here. And so the whole details of I.
Speaker 7: Mean, I try to stay at a 30,000 foot level at this point, but I'd like us to consider emission free vehicles and smaller vehicles. And if, you know, if it doesn't have to do double and triple duty, it could we could we save some money and replacement costs over time?
Speaker 3: And we when we get to public works, there's a good story there about their request for pool vehicles because they use a lot of pool vehicles. It really depends on the job. And if you're an inspector, it's a very different kind of need for a vehicle than if you're someone who goes out sporadically. But Public Works has decided to do electric vehicles, and so they are postponing their requests for vehicles to year number two and doing electric vehicle. Plug in areas in year one.
Speaker 7: That sounds very enticing. I look forward to hearing more about that when they do their presentation. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: For matter. I see.
Speaker 2: I'm Chief. If you don't get the division chief, what is it that is happening today that you won't be able to do? We're getting ready to build out a fire prevention bureau as we're starting to get into the nuts and bolts of what that looks like. What we're seeing is we have the what we like to call boots on the ground, the people that are going to be out doing the work. What we are falling short on is the person who is going to coordinate that work and write the policy or that work through the analysis of the city. As far as where are our hazards, what kind of a plan and program do we need in place? So if you don't take the city, this person, what would you do? It'll it'll be a shared responsibility. My concern is, as we start looking at what a fire marshal does, having that fragmented. I understand. What will you do if you don't get the person? It is. It's a shared responsibility right now and will continue to be shared. If that person is not, it will be shared. What I'm looking at now is, is if we have some overtime savings in this year for the first month. Of the Fire Prevention Bureau in this fiscal year. I would I would move somebody into their full time to try to get at least an existing person, an existing person. So there'll be no new purge burden that comes with. No, no. But they'd be coming from someplace and without funding at the beginning of the next fiscal year, they would go back. And if the, the, the no request was without the request budget gets approved. Are there going to be any services that you're currently doing that are going to not be done like fire prevention? Because the city council I've seen a couple of presentations now where it says the city council restored the Fire Prevention Bureau. The city council doesn't. Remove the Fire Prevention Bureau. It doesn't restore it. The fire department and the city manager do that. We just approve the head count. And I that's a very important point for the public to understand. And that's why I'm asking the question is. In the Corps Fire Services. Ah. If we approve a budget that does not have your request in it for personnel, what is. What is going to be what service is going to be cut today, if any, or we're going to just continue with the service that we have. You will you will have the service that you have for emergency response. Okay. We will not build a robust fire prevention bureau. We have people to get out and do the inspections and someone that's going to train to do the plan checks. But what we're going to fall short on is somebody that's going to coordinate. All of that work going forward. I think we'll have a lot of things that fall through the cracks as far as trying to stay up on adopting current fire codes, knowing what directives are coming down from the the state fire marshal. Having somebody in meetings with city staff to to go over plans for whether it's Alameda Point or the Northern waterfront. I would hate to have something in those in those plans in development get missed because we don't have a fire marshal to attend and have input on on those meetings. But we do have a fire marshal now. Right. So I would assume that city management would try and work that and then come to council if. Something is falling behind, like the inspections that fell behind. You wouldn't let that happen again, right?
Speaker 3: Right. And then this request, just to highlight it is for 18, 19, not four, 17, 18. So the request is for next.
Speaker 2: Question is still the same.
Speaker 3: And with the plant. Yes, but what the plan is, is there is five division chiefs right now. What we're looking at going forward, if is one of those is funded.
Speaker 2: Right. Funded.
Speaker 3: Grant funded and we anticipate that grant ending. And so that's why this 306 would replace that position if that position goes away because of lack of grant funds.
Speaker 2: And that's the safer for grant that no, that is the community medicine. Right. And that's what the second year is. And community peer medicine is to me is not a core fire. A fire.
Speaker 3: Suppression.
Speaker 2: Mission. And one of the things that comes to my mind is that we got this grant. We have our most expensive employee is a fully trained, fully sworn firefighter doing something that an hour in that's less cost could be doing and it's away from the mission. Meanwhile, the mission says we have fire prevention and we do inspections and there have to be done by sworn firefighters. So here we are doing community para medicine and ignoring a corps. Fire Department mission of doing fire prevention. And that's the that's the comments that I've heard. That's the logic that when I look at at that balance, it it was maybe a nice idea to backfill the budget, but. We're two in 28% of the inspections, and you don't have a fire prevention bureau and you're doing that now. So I the ghost ship pushed us to that. But. Right. That's that's the that's the thing. I'm kind of that's the challenge I'm laying to. Management Council doesn't isn't supposed to come up with the answers. Management is supposed to do so. That's that's my comment on this. So with the with the community peer medicine grant, that is strictly for community paramedics. And we can't use those people for anything else. So it's it's not costing the the city anything to have those people in place. What it's enabling us to do is we have always had a division chief over our EMS division that handles all of our EMS related issues, that is front running and maintaining our ambulance transport system, maintaining all the certifications for all the paramedics and EMT and continuing education in the fire department. We've had the luxury and he is still overseeing EMS. We've had the luxury of having the community peer medicine grant or pilot program pay for that division chief for the last three years. But that grant ends at the end of 17 in November. So at that point and when we're asking for this position. If we do not have a division chief to oversee the EMS division, then there will be devastating effects because we'll only have one chief beside myself in the office handling all of operations on one side and all of the support services on the other side. So. There would there would be a major effect if this is not funded. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Sit here. Chief, you you mentioned that there are extremely high vehicle maintenance costs. And if you could just kind of cover or just give us a ballpark of what those those are relative to the vehicles you're asking to replace. If you have.
Speaker 1: That number or estimate.
Speaker 2: You know, off the top of my head, we just we just spent $45,000 on a engine rebuild. I know that we have a fire truck in the shop right now that needs a new transmission. That's $15,000. There are large. Hydraulic pistons that raise and lower the. The ladders we've had to replace those very expensive but. When you get to that point, I had to make the decision to go ahead and replace the transmission on this older 1995 truck, because two years ago, we replaced the engine in it. Mm hmm. So. Not taking care of it and getting more life out of it now with a new motor in it. Right. It doesn't make sense. But we're going to get to the point now where we have these very old fire engines. We're going to start running into exactly the same thing. Mm.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Brody.
Speaker 5: I just want to make sure I'm clear on the division, chief. So it's no increase in headcount, so you're not asking for an additional body. You're just asking for a budget line item transfer. And the person will still be there doing the same duties. But now the funding source has to change.
Speaker 2: It's funded through the through the county right now. Right. So, yes, it will need to be funded by the city.
Speaker 5: But you're not we're not asking to increase the headcount and add anybody. We're just we're not adding a FTE or another employee. We're just paying for one that we've already paid for and some other.
Speaker 2: We need that.
Speaker 5: Position this year and next year.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So I think.
Speaker 0: And so when you have a situation like that, when you bring in grant money and you hire someone is and this is from the county. Then when the grant ends and normally does the department, does the city pick up that or does that position end?
Speaker 2: It depends what the position is. As far as community medicine goes. The expectation is, is that when. This grant runs out that there may be a mechanism put in place to continue the program once it's adopted as part of their normal scope of practice. Whether Medicare starts putting funds toward it because at this point, because it's just a pilot program, there are no funding mechanisms permanently in place will continue.
Speaker 0: Regarding this division chief, the 306,000, that's something from the county, right. Is that for the paramedic here, medicine program.
Speaker 2: Is he is funded through the community paramedic program right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're anticipating that funding is going to end November.
Speaker 2: Yes, in November.
Speaker 0: Okay. Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. So, Chief Plant, can you tell us it's been about a month since the council approved your request, at least part of your request for three new staff for the Fire Prevention Bureau. Can you tell us what you've done with those folks since that time?
Speaker 2: Well, since we've gotten authorization to do that, we have scheduled our interviews for people who would like to be in the Fire Prevention Bureau. We have several of those complete. The rest get completed next week. They are scheduled to go into the office on the 30th as their positions aren't funded with the city until the 28th of May. We have acquired a space at City Hall West directly across from the EMS division and. Public Works has put in the the electrical outlets that we need. We have ordered cubicle office spaces which will be delivered on the 25th and installed along with the other office furniture. The vehicles are on order. And we're coming up with a plan for distribution of the inspections themselves as to who's going to get them done, what the responsibility will be.
Speaker 7: So. So you started interviewing personnel who who are interested in these positions? The the assistant chief, whatever that position was one of.
Speaker 2: The top assistant fire marshal.
Speaker 7: It's a classified that is that position known who will fill it or not yet?
Speaker 2: I'm still interviewing.
Speaker 7: You're still interviewing. Okay. So when do you anticipate having finished all your interviews and having made a decision decisions?
Speaker 2: By the end of next week.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 2: So my final interviews are on the 23rd. I'll know after.
Speaker 7: That. And the funding doesn't actually come through until the 28th.
Speaker 2: The 28th.
Speaker 7: So because that 3000 plus list of uninspected buildings just, you know, hangs over me like a cloud. Have we have we made some progress whittling that number down or is it as high as it was last time I looked at the numbers.
Speaker 2: The the commercial inspections remain higher. We're we're getting more of the residential inspections done. A lot of what staff has been doing since the prevention bureau was authorized is taking that whole list of inspections and coordinating by date range when they were last inspected. So that we will start with the oldest and work through that first push back ones that have been done more recently so that your concerns will be met. As far as the ones we haven't been in the longest amount of time, but it's a matter of breaking down all of all of the inspections because basically when the Fire Prevention Bureau closed in 2009, all the inspections, all the commercial inspections that were passed down. From the inspectors in the office were passed down to suppressions. We need to pull all those out. And reassign them and then reassign all the residential inspections so that they're more evenly spread so that we get them all done.
Speaker 7: And so you'll get the funding on the 28th of this month. And then I think you told us earlier I had another meeting that there would still need to be some training. So when do we anticipate having those boots on the ground actually going out and doing the inspections.
Speaker 2: Starting the 28th? They're going to get a refresher class on the SLA program, which is how we track all the inspections. They'll get the class of that day. They will get a class from internal people that used to be in the Fire Prevention Bureau on getting the inspections done in these commercial buildings. Any of the little extra things that they're not used to doing on the on the suppression side of things. And then we'll watch for the classes to become available. They'll still be able to go out and do inspections. But as inspector classes and plant checking classes come up, we'll be sending them to those classes.
Speaker 7: Okay. But as of the 29th, we should see more inspections taking place.
Speaker 2: Yes, on the on the 30th.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Also in regards to the fire engines or trucks, I'm going to ask, do we keep track of where those vehicles are driven such that are they only driven to emergencies? Or is there any reason why we would see a fire engine or a truck, for instance, at Safeway? Because I'm thinking if these have such high mileage, do we monitor to make sure that they're only used for emergencies as opposed to another vehicle like a passenger car?
Speaker 2: No, because when they get to work at 8:00 in the morning and get assigned to their fire engine or fire truck or ambulance, they are assigned to that as a company, as a crew for the whole 24 hour shift. Everywhere they go, they're on call. They're ready to go. So whether they're out inspecting or whether they're at a class training, whether they're out in the public at a community event, they remain a crew on, that is a fire apparatus so that if a car comes in, they can go. It's a it's a common question in the community why we are at the store with a fire truck and it's.
Speaker 0: Grocery shopping or because.
Speaker 2: Because what? We eat, we live there for basically 48 hours.
Speaker 0: And they have to take a fire engine that when we have this kind of mileage issue, they can't just take a regular.
Speaker 1: Car.
Speaker 2: It will if they take the car, then they're not in service as a fire engine.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, say free deliveries now as they're possible. Maybe we'll look into something like that, because you're telling me I mean, you're telling us that we have, you know, a 26 year old engine and yet so. So I think we have to be mindful of when we use these vehicles because we have to pay for them. And honestly, I don't understand why in the world we would need to have a crew go grocery shopping with a fire engine when we have to figure out a way to keep the mileage low, because we can't replace these vehicles. We can't replace everything. Right. We saw the earlier just so I appreciate the comment in regards to Safeway delivers, but I think any time we have these vehicles out grocery shopping and getting coffee. It's hard for me to tell our public that, okay, we have to pay for that. And that's that doesn't really seem like the highest and best use of taxpayer dollars. And I think it's going to be hard for anyone to be able to justify that because we don't have unlimited funds. So I'd appreciate it if you all can figure out a way to have groceries delivered, get a coffeemaker if you need to have coffee, but you're on. This is taxpayer dollars and we cannot afford to replace engines. We don't have that kind of money. If it's being used to and from an emergency or a training, that's one thing. But other than that, I mean, honestly. Grocery shopping. No hanging out at Pete's. No, no, I don't want I don't think it's appropriate. And I think it's very hard for you to sit up here when you have genuine concerns to have to rationalize something like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I just would like to just clarify that when they go to the grocery store, it's generally part of their their day, whether they're coming back from a class, whether they're out doing something else, it's just looped in as part of their day. I actually you may disagree with me, but I like my people to be out in the community and accessible. I would rather have them sit down and have their coffee break.
Speaker 0: But the fire engine, that's my issue.
Speaker 2: Well, it's another vehicle.
Speaker 0: They're connected.
Speaker 2: They're connected to their fire engine. And if they're not there, they're not available for an emergency.
Speaker 3: And I think the chief is responding from an operations point of view and from your request. Question is also about the vehicle efficiency. And when we were looking at all the vehicles, there's a formula that our fleet manager looks on and it's number of years, age of the vehicle, life expectancy of the vehicle and vehicles miles traveled . And in most cases, because Alameda is an island and relatively small, we hit the criteria of age before we hit the criteria of miles. And as the chief said, this fire engine is 26 years old. It's nine years past what the criteria is or when we should replace that vehicle.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. And but I was here for the earlier part of the presentation. $23 million a year gaps plus as the years pass we are looking at that was we we saw that pie chart. Those are the other departments in the city. Right. So so I appreciate that you may really appreciate having your crew out and about being visible. I also want to be able to have parks. I want to be able to have our public works. Are our streets maintained? We're going to be making some very tough decisions. And it's going to be impossible for me to sit up here and rationalize, okay, all I'm going to be not funding a park so that our officers are not our officers. Our fire can hang out with their crew, grocery shopping. And we have to be able to hear ourselves what we're saying, because we saw the chart year after year, $23 million we don't have. It will be painful. Personally, I think we need to start thinking how can we save money now? Because the cumulative effect will be very painful. So I'm just suggesting if there's a way to do it, put in fewer miles on these vehicles. I would appreciate it. Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And you know, I think we all may have a little different perspective on this. We do have some very alarming numbers, indebtedness looming before us. I think we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of symbolism that may feel good but not really make much of a difference. We do need to do some cutting and some more, you know, funding are these trust funds. But I mean, I'm the city manager says they're reaching their age before they hit the mileage numbers. And even if we said drive them until they're 30 years old, I don't I don't think I mean, I do understand that a fire crew can get called to an emergency from wherever they are and then they drop everything. And so, you know, well, and but again, we all have different perspectives and we're all going to vote and make these decisions. So I would just come at it a little differently. I want to look at at real substantial savings. And we'll be talking to your department about that. I'm okay with those trucks at the grocery store for now, given the other numbers that the fleet manager has provided. So that's my $0.02. It's going to take more than $0.02 to get.
Speaker 3: And when we get to the end of this presentation, you'll be able to look and compare recreation and parks and all these requests all together. Maybe with that I can call up. All right. Is that.
Speaker 2: I'm through with my presentation. Any further questions?
Speaker 0: Anyone know on the fire engines what the miles per gallon is?
Speaker 3: If they're very.
Speaker 0: Smart, maybe you could come back with that number.
Speaker 2: I can. I can find.
Speaker 0: Out. That'd be great. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Okay. And so next up is our chief of police a for Larry.
Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor. Council members. Paul Hillary, chief of police.
Speaker 0: Good evening, chief.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I will try to be brief. The police department budget over the next few years, the only increases that you will see are the projected rate contract raises over the next few years. The department is always funded at about 90 or 93% of it personnel costs and only about six or 7% of non personnel costs. So those are the only really significant changes that you'll see throughout the projections.
Speaker 0: That sounds great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Pretty quick. My only request and this is this is out of an abundance of I don't like to always use the word transparency, but I don't want to surprise you or anyone else. I'm anticipating that at some point during the next two years that I would be presenting a staff report and asking for your permission and authorization to get fixed license plate readers at the bridges, in the tunnels, in and out of town. I am conscious that that is a larger policy discussion with lots of other issues. As you know, we had the we have the mobile cars that have them. There's four and. Like I said, this is a discussion. That would have to be had at a later date. What I'm the reason why I'm bringing it up tonight is that. It's going to cost about $500,000 if we did it. So whether you choose to set that aside for now or and say, okay, we'll wait and hear your presentation, or if you'd rather I bring it to you as a mid-year adjustment item, I'm happy to do that. But I didn't want to surprise you at any point during the two years and have you say, Well, why didn't I come? We're hearing about this for the first time.
Speaker 0: I thought we already had them.
Speaker 2: We do. On cars.
Speaker 7: Not fixed.
Speaker 1: But.
Speaker 2: They're on for four separate patrol cars.
Speaker 0: All right. Member Ashcraft and the member.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So I had to mark this as one to ask you about. So what's the problem we're trying to solve here?
Speaker 2: Well, the problem. I'll give you a really quick anecdotal one. You were all here two weeks ago, last council meeting, when Monique Williams came up and spoke very eloquently about the murder of her son at the bowling alley back around Thanksgiving. And she had some questions at that time, which I've since answered for the council and for her regarding her perception that that we had cameras on certain intersections or in the area, and we don't. And so I'm I can't sit here and look you straight in the eye and tell you that I would have been able we would have been able to solve that murder with a license plate reader with a fixed license plate reader. But I will tell you, with 100% confidence that we would be much further along in the investigation because we know what car the shooter was in. What we don't know is the license plate number. And and if in if we had had that information available to us, for example, going over the bridge or after one of the the the tube that night, we would have been able to narrow it down and probably would have found that car. BIDEN Months ago. So that's my anecdotal. What are we trying to solve here?
Speaker 0: You want to do that? Yeah.
Speaker 7: And as I recall, you wrote a very eloquent letter to the mother that, you know, you copied as on and but you also mentioned that if you had cooperation from the witnesses there.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, you.
Speaker 7: Would you would have the information. Absolutely. So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true. And I'm not I don't mean to suggest member Ashcroft that that it's solely because of the camera. I'm just saying that was a big that would have been a big piece for us. Having the cooperation of the people who were there and witnessed it would have been also equally as important.
Speaker 7: But before that incident happened and it's been a couple of months now before that, what is I mean, is it because you're getting such impressive results from your mobile cameras or you feel that we're we're missing something? I mean, we're still a fairly low crime rate city, right? Because we have that excellent police department. Go ahead and Jill in there.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So that's true. Our crime rate has generally remained flat or has even gone down in some areas, even though some surrounding communities have seen an uptick. We certainly have seen that more in property crimes. We've only always been fairly fortunate. The last incident that I described decide to not have a high violent crime rate, which I think we're all thrilled with, but we do have a fair amount of property crime, stolen cars and car break ins and burglaries and things of that nature. So. License plate readers are helpful. It's not a secret. I said it in the presentation several years ago and our data has backed it up that we only get about 1% of all the scans turn into anything that leads to an arrest. So there are people on one side of the coin who will say that's a lot of money to spend for 1% return. And then I've argued, but if we solve a murder or find a missing child, or in one case we saved a woman who was trying to commit suicide. I told you all several months back during one of the audit reports, I mean, then it's worth its weight in gold. So it's part of the balancing act.
Speaker 7: That was the mobile camera, though.
Speaker 2: That was a mobile camera.
Speaker 7: Trying to fix camera wouldn't have saved her. Well.
Speaker 2: What happened in that case was we didn't know where her car was, but we had the license plate from the family. So we ran it. We just manually entered it into the system and it told us, Oh, you just scanned it at that intersection 45 minutes ago. And so we found her that way. So you're right. But you're right. The that was the mobile.
Speaker 7: Okay. Well, thank.
Speaker 2: You. I think from a budget standpoint, my question to the city managers, this is in the with department requests, correct?
Speaker 3: Yes. But we actually don't expect the council to make a decision on this.
Speaker 2: But the placeholder of half a million dollars. Yes. Is in the with the request. So rather than having the discussion of whether we should or not, the question is, should we put a half a million dollars aside or not?
Speaker 3: Right. That's the.
Speaker 2: Okay, so. I think. That's it.
Speaker 3: Just be aware of it and then make the decision when it comes before the council.
Speaker 2: And I'm happy to bring it to you in that fashion. I just didn't want you to be surprised to help you solve your crime. The crime thinks now, but I think to know that there's a half million dollars sitting out there that may be needed. That's all right. A system. That's my point. I need to know.
Speaker 0: I swear.
Speaker 1: So I think it's.
Speaker 3: A bigger policy discussion that definitely warrants its own, you know, being agenda ized and having that discussion separately. But. This is you have this just is one time costs. Is this the equipment? Is there going to be any sort of operational costs? Like are there licensing? You know, you know, there's technology licensing fees involved? Is there support ongoing? Are there going to be ongoing costs relative to that?
Speaker 2: The there might be there will be some ongoing costs for data retention if depending on what we do with that, if we keep it for a couple of days or for six months like we do on the current, that that could be an ongoing cost. But the one time the one time would be what you're looking at on the slide is the 500,000, which is the the cameras in the installation and the power to to keep it running.
Speaker 1: Okay. And we're ready.
Speaker 3: The ongoing can be absorbed in your operating.
Speaker 2: In the operational budget. It wouldn't be an additional.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5: And Brody agree that this is a larger policy discussion we have to have later. But I do want to chime in a little bit, since I know everyone else has had a few minutes to talk about it. You know, I actually have another example that, you know, when I lived on Bay Farm, there was a rash of burglaries in our neighborhood. And, you know, we were like the 10th or 11th or 12th. And then there was another, you know, dozen or so that happened afterwards. And it it took maybe another year and a half or two before they found the person who did that. And the person lived in a different city. So if. You, as the police chief for the department, were able to find that vehicle after the first or second or third one. You know, that would have solved or that would've prevented a lot of different property crimes. You know, that that would have prevented my kids coming home from high school to a bashed in front door. You know, because somebody from out of town was not able to be tracked. So, I mean, there are really legitimate law enforcement, crime solving aspects to this that do impact everyone's everyday life. And when you come back, you know, you'll have to bring a policy like you did the first time that that balances those. So that's kind of my $0.02 on that.
Speaker 0: And think you might. Well, first I want to ask, so this would be at all the places that you leave town or enter town? Is it both?
Speaker 2: Yes. And entering and exit. So it would be all the bridges, the four bridges, the Webster and the Posey tubes and the Ron Klain Parkway, because you can get to Bay Farm Island without going over a bridge.
Speaker 0: And do little or whatever that is that comes in there, too.
Speaker 2: Well, that would be covered at the bridge. Okay. That'd be covered at the bridge. But but you can get from the Oakland Airport onto Bay Farm Island by at Ron Coulon Parkway.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, personally, I am looking forward to seeing your presentation on that. Yeah, I probably will support that.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 3: Next up is recreation and parks director.
Speaker 7: I'd be really hurt.
Speaker 1: If.
Speaker 5: We heard.
Speaker 1: You had that.
Speaker 3: Next line for you to be assassinated.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director. So I want to give you a brief outline of the recreation parks budgets. Park maintenance itself is primarily funded by the general fund. There is also where you see the maintenance assessment that's Bayport Park and Marina Cove Parks. And so those the maintenance of those are funded by those particular assessment districts. For recreation programing, we have a special revenue fund that's the recreation fund, and all revenue comes into that fund as well as expenditures out. The general fund does contribute to the recreation fund and really the basis behind that has always been to fund the aspects of programs that serve recreation, programs that serve at risk, and low income populations such as Mastic Senior Center, such as our Free Parks and Playgrounds program, that's at five sites throughout the city where kids can come for absolutely no cost. It's kind of unheard of in my industry at this point. And so we should be very proud that we're still offering that Free Park Baseball, that kind of thing, and making parks and recreation accessible to everybody. We also have the maintenance senior center fundraising program, and that's our bingo programs and our thrift shop and as well as an annual donation campaign that we do. And so that fundraising program is managed by our Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board, and they volunteer and put all the effort into the fundraising, and then they distribute the funds, which helps fund some programing and also mostly funds capital improvement projects at the senior center. And then the golf fund revenues come from our revenues, our leases with or lease with Greenway Gulf for Operation and Maintenance, as well as our concession agreement, which comes on the course for food and beverage. That's the revenue. The expenditures for the Gulf Fund is things like our stormwater assessment, Harbor Bay assessment and those types of expenditures.
Speaker 7: Member Ashcraft answered a question, and this will do so in the golf fund. Why the jump in fiscal year 1718 and the dips down in. So let's see, 1617, you're projecting 360,000 and 407,017 18 then it goes down to 389. Can you explain that?
Speaker 6: The good question, the jump is because the Greenway Golf there at the start of year five, which was September 1st, 2016, their revenue went up from a bit low base amount of 75,000 a year to a 5% or minimum 300,000. So that's where the jump came in. And that was a part of this fiscal year and then a full year next fiscal year. It went down and then it goes down a bit in 1819 because conversely, Jim's on the course when their event center opens, then they get two years of waves rent, and so it then dips down for two years and that's anticipated to be open by the end of this year. Regarding new requests. As you've heard, we have as you know, we have 35 acres of new parkland coming online this this two year budget cycle. And so we are requesting to park maintenance positions to help us maintain those parks. And and those parks have been in design and planning for the last four or five years. And every time I presented to them in the community or to council, I tried very hard to make that awareness out there that maintenance would also follow once we open these parks. So but we're also trying to do it very conscientious early in that we're requesting two full time positions. We are conversely, we are actually working really hard to reduce our water maintenance or our water costs or utility costs. And so where you see the implement irrigation efficiencies, these new positions will be we'll be hiring an irrigation specialist that will be able to create significant new water efficiencies. So we actually kept our water budget flat from this fiscal year and didn't add anything, which means we'll add all 14 acres of brand new active park space, not including what's not built yet, but that will be irrigated and absorbing a 10% each year. Eastbay Mud increase. But we're not adding additional cost for either of those. We're absorbing that cost because we feel confident enough that with a new irrigation specialist we can create those water efficiencies and it's good for the environment. In addition, we are creating a reorganization of our Park Maintenance Division through attrition. So as people retire and leave, we are essentially right now we have a very flat division where we have a park manager and we have a lot of folks out in the field, the park maintenance workers. And we want to create a more robust division so that there's more efficiency, so that there's more of a breadth of skill set. And and as well, people can grow. They can come in as lower level gardeners work their way up to a maintenance one and then a maintenance two and a four person and such. So it really creates opportunities for staff advancement and also for creating a much broader skill set which serves our parks better. So with that, we have two retirements, that one that just happened and one that's as of tomorrow. And with with each of those, we're reclassifying that maintenance one position down to a gardener position. Each time we do that we save $25,000. So that 50,000 between the $115,000 savings for water and the $50,000 annual savings for those reclassifications. Really it's a it's a net general fund expense for part maintenance of about $61,000 a year with these new positions. Just briefly about the Mastic fundraising and the Adam Street Fund. I've mentioned to you at the Mastic fundraising is the Adam Street Fund. What that is, is that's a leg, what we call a legacy fund. So when people pass away and they write mastic senior center into their wills. We have two different funds that those go into and those are designated per legally per their wills to be used for mastic senior center. And so we use those for improvements at the senior center in Nebraska.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Is Adam Street the name of a person?
Speaker 6: It's the name of a street. Yeah. So.
Speaker 7: So how did it get to be the Adams chief and.
Speaker 6: Someone a long time ago named it that hasn't been renamed since.
Speaker 7: It was, but it was part of a bequest.
Speaker 6: It was a bequest where someone requested their home on Adams Street and then it was sold. And those funds went into this? Yes.
Speaker 7: So it wasn't Mr. Street, right?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 7: Sorry. Ms.. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: So you.
Speaker 3: Reference that the net expense for.
Speaker 1: The two positions.
Speaker 3: At the bottom. But so the positions are being reclassified after retirements. What what are the reclassifications that are occurring?
Speaker 6: Both positions are currently a park maintenance one, and they're being reclassified to a lower classification to gardener positions after retirements.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Just a few more points I wanted to make about our Parks division. They're incredibly hard working group of people with these new parks, Astro Park and Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park. We're adding 14 acres of new actively program that's phase one of estuary and across our nature trail. And the next phase, the eastern phase of Sweeney Park. But we still have to maintain 21 the additional 21 acres of open parkland. It still needs to be mown and taken care of and trees maintained, trash maintained. So we are increasing our park acreage by 18% and we're only asking for a 12 and a half percent increase of our park maintenance budget. And also just want to point out that we you know, we talk all the talk I talk all the time with other directors. And and so we actually went out and did a survey of how much other cities, our nearby cities, whether it's San Remo. And we looked at Dublin, which San Leandro and how much they maintain how many acres per full time staff person. And so with that, we realized that we actually maintain about twice as many acres per full time staff person. So really they're doing twice the work. And and that was five cities that we surveyed. Some of them only maintained four acres per full time staff, and we're doing 16. So we're really trying to be as efficient as possible with the staff that we have out there.
Speaker 0: Before we move on. I appreciate where you have your net general fund expense, right? You did some net. And when this comes back, if there's a way to show net on some of these positions because there's other times that this has already come up tonight where you have your gross that showing up here. But there's actually a net because of whatever reasons. I think when it comes back and we're looking at numbers of what we're going to fund or not, we need to be you can include the gross but include the net because that's the change from year to year for us. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So the last two points I want to make is, is it was mentioned before by a little earner, Eric, but we since 1995, we did have 12 full time staff. We today still have 12 full time staff. And we've taken on 43 acres of new parkland since then, not including what we're about to take on. So at some point, we need to catch up and make sure that they don't fall into disrepair moving forward. And lastly, just to clarify for Estuary Park, any time we have and for our fields in general, any revenue that we have coming in from our fields for renting those fields, that stays in the recreation, it comes into the recreation fund and that's expended our parks maintenance it out of the recreation fund. So specific field and equipment and supplies for estuary park in our other fields do come out of the recreation fund, not a park maintenance fund . So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 3: Okay. Next step is fucking life.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Go, warriors.
Speaker 9: Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jane Sawyer, library director. As you can see from this slide, the library has revenues from our library fund, which is the property tax assessment, the general fund transfer, and our adult literacy program, which includes donations and grants from the state. Half of our budget is spent on personnel, as you've heard most of the other departments. That's the bulk of the expenditures. And then supply services. One time expenses with capital outlay and our cost allocation. We? What we're asking for in the new budget year is I know you've all received requests, as I've heard, the public also ask if we could restore hours at our neighborhood libraries. So we're proposing giving a day back to both the Bay Farm Island Library and the West End Library, because the last time we reduced our budget, we took a day away. So we're going to give those same days back, and that will be an ongoing, ongoing expense out of the library fund. Then we're asking for one time expenditures to upgrade our technology. In 1718, we expect to replace and upgrade the computer lab because the computers in there are ten years old. And then in the second year, we're looking to replace pieces of equipment at the public staff stations, things like barcode readers and computer monitors, possibly printers in the public areas, small pieces of equipment like that. And that concludes my request. Any questions?
Speaker 0: I have a question. The extra day per branch. How many hours is that per day that you would be restoring?
Speaker 9: We're going to be we're going to be restoring one day each. So seven and a half hours. The branches will be open five days a week. Currently, they're open for. They'll still be closed on Fridays and Sundays. But they farm will get their Wednesday back. Weston will get their Tuesday back.
Speaker 1: After that.
Speaker 0: Our community will love that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And not general fund.
Speaker 9: And not general fund dollars. Now you can all.
Speaker 0: Clap with me. Okay. Not general fund dollars.
Speaker 9: Yes. We're very generous to have property tax increased a little.
Speaker 7: And Mr. Psaki, I know you're giving it maybe a little bit of revenue, because I read recently about the amnesty program on library funds, but it's it's pretty cool. Do you want to just briefly lay it out?
Speaker 9: Yes. Part of our summer reading program this year is our food four fines. So we are waiving overdue fines, not lost book fees or anything like that. New library cards, just overdue fines. If you bring in nonperishable food, it'll go to the Alameda Food Bank. We did this two years ago as part of our summer reading program, and it was very popular.
Speaker 7: And you filled a lot of barrels with.
Speaker 9: We filled a lot of barrels. And according to the food bank, it was the second largest collection of food. Next to the scouts scouting for food in November. And since we're doing this in the summer, it really balances. They're receiving donations at a good time of year where they tend to run a little bit short. So we'll be doing this for the month of June and I think July.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 9: You're welcome. Thank you for asking.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Great presentation. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And the next is the city manager's office. And we are 100% general fund supported. Next. No, I don't know. It's hard to go after library. And our request is this is actually not a request for a new position, but it's a request for funding. When I first got here, there had been a long history there. We went back as far as we could and there have always been two assistant city managers. And when I first got here, I thought that sounded like a lot. And now that I've been here a year, it sounds like not enough. So that's what this is, is to find this position, to respond to a lot of special projects that come up on a daily basis. And, you know, some examples are the humor that we did initially, the utility, the Utility Modernization Act. We've just had a long effort with fours. The friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, a lot of. On special projects come up that are not anticipated. So that's what this would be.
Speaker 0: So when you say you went back multiple years, how far back did you go where? We've always had two assistant city managers.
Speaker 6: 20.
Speaker 3: There's.
Speaker 0: So that was when when this started 20 years ago, is when we started having our back.
Speaker 6: And that's how far back we looked. Mm hmm. That's how far back our records we could look at our records.
Speaker 0: So that we have. Okay. So did we have other staff members that worked in the city manager's office? Yes. But our.
Speaker 1: Position.
Speaker 3: In this last year is we hired a public information officer. And so we've we've had that additional.
Speaker 0: So are you proposing to get rid of the public information officer?
Speaker 3: This is and to fill the public information officer position was added about a year and a half ago. It was funded and filled about a year ago, a little more than a year ago. And this position during that time period was left vacant. And so this is. Fill that in. It's a legit question.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: A member matter.
Speaker 2: SC In the slide you reference that refer increasing numbers of referrals. As. As one of the duties of the manager's office that this position may support. One of the things in listening to Mr. Potter's presentation. The slides on there are very descriptive of what that department does as far as inspections and plan checks and all the planning functions. And I understand most of that money revenue comes from the fees for permits and plans and applications. So they're doing the applicant business, the business of the applicants moving applications through. And these are the way I look at the referrals. Most of the referrals that take the most time that haven't been done are planning related. And that's the people's business because they lay down the the track or the ordinances or the policies that applicants are supposed to file. Is there any possibility or or thought to having this position or some sort of funding from this position? Do the people's business in planning so that instead of it being something, well, we'll hire a planned check or three to help free up time for someone to work on these ordinance updates that we have, someone who's always working on ordinance updates so that the people's business can be carried on. And then applications follow the new ordinances because there's a whole package of those ordinances that are all environmental. So you look at straws, you look at birds, you look at trees, you look at light, those are are all. And then there are some that are you know, the applications are rolling through for big projects on the northern waterfront and we still don't have a inclusionary housing update. We all approve that. So it's no longer a referral. It's a direction. We know we still don't have the Amex zoning guidance that to be put in an ordinance and. You know, all of these are in M zone. So the applications, because they've paid their money, they're getting front line service in the people's businesses sitting in the back when we get to it. So, yes, you know, I think that if they have to stop and let the ordinances catch up or we need to catch the ordinances up to the projects that are rolling through.
Speaker 3: And we can do that. And we can also fill this position with someone with expertize in that or someone who will work. Like I think the city manager's office does have to be flexible and work with the Department of Expertize and assist and pursue and make it happen. And like. As warm and wet and worked for amp or. And months or a long six months. I don't know. A long time. So that could be something that we do depending on what the referral is. That is high.
Speaker 2: Priority. We have four big giant projects rolling through Italian ship ways, Alameda Marina and snow terminals. They all have the opportunity to give us more affordable housing. An ordinance hasn't caught up with it and we have to also shape so that we get some real commercial and the Amex the mix of that and those are waiting. So we either have to stop the train and let the ordinances catch up or run up and catch up with the train.
Speaker 0: Ashcroft.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean, as I said, the city manager overseeing all departments in the city, that office is in a good position to know where the extra staffing and effort needs to be. And I, I have been impressed with the breadth of issues that we've had come at us. I don't think any of us at least I didn't anticipate quite how extensive the rental ordinance issues would be. And that certainly cut across a number of departments city attorney, community development. But the city managers, too, and who knew the animal shelter would, you know, involve quite such protracted, seemingly endless negotiations. It's done now. Knock on wood. But I anyway, I, I think that, you know, to be a well-managed city, I'm not going to do too much micromanaging. But I do think we, we expect a lot of our city staff and and we should listen when they say they need some extra help.
Speaker 0: But Vice Mayor, we'll hear more. Sorry. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: When was the last time we had two assistant city managers and.
Speaker 1: A city manager.
Speaker 3: And a city manager go.
Speaker 0: So we had three.
Speaker 3: Positions last.
Speaker 1: Year. Okay.
Speaker 3: And my other question is, have we. Is there a cost savings relative to. You know, are there are there things that we're putting out where we're having, say, a consultant or somebody outside working on certain things that is going to then be covered by this position? Haven't actually used consultants to fill in for projects. So we basically had our.
Speaker 0: Current.
Speaker 3: Staff pick up the work. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm just going to add the 280,000 for that position. I would really appreciate if you could come up with another way to do it. That is, I want to say less than half of that. We're asking all of our departments. We have added the pillow since I've been there. We didn't used to have that. We are going to have to pick and choose. And and I can't I can't support that many. But I'm going to call chiefs. 280,000 is a heck of a lot of money, and I'd actually rather spend that on some of the equipment or other things that we need rather than adding a position at a salary that high. I don't think it's appropriate to ask for such a position given the financial report we just saw. That's high, and I've already talked to other departments. I'm expecting them to come back, really trying to figure out how how can we do a good job long term and add in a position at that pay. I don't think we can afford it. This is the problem. We really are going to have that huge gap. That is a high level position. If we need someone to help, then I think it has to be a lower level pay and we have out of the pie out of that same department. So if we think we need a pill. Okay, well, then I think we have to save money on someone else. And Sarah Henry is very competent. I'm not sure what all she does, but no 280,000 high level position. I'm not going to be able to support that. And I'm asking every department figure out how we do it for less. And this is my opinion. We don't have the money. Any other comments? 320,000, apparently. Okay. Well, sorry. My apologies. 320, not 280. That's. No, I can't do it. No, let's keep going.
Speaker 3: Okay. So that's a good segway into it.
Speaker 1: Caroline Hogg.
Speaker 3: Our technology director, who is going to talk about capital. Good evening, Mayor. Council Members. Carolyn Hogg, information technology director. Our department is newly created this budget cycle and we're no longer part of the general fund. We are now an internal service fund, which means art. We are funded by departmental charges.
Speaker 0: And in the past, those charges used to go the general fund and now they're being siloed. So what that really means.
Speaker 3: Is it means that our charges that we came up with the cost allocation method, it was based on a percentage of number of PCs fees and number of network accounts. And it was a.
Speaker 0: Revenue stream used to I guess is used to go in the general fund and then this is all part of the general fund and now it's all being separated.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends on which department is. If it's a general funded department, then yes. But if it's a department like community development or base re-use, it is not general fund dollars.
Speaker 0: Okay. But what was your first sentence when you started this.
Speaker 3: That we.
Speaker 0: Had changed?
Speaker 3: You're now we were in the general fund and now we are on a separate fund called an internal service fund.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if you're in a separate fund, that must be your revenue and expenses are coming out of that separate fund.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then before, though, they must have run through General. That was what I was saying. Thank you.
Speaker 6: But. But the general fund does get charged.
Speaker 2: The police department, which or the fire department which is general fund pays into this fund. So it does correct the general fund.
Speaker 0: Right now, they're doing a different industry and.
Speaker 2: It's.
Speaker 3: It's funny funny money. But no that's where the fund by the color of the.
Speaker 2: That's the color of the pie. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 5: It's still a large chunk still.
Speaker 2: Comes out of the general fire.
Speaker 1: Another. Yes.
Speaker 0: So I'll cut that. Good job down.
Speaker 7: But I bet there's more to your report, isn't it?
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. So the city has done a great job upgrading technology for public facing needs for for public transparency and services over the years. And we implemented a secret fix. Public Works has a new system for work orders and asset tracking. So we've done a good job there and we haven't done the same kind of upgrades internally, though. Historically, technology has been underfunded and a lot of cuts were made to technology until the last budget cycle when Liane King made a great presentation and really showed. I talked about what the significant impacts are to the city when we don't invest in internal technology needed to support our city services. So in 2016, we hired a technical consultant to come in and assist us in developing our 3 to 5 year strategic master plan for technology. They met and had interviews with every department, and from those interviews they determined that there were a lot of end of deferred needs affecting our internal inefficiencies. So basically the next five cross-departmental requests all came from those interviews and that process. And the recommendation was mainly to modernize some very old legacy systems. The first one is the Enterprise Resource Planning ERP system. It's a it's a complete H.R. financial system replacement that automates, you know, significantly outdated and inefficient internal manual systems that support all departments. And as an example, in H.R., this is our H.R. system, and they still use a card check system. And so they have to have a typewriter. And every personnel action that happens, they hired eight. If you get a raise, if you get a step increase, gets manually type typed in this. And so not only in H.R. that this is their system but rec and park, they all also follow the same system. And and really where the inefficiency is, is when we had an across the board one time salary increase, all every employee's record had to be pulled in, manually calculated what the increase was and then type typed on to this. I was going to type it in to show you an actual example. I don't have a manual typewriter at home. So the other thing I wanted to share with you is this is actually my timesheet. Every employee hand writes out their times that they work and then at the end of the to pay period, it goes to somebody else to to check it on paper. All FMLA is done manually. Benefits, appraisals, lead management, training, certifications are all tracked manually and then typed up on here. And so in order for a city to effectively manage like overtime or pay differentials, it's very cumbersome and almost impossible to get an accurate accounting for that. The financial system, which is basically the brains of city operations and controls our budget process and forecasting and all the good information here. It's a very, very old system. In fact, it's actually being sunset and they're not putting any more money into the development of the financial side. Performance is low. Key reports can't be created out of the our system. So Finance and other departments rely on comprehensive spreadsheets to get our accounting system. The other issue with that is there's no integration with our old system into other systems. So there's a lot of double entry which can cause errors in our accounting. So it's a very complicated cross departmental system that we're all using and actually most cities transferred from this type of process 20 years ago. So the timing is right. By implementing an efficient H.R. financial system that will actually free up some staff time by having to manually have everybody's hands touch these cards to, you know, be better able to support the community in other ways. But most importantly, our public expects strong levels of fiscal management responsibility. And in order to meet our high standards, all city departments need to be able to better manage their budgets in their labor force and workforce. And this will actually, by moving with a new ERP system, will maximize taxpayers dollars. The next top priorities that came out of our prioritization workshop is actually looking into records management review project. So it's an electronic document management system because in the city various documents and images are filed in different areas and they're not interconnected. And so when we have to do searches on like a major project, we don't even know what system to go look at to get a comprehensive overview of of the project. So this came out from the interviews. The other request is to actually invest in a citywide large document sharing system because each department has a need to upload and share, collaborate with very large documents. So they've taken it upon themselves to get personal Dropbox accounts. And with the security issues that we have, we want to get away from those kinds of needs, but have more of a citywide system. And then this. We want to develop an actual GIS Geospatial Roadmap for data integration. Many departments throughout the city use GIS data layers, and that ranges from being able to identify light poles and utility poles and tax assessed tax parcels addresses. But we have various systems in the city and they're also not integrated. So when one department updates their GIS data, they have to actually email that new data to the other department and then they have to upload it. So without integration and without any kind of standards that have actually been set up, somebody some system could put in the address for eighth Street using an eight with a T h and then the other system is T. And so those addresses will not connect. So this, this request is to actually develop a GIS road map. And then, as Debbie Porter mentioned, we are wanting to focus on a GIS position. I'll get to that next. And then we also want to look into smart infrastructure. And as Amy Wooldridge, director of Rec and Parks mentioned, they want to get into a smarter irrigation project. So that's implementing remote facility lighting and irrigation management. This will help field staff in park and Rec. Instead of having to go to every facility or baseball park and turn on the lights manually or go out and irrigate, this remote control system will be able to do that from an office at the other.
Speaker 0: Side before you move on. I just want to clarify. So in order to do the irrigation for Park and Rec, we need this.
Speaker 3: We need some kind of infrastructure. So whether it's air fiber or some kind of connect, connection, irrigation.
Speaker 0: We need this.
Speaker 3: For the smart. Yeah, for the smart infrastructure.
Speaker 0: Save the money on irrigation that we were talking about of these connected MBS warmer dam. Could you come up and let me confirm this because I'm afraid we're blurring these things very well. But here she go.
Speaker 6: No worries. The savings I was I was referencing will happen regardless. We would get even additional savings if we were able to have a smart infrastructure system like this for for irrigation, because it can go off the weather satellites and then it actually, if it's raining, just.
Speaker 0: Kept sprinklers separate. That would.
Speaker 6: Be in addition to our additional.
Speaker 0: Savings. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: But it's basically moving our city smarter forward using technology.
Speaker 0: That's the next page I'm concerned about.
Speaker 3: So enhancing the traffic management system we had, we recently installed Horizon for traffic signals management and we have some traffic cameras to help manage traffic, but we want to expand like real time monitoring of traffic data so we can improve the overall traffic management. And this can actually branch out into our neighboring regions so that we have more of a traffic management to get on and off the island.
Speaker 0: Are there grants for any of this to pay for these systems?
Speaker 3: So we will there could be. And especially if you go into something like that on a regional collaboration basis, then the grant opportunities are better. And then the last one is the shared service agreement for centralized network separation. What that means is right now AMP manages the city's network as well as AMP's network, and AMP has to operate under very strict utility regulations that sometimes holds the city's goals back because the city doesn't necessarily have to operate under those same strict regulations like a utility departments do. So, for instance, we haven't been able to move forward with city Wi-Fi or remote access because of the security issues that that AMP is concerned about. So this would actually segment the city's administrative network from AMP and it would be managed separately. Recently you received a memo from the Friends of Alameda Free Library strongly urging your support for some kind of wireless solution out at Alameda Point. They have a very successful semiannual book sale, and right now they can only get cash because the cell cellular phone signals are very, very weak there and there's no wireless. So people like to go to events like that and use your credit cards or debit cards. And right now, there's no mechanism for that. So they're seeing that that's actually affecting potential sales. So this is not only a high priority for internal needs, but also for our community. Remote access. That was probably the first request when I walked through the doors a year and a half ago was especially the executive level, wanted to be able to get to their desktop files and applications without having to actually sit behind your desk here in the city. So this will allow for that kind of remote access availability. And then the last part of the shared service agreement. So basically what this is, is contracting with a like a network company to be able to manage our network. This would also include some of our support for our technical staff, because right now it's not uncommon for they're very dedicated and I can't thank them enough. But it's not unusual for them to work seven days a week or on their vacation because things happen that are unplanned and people know how to reach them. And so this will help balance work life by we have a very small staff compared to even compared to our neighboring cities. So this will help address that. So next slide. Like I mentioned, these are cost estimates that we got from our technology consultants in their ballpark, but they've been doing this for a while, so they're pretty accurate. Now, remember, this is these are just budget requests and we would not be, you know, purchasing or procuring any of this without coming back to council and actually making the case by case basis for this and in proceeding with your approval. But the our financial system is estimated to be at one time in FY 18 for 1.5 million. And then the other strategic plan recommendations, which is the electronic document management system, the GIS road mapping governance, the smart infrastructure and the shared service agreement is also estimated at 1.5 million. The citywide Wi-Fi projects is one time 200,017 and 18 because it requires hardware and software to manage it and security appliances. And then 100,018 19. And then Debbie mentioned about the need to have a technical systems analyst to help with their SLA enhancements with EA plan check. So this position is 75% funded by community development, but it's actually in the I.T. budget and 25% would allow us to begin working on that, the GIS governance and road map to standardize the data layers and work with every department. And then lastly, the office assistant, because we are a new department, we don't have any administrative staff to help manage our our budget and do the purchasing and payments of procurements, personal related issues. And we want to do a citywide software contract management because a lot of common software systems contracts are managed by individual departments, manage our helpdesk ticket management system and other various management tasks.
Speaker 0: Okay. Who wants to go first? And where matter. S.E..
Speaker 2: I know these dollars are big. They're one time expenses, but we're writing. Cards out with a typewriter. And this would be actually these. I think this slide needs some more work because there needs some projected nets on this, because there's an expense, but there's a net savings that can be projected and some of the savings could be reduced numbers of persons that are needed to do the manual activities that electronic system would do. We're so far behind that. At some point we're going to have to cross this bridge because we can't keep. Just from a fiduciary standpoint using typewriters on a on a on a cardboard form.
Speaker 0: Member already.
Speaker 5: I'll echo my colleague's comments, but just add a little bit of concern. And like two lives ago, I used to do this type of work and these budgets can spiral out of control. So I hope that when we go forward with this, if we do that, we keep a really tight rein on on this budget and be really accurate. I mean, we've had some inaccurate IT budget projecting lately, but I, I know that there's a lot of scope creep with especially these enterprise type systems. So let's just try to, you know, get us the best deal we can if we decide to go forward with that.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor So one question is just what are the projections in terms of the one time expenditures for the IT equipment? Is that based off of.
Speaker 1: Like estimates.
Speaker 3: That you've received or from? Do you have potential, you know, companies that you have in mind in terms of working with relative to those sorts of systems? These are up to date estimates that we receive from our technical consultant to do this daily. And so they've kept up on what the costs are in the industry today.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: And then my other question is, you know, for some of these things, like the citywide Wi-Fi projects and things like that, are those going to be helpful, do you think, relative to some of our economic development plans? Are we is there kind of a strategy in terms of where those are going to be implemented? Actually, there is so what I've been hearing is there's a great need to have better Wi-Fi options out at Alameda Point. Right now, there's just you can either be hard wired with fiber, which is very lengthy and takes months and months to to get that and is expensive. So there's another wireless vendor out there. But what I've been hearing is that's not satisfactory to the people who are actually there now. We met with. The mayor and I met with a new organization that wants to locate out here on Alameda. So we're actually going to be doing a trial at the club to test out their product. But it's air fiber. So that's that could be a really good draw for economic development. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft.
Speaker 7: Thank you for that presentation, Miss Ho, even though you kind of terrified me with some of the information. So these numbers are a bit large. On the other hand, we have done without an IT department. Last time we did this, we clamored for needing one, so I guess we had to assume it was going to cost something . I have a couple questions. One is that can some of this be triaged, if you will? And I mean, maybe insofar as you have put some of it in the fiscal year 1819 column, you're doing that. And then.
Speaker 1: Um.
Speaker 7: But I agree with, with councilmember matter, S.E., that we need to catch up to the 21st century. Notwithstanding the recommendations of your consultant about systems and items to purchase, will you do some sort of a cost comparison or, you know, look to see just to make sure your you really are getting the best price.
Speaker 3: So a couple of things. Now that we have cloud opportunities today, a lot of them cities migrated about end of nineties could because they were getting ready for Y2K and we didn't do that here. But now other cities are getting ready to refresh and to go to the next generation. So there's a lot of cloud based opportunities which actually brings the costs down that we would evaluate, evaluate. But I'm also working in the region to see if we can go together because a lot of other cities around us are in the same boat as we are. So if we could do like a regional purchase and then negotiate better pricing, that's what we're going to be looking into.
Speaker 7: That sounds great. Please do. Okay. Those are my questions and comment.
Speaker 0: Okay. So when I look at this, no can do. No, this is a problem. This is 3 million plus in 1819. If I'd like to see the net, if there's going to be personnel savings, if there's going to be personal savings, then I don't know why you're asking for an office assistant, but no, I'm not going to be able to support three. What is it, three? Almost three and a half million dollars. I don't think it's appropriate. I appreciate your saving your own cards, but some people I think, you know, let's go back and review the beginning of this presentation. The money's just not there. It's just not there unless this is really going to result in savings. If you get grant money, personal saving something, otherwise it's the wrong direction. So I appreciate that member.
Speaker 5: Already had one more quick question. So. This idea of doing some infrastructure at Alameda Point, I mean. We're spending general fund money for some type of Wi-Fi infrastructure. I mean. No. Yes. How's that going to work because I thought this is capture at the point.
Speaker 3: General fund.
Speaker 5: Cafe by base reuse. But I mean, you're talking about like a wi fi.
Speaker 3: Oh, at the club.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And then later expanding it so we can. So credit.
Speaker 3: Cards. So what? Sorry.
Speaker 5: So look into the minutia on this. But this one just outside.
Speaker 3: We're not going to be purchasing the wi fi for the the companies out on Alameda Point. We're going to be testing their solution. And then if the other companies want to buy it to get it themselves, that would be their opportunity.
Speaker 5: It's still it is still kind of an infrastructure. I think he was trying to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3: We owned the club.
Speaker 5: So that's the. The only place where we're going to have these folks take credit cards with the wife. I mean, nowhere else.
Speaker 3: I don't know why the Alameda Library picked that location for their book sales, but that was that was stuff.
Speaker 5: It's not.
Speaker 3: No, it's just city buildings. Yeah. Right now City Hall has wi fi, but no other city buildings have it. But the point is that there might be another funding source for baseline backbone infrastructure. An Alameda point would be Alameda.
Speaker 7: So I say.
Speaker 3: Well, look at.
Speaker 0: My rash, Captain.
Speaker 7: So I'm not sure if I'm the only council member I'm not aware of whatever it is the experiment you're doing at the club and the vendor, can you can you enlighten the.
Speaker 0: Person.
Speaker 3: About that? So if you wanted to take your laptop to the club, you wouldn't be able to connect to the Internet or any application. And so when people rent out that building from the city.
Speaker 7: I understand the issue. Who is it you and the mayor met with?
Speaker 3: Oh, it was common networks. Common networks is a new. Yeah, it's a separate company. And their wireless solution, they're very similar to. Yeah. I can't remember what's out there on the Point Unwired. If you've heard of Unwired, but there have very competitive pricing and actual better upload and download speeds. So that's what the individual companies are asking for. So that's an opportunity for them to, you know, do a business arrangement with them. We were just going to test their product on the club to see if it meets our city needs.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, I think it's something that's of interest to the rest of the council. So thank you for sharing that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Okay. And our second to the last I'm just going to fly through because our last department is public works. But in between we have a non-departmental, which doesn't actually and I've mentioned this earlier, the request on the next slide is for our homeless assistance program. And so this is transitional housing in between being homeless and providing services. This would be a joint effort from a funding point of view with Alameda Police Department grant and approximately half of it coming from the general fund. And we've been talking to Operation Dignity, but there we're going to continue to look at it. So we just want a amount of funds in there so we can do this additional service to to basically take people out of homelessness so they can focus on getting housing long term.
Speaker 0: You just clarify, it says the grant. Our police department got that grant for this purpose. Yes. That means yes. It's a thank you.
Speaker 3: Purpose.
Speaker 0: That's the kind of funding I'm looking for. Funding streams.
Speaker 2: Grant free money's good. We received a one time allotment of money. It's not going to be this last year. It was actually written into the governor's state budget. There were it was a restricted grant. There were other things that we could have used it for. But given what we're dealing with at Sweeny Park and elsewhere in town, I decided to throw it all that way. But this is just a one time thing. It's not going to come back next year. It's from the Board of State and Community Corrections. It released the money.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you very much. You appreciate.
Speaker 1: It. Sure.
Speaker 3: Next up. Public Works Director Garland.
Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Liam Garland with Public Works. I'm going to provide a brief overview of the public works budget, some of the investments we're requesting through the next two years, and then an overview of the capital budget. Before I start, I do want to let you all know that Little Richard did text me to say that he also supports these assets.
Speaker 0: Yes, we all believe.
Speaker 7: That we needed taxes. We got that. Yes.
Speaker 5: He's active on taxes.
Speaker 1: This lady must go ahead.
Speaker 0: You may continue.
Speaker 5: So I'd like to skip to the requests and then I'm happy to.
Speaker 0: Reverse page and skip right over it.
Speaker 3: Because we do have a hard stop.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a councilmember that's leaving at ten.
Speaker 5: And we'd like to hear their comments. I will move fast. Oh. So first, let's start with the three general fund requests. The top request is around urgent city building repairs. You may remember. Oh, we were in front of the council talking about the third party run facility condition assessment, which said that we had at about $12 million in urgent repairs that need to be made on our city buildings. We're requesting about a million per year to help us make a bigger dent in this backlog of repairs. So these are going to help replace three rooms long term deferred maintenance at six parks, buildings, City Hall, West Oak Club and the vets building. If this request is declined, will essentially be backing off the needed repairs in the Oak Clubs, the Oak Club and the vets building. So that's where the the approximate $2 million is mostly going to be invested in, if you grant this. Okay.
Speaker 0: How much could you refresh my memory if this is this the one third of the projects that were not funded when I asked you, okay, you have two thirds of projects that have been funded. You have one third that hasn't.
Speaker 5: These are all separate projects. So these are we did an in-depth facility condition, condition assessment of every city building. We essentially prioritize those repairs that we want to get done right away because there are either health or safety or for other urgent reasons need to be done. And we're targeting those repairs first.
Speaker 0: Okay. So are we going to get to the one third of the projects that needed to be funded that do you remember you were advancing money essentially for some other issue? I believe it might have been fire.
Speaker 5: That was related to the EOC fire station three.
Speaker 0: Right. And you said you have two thirds of the projects funded. So we didn't have to worry about those. But you had a third, you had it. And I asked, where's that money going to come from? And you said, You don't know yet. So is this are we going to see those projects in this report?
Speaker 5: Oh, a couple, yes. So some of the the the money you're referring to related to budget savings from projects that had been completed in the past, but we're still sitting on the books. Then there were some projects that where were programed but no longer relevant, so we didn't want to push forward. And then there was a small subset of projects around our I think it was around a roof that we weren't going to replace when we knew a skylight or reverse, that we were going to replace a skylight. If we know in a couple of years we're going to come in and replace a roof.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 5: Oh, the next investment we're requesting is around our sidewalks. You know, from the last capital budget that we had, over $10 million backlog in sidewalk repairs. We've managed to bring that down to about $9.3 million. And we're seeking another contribution from the general fund of about 500,000 per year. This would continue a commitment from the general fund for sidewalk repairs and our current budget. It's about 250,000 per year. Without that, additional contribution will do two less miles of sidewalk repairs over the next two years. The Third General Fund ask is related to streetlights. We're going to add a new maintenance and operation program for streetlights. This is in part a result of the passage of the Utility Modernization Act. AMP is transferring over money into the general fund, of which 900,000 is to cover the Street Lights program. So this represents about 600,000 for maintenance and operations. The other 300,000 is going to a capital project which will help us develop the long term ten, 15, 20 year plan for replacement of those assets.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor, the member.
Speaker 1: So are these.
Speaker 3: Positions transferring over from AMP and if so, why? The said it's related to the Uma, but no explained.
Speaker 5: The current plan is not to transition. The positions over what's budgeted is to have a maintenance worker and as you'll see in a moment, a half time administrative support person to help public works be able to adequately maintain and operate these streetlights.
Speaker 1: Who we have.
Speaker 3: Before.
Speaker 0: Did public works do that? Who does that now?
Speaker 5: The streetlight maintenance was done by alameda municipal power and i think our h.r. Director is going to push me out of the way.
Speaker 1: No, i'm not going to push you. And we are. Nobody's pushing anybody. We are still working with AMP and IBEW, the Labor Unit, to determine exactly how this work is going to be performed because we have some meet and confer obligations. So one certainly one of the options is that it would be a maintenance worker who would do the non electrical connectivity work. AMP would maintain an IBEW, the electric can connectivity work.
Speaker 3: So I guess my question is, are we increasing the cost of this program by transferring it over or is it net neutral? What's the in terms of the overall cost of running the maintenance program?
Speaker 1: I you know, I we should probably get that for you, but based on the positions, I would not see a net cost increase. Okay. But I would want to clarify that. Okay.
Speaker 5: And I guess.
Speaker 0: Remember.
Speaker 5: My question. Similar to that, I mean, if this meeting confer fails, I mean, then what happens? Because it sounds like there are some positions that.
Speaker 1: What we've done.
Speaker 5: I'm thinking of eliminating it amp.
Speaker 1: We what we've done is we the way the budget is built, however it comes out, we're going to be okay. We haven't done anything with eliminating the position at AMP, although it is vacant at this point. So as we work through that process will resolve how we're going to do the work. But the ideal would be to transfer just the maintenance work from AMP to public works.
Speaker 5: And if if you don't reach that agreement, then are we just going to impose our will on them or how is that going to work?
Speaker 1: And that would be an organizational decision. Right now, we're still talking and hoping to be able to resolve it.
Speaker 5: So what does that mean, that the council would have to weigh in or it would just be done at the staff level?
Speaker 1: Typically. I mean, obviously, if you had wanted to weigh in, we would certainly give you that opportunity and check back in with you. We're hoping, you know, certainly not to have to impose. And so we're still talking and providing them with all the information that they're requesting.
Speaker 5: I mean, I would like to have that come back to us, even if it's at an impasse.
Speaker 1: Okay. We will do that.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor And then member matter, S.E..
Speaker 3: So you said that the position is currently not filled. So if there's a.
Speaker 0: Streetlight.
Speaker 3: Issue right now, who.
Speaker 1: Fixes it? Well, we have somebody who was doing the work, and I actually would have to look at our AMP General Manager for that question. So this is a group effort.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Nick Operacoes, general manager at AMP. We do have a person who was occupying that position, the Street Light Maintenance Technician. We opened up what we had another open position which we encouraged them to apply, operate under the assumption that this would transition over to public works. They successfully got that position. They've moved into that position. But for the interim, until we make the transition, they are actually performing that function and they will continue to do so until we sort out some of the things that were talked about tonight.
Speaker 0: I remember Matt addressing.
Speaker 2: Should this come back to the council. I also would like to have. The City attorney. Look at what's being proposed and what lies within the duties of the city manager as far as running the management of the city and what lies in the duties of the council as far as approving budget and or providing direction to the city manager?
Speaker 0: My question is going to be does the revenue stream currently. This has been happening to AMP it sounds like. So they must be paying for it somehow. So when the work comes now out in maintenance and operations program to the general fund, does the revenue stream follow that job to the general fund?
Speaker 2: So as as part of the UMA, there was a transfer approved of approximately $900,000. So that revenue has been transferred over to the general fund. And as Liam spoke about earlier, that 600,000, it's part of that 900,000 and then there's an additional 300,000. My understanding is going into capital reserve.
Speaker 0: So then when this is presented, can this show net somehow as long as that 900,000 is not already being used for something else? It doesn't just show 600,000. Thank you. Yeah. And over 300 are going to go to just projects or.
Speaker 5: To a capital project related to the streetlights. So the first thing we want to do is get a really accurate assessment of the condition of the streetlights and then come up with a 10 to 20 year replacement plan.
Speaker 0: And that 300,000 is just sitting in a dedicated streetlight fund, not being touched for anything else in the interim.
Speaker 2: You got it.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Up next, there is some more minor personnel adjustments we're making off of the general fund. So these are non general fund dollars. We're looking for some additional administrative support, especially around our special districts. Our revenue and responsibilities around special districts have increased significantly over the past few years. Likewise, in sewer and urban runoff, we see a real need with our pump stations to have a four person who really is a master of those electrical components. And then finally, if you look down at the sewer fund, we're looking at eight vehicle replacements. The average age of these vehicles is over 20 years old. And if you look over to the right, these one time requests probably look pretty significant given it's only eight vehicles. But one of those vehicles is one of these large vac on these big trucks you see with the vacuum attached to it, which is almost itself a $375,000 vehicle. Oh, I should note here to answer an earlier question, we do have pool cars for sure. And one of the things you don't see on this slide, but you will on a subsequent slide is Public Works is requesting to replace some vehicles through the vehicle replacement fund. It's called the Equipment Replacement Fund. So essentially that's where public works and other departments have squirreled away money to make these very replacements. And they're we're pretty confident we can get six hybrid and or electric vehicles as pool cars over the next two years. Want to quickly go through the.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry if you could go back. Okay. So on the eight vehicle replacements average 21 years old, can you bring the mileage on those things? You know, so we have more information than the sidewalks. It's currently 250,000 a year and then you're you're estimating 500,000 a year. All right. Is it for the same length of repairs or why the double?
Speaker 5: This enables us to do more work. So the doubling is more just an assessment of, hey, we've got this backlog. We're looking for as many resources, i.e., money as we can get to try to cut down on that backlog.
Speaker 0: So has the price per mile increased or that's the same? You're doing double. You're doing twice as many miles with the 500,000.
Speaker 5: Oh, no. I mean, prices are going up. As you know, construction costs are going up around the Bay Area. We're seeing that start to come through on our bid results. But this is not specifically to account for those cost increases. This is just to suggest, hey, if we want to reduce this backlog, which is something we hear about all the time from the public, this is a good way of reducing that backlog. Am I making sense or. No, not the question was a little simpler.
Speaker 1: And Brody, I mean it.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. I don't mean to step in your toes, but a250 we are getting x miles, and at 500 we are getting y miles. What is the X in the Y? I think without I think that's kind of what the mayor was asking. Yes. So at had $1,000,000, you can get two miles of repairs done. And so and then it was at one mile for. So we're just going from 1 to 2. Isn't that kind of what you were.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So the price.
Speaker 1: Per.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's not an increased price per mile. It's just that you're doing more.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job, but clearly I'm not. This is a part of a sidewalk project that comes from other funding sources as well. I'm just talking about the general fund contribution to that project. Should the council award or adopt a budget with these numbers? It would be approximately a $1.5 million per year that we're spending on sidewalk repairs. This is just the general fund portion which I'm recommending move from what in the past two years has been at 250,000 per year, up to 500,000 per year.
Speaker 0: So this is what the city's cost is. It's not like sometimes, you know. People have to pay for different things. This is the net.
Speaker 7: General fund versus a special or.
Speaker 0: Just if you get other moneys to offset any of this?
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 5: No. These this is. This is essentially all costs. Not about revenue.
Speaker 0: Okay. Member matter.
Speaker 2: I think. Mr. Garland, you said that if we don't. Honor. This request will do two less miles of sidewalk over these two years. Right. Yup. So it's either we do what we do and keep doing what we're doing, or we get two extra miles a year by allocating this money.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 0: Mayor member Ashcroft.
Speaker 7: And just for clarification, I asked Mr. Rodham so that million if we were to spend a million, 1.5 million, the million is coming from the gas tax, is that correct?
Speaker 5: The balance is mostly from gas and I think a bit of construction improvement tax as well.
Speaker 7: Okay. And and then, you know, something to always way is that we do pay out some money in settlements for people who slip and fall and trip on our sidewalks. And, you know, some of them are in pretty scary conditions. So, um, thank you. Um, I, and I do want to commend public works because, you know, we just came through a very rainy season. We had some high winds and yet I don't think we had major incidents that weren't addressed immediately, like streets flooding or and even that night, the 20 some trees came down. I just this is part of what makes a city safe. And there's all different kinds of.
Speaker 3: I'd like to remind the council that there has been extensive sewer work this past year. And thanks to Aaron Smith. Yeah. In the audience.
Speaker 0: Are there new positions you're asking for to is this the end of the request?
Speaker 5: That is the end of the requests. I will run through the capital budget in less than a few minutes. I just want to hit up here just how busy your city departments are. If you look at capital expenditures over the past ten years. We are running last year and this year at 2 to 3 times what those historic levels are. That impacts finance in terms of accounts payable. It impacts APD with a couple of significant parks projects, the transportation planning unit, and also in our engineering division, which is only added one full time staff member over the past five years . So a lot of activity and not a lot of people wouldn't be a capital budget update without talking about pavement here. You can see that our current pavement condition index, remember this is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's assessment is about 74. This number ticks up and down depending on when you run it. That's really good news over the when we were in these seats two years ago or most of us, we were at 67, which is at the upper end range of. We're now solidly into the good range in terms of our pavement condition, which is a big step forward compared to Alameda in 2009. We're at 62. So the low end affair and this compares really favorably to our neighbors, Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro as well. I'll turn to our urban forest. Our capital budget will again propose to Maine to trim more than 7000 street trees. Just want to note that our street trees are really hard at work, even if it seems like they're not. They are sequestering over 9000 tons of of pollutants. They are also taking millions of gallons of stormwater and they're essentially relieving the load from our storm drains through themselves, essentially. And they're adding to our home values by over $60 million. These trees are hard at work. I want to. The second to last point I'm going to make tonight is our most significant challenge moving forward is around stormwater infrastructure. And this stormwater fee that we've talked about on several occasions is being flat. Since 2004, we've got up to $45 million in repairs that are needed for our stormwater infrastructure. Yet if we look forward to the third year out, so the first non budgeted year we might be facing operations cuts. So a stormwater fund's got a capital component and an operations component. There will not be a possibility of funding a capital component without some change and will even face operations cuts in fiscal year 1920. However, the State Senate Bill 231 has passed out of the Senate. It's sitting in the Assembly would essentially allow us to adjust rates on storm and stormwater just like we do on sewer, which is less costly. And you can essentially do the rate setting in one fell swoop, swoop for the next five years. So I'm hoping to share good news in the next couple of months that that if adopt or passed by the assembly, adopted by the governor were really get us into a different place here in the city of Alameda . We're not the only city facing this crunch. Lots of us are. Finally, this is sort of a this is almost all good news, but just a bit of a challenge for us over the next two years. If you look at this is a map of all of our our capital projects for the next two years. But the most significant part I want to highlight here is $42 million in one time transportation grants. You've probably heard a little bit about these. Kudos to Jennifer Odd, her transportation planning unit, chapter Public Works and some of our engineers who supported that grant making effort and a lot of other folks throughout the city. However, there's a challenge built in there, which is that is a lot of money for us to be able to execute on, and much of that work happens in year three. So it's a lot of design and planning work in advance of the construction work in year three. And with that, I'll close and answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Member Matter Can.
Speaker 2: You give us a brief update on any budget impacts of the consent decree for our sewer system replacement?
Speaker 5: So far, none. And I'm going to turn to Aaron Smith just to confirm about.
Speaker 2: As long as we have none. Okay. And there's no request related to it.
Speaker 5: No budget request relating to it. Yes. No.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You do the shout out for plowshares.
Speaker 5: Okay. The shout out for plowshares, where essentially we are able to source a lot of our local new trees through plowshares, which obviously has a lots of benefits to the participants within their programs and as job training as well.
Speaker 0: As a 90% of our new tree planting. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening again, Madam Mayor. Council members. Nancy Bronstein, human resources manager. I think I went.
Speaker 2: You speak.
Speaker 0: Up. Yeah. You got to.
Speaker 7: Pick up a little.
Speaker 1: Nap, so I have to move my slide. Back then. Yes. There you go. This this slide just shows is the summary of the new positions that are being requested tonight. I did want to point out that there are different funds for funding these positions. Additionally, in addition to the new positions that you're seeing here, we are currently reviewing the classifications of several positions to make sure that those positions are correctly classified or different classification would be a better fit for the job duties if we have those recommendations ready to go prior to June six, we do plan to include them in the budget. If not, then we may bring them in a separate agenda item. Those there won't be any financial request associated with those. Any cost is built into the budget. It should be very limited. So it would just be position requested that you may see in addition to these. And are there any questions on question number matter?
Speaker 2: On the city manager position. I know the position is authorize. Was it funded in the previous budget and money not spent or. I didn't get a chance to look at that.
Speaker 4: The position was funded. However, we did take vacancy savings from the position almost 100%.
Speaker 2: But it was in the it was in the previous two years.
Speaker 3: It was in the budget and then at mid mid-cycle we took it out.
Speaker 2: We took it out. Okay. So this would be re and re adding it back for this budget if you did that. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Any other questions?
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. So when I look at these, I think that sometimes these were not the net costs. Some departments were saving money from some of other things so that they were going to be able to come up with these to pay for these somehow.
Speaker 1: I think that was primarily parks.
Speaker 0: Right? So I think that that should be noted when this comes back to us. Any time there is either grant money or some savings of shifting funds. There's not all a new ask like that noted for each of these.
Speaker 3: And and what we said at the beginning of this work budget work session is this is a raw budget that council asked for more input rather than having us bring a budget that is all wrapped together in a bow. And so what we'd appreciate tonight if the council has direction on these positions to let us know and then we will put those numbers in, they'll still be flexible enough that you can make changes on the six. But if we if we hear nothing from the council, then staff will look at these and put in our estimate or what you will consider on June six, which is actually means that the budget goes out next week.
Speaker 0: All right. A member matters. And if you want to make any comments first where you go.
Speaker 2: Yes. In looking at these, I think the. Once that I see is indispensable. Are the parks budget additional persons and the information technology of. I think those general fund contributions, I think are are. Absolutely. Essential to moving us forward, especially with the additional load in both of those departments. And I think even that investment with. The $3 million council member Otis comments on scope creep and considered. I think those are things that have to be that we have to do those things as far as the city manager's position. You know, I. I, I don't know the best way to do it, but I stated what I wanted is as far as what to be done. But how to do it. I'm. I'll leave that that is on management to do that. And I think the same with the fire department. And the thing that still sticks with me a little bit is that this person is replacing a person who was dedicated by Grant to doing very restrictive duties, and they're not going to be doing those duties or you know, I don't know what that is, but it sounded like we could. We could get along without it. Just by shared load. So. Again, that's a management issue. I'm not inclined to support that. And I think from the library it is coming from the library fund and the I 100% support the extra days being added back to the branches. We've put a lot of money in the taxpayers to tax themselves, to keep the libraries open and to support the branches. And we need to honor that.
Speaker 5: So we're just doing the new positions now, and.
Speaker 0: That's what I was going to do.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: So whatever your plan is, it's fine with me. So when it comes back, I mean, I could add these true. But it would be great if we could just see like the different fund sub totals as the general fund is the number that, you know, I'm kind of focusing on. I guess I have a question of staff because back on page 23 of the presentation, we said that our response was commitment to fiscal responsibility, only critical hires using general fund dollars. So of these I mean, do you consider them all critical hires under that criteria? I mean, I remember when we had the referrals, we had to sit there and think, well, we may have projected this idea and brought it forward, but, you know, is it critical as an employer or is it urgent is an important. So I'm going to ask you the same question. I mean, of these I mean, do they all fit that criteria that that you said we should be judging these by? And I don't know. I don't care who answers it, but.
Speaker 3: They have different levels of importance in what we can look at. And when we bring this back on June six, after we get some feeling from the council, we would bring back what? I think are the most critical and how we can make it done. We have to have a balanced budget and so we will put positions in and take them out and so we can figure out how to balance the budget.
Speaker 5: Because that would be my criteria in evaluating these is is it a critical hire that we're using general fund money for? So if you tell me that is and there's I'll be supportive of it.
Speaker 3: And there's four general fund positions.
Speaker 5: Right? But one of them really isn't a new one. It's just the money's coming from a different source. So we're really adding three people but four positions.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft, I.
Speaker 7: Think the vice mayor.
Speaker 1: Was you know.
Speaker 7: He was ready.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm also interested in in getting a better analysis of what's. What are what are the critical positions and even outside of the general fund ones, especially because some of the other positions do receive. You know, when we were talking about it, the money is coming essentially from the general fund and then being moved into that account . So I think I would like to know and get that analysis. I'd also like to understand better, you know, some of these positions that are being put forward. I think the only one that really talked about relative to our counsel referrals, what, you know, what would actually be worked on.
Speaker 6: So there is a.
Speaker 3: Workload that's outstanding, basically, that are directives of council. And so.
Speaker 1: Which which.
Speaker 0: Positions actually fall.
Speaker 3: In line with covering existing council directives. So where is there an existing need based off of the directives that council has already given? And we can look at that through our referral list and some of the other things that we've done. So I would I would like to understand that to a certain extent. I know that Debbie Potter briefly talked about it relative to the permit position and the inspector position. And, you know, based off of working on some of the council referrals relative to things that were coming down the pipeline and the ordinances that that we've given direction on. So to the extent that that can be done. Right. And where where is the existing workload that's going to be covered by these positions? I would also like to understand that. And that was the permit tech right. Positions to free up some of those staff. Right. Combined with assistance. Right. But there's also, if you think back to the Community Development Department request, there was also the building inspector of trying trying to be more customer service oriented. Right. Which brings in revenue. As well. Mm hmm. Development is on track faster, write a happier community as well as well. And I think that goes back to the the earlier input from the mayor about understanding where certain things are going to be, what's the net cost like if there is going to be potential revenue generated or
Speaker 0: . Grants that could.
Speaker 3: Cover certain things? I think noting that helps us out in terms of understanding whether or not we're actually going to be able to.
Speaker 0: Balance the budget based off of different estimates. I remember Astra.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So this isn't easy. Nothing we do lately is easy. I even though it's not in this upcoming fiscal year, the fire department division chief request gives me pause. But we'll have time to see how this the the work rolls out. Now that we've got three positions funded or about to be funded for the Fire Prevention Bureau. And I'll just say I have concerns about adding this position. From where I sit today. The the recreation and parks positions. I. I'm I'm fine with that. I. We are adding more, more parks. And as Amy and Lily noted, we we have kept the number the same, and yet we're taking out a lot more. I would be just because we've got to whittle this budget down. I look at everything very closely, those first two positions, the combination building inspector and the permit tag. While I like happy customers, I mean, there was a reason some years ago we went from a five day workweek to a four day workweek because it resulted in budget savings. And what I would like, though, if it could be done fairly readily, is. A sense of so for this position or these two positions, what kind of revenue would they be bringing into the cities? So maybe the I mean, if you know it now or when we come back, so maybe that, you know, it's the net. So we're spending this, but we can assume, you know, that now, Miss Bronstein, or.
Speaker 1: What I'm wondering is the revenue paying for the positions. So essentially it's the revenue pays for these positions, right. So no general fund, it would be right.
Speaker 7: I get that it's in a general fund expenditure base, but beyond.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay.
Speaker 7: Okay. Um, and. The Assistant City Manager position. I, I do understand that we throw a lot at that office. I. I always like us to be able to do more with less. We have a proposition, a lovely person. Is there any way that that position could be expanded to pick up some of the workload you're looking to address with this with this assistant city manager? Just, you know, trying to think. Creatively, but. These are these are ongoing costs. And on the I mean, those are some big numbers. What I would also like to take a look at is. We need both the systems, the systems and as I get a little more readily but the office assistant, is that something that can be picked up somewhere else? So I'm just, you know, maybe compressing positions. Public works. I am their workhorses and I'm not going to I, I won't I don't have any suggestions or reservations about those two listed positions. So I'm, I'm looking at everything even though they're, it's not all from the general fund, but it is, of course, the general fund. We need to get it under control. Okay. Those are my thoughts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I pretty much will just echo my counterparts up here. One question I had was. Does this include the benefits when you're saying, you know, you're covering this is at the salary plus benefits, everything just so there's no no touching of the general funding we know that are being covered. Okay. So then I too will be looking for the know the net. So that makes a lot of these make more sense then I think it's very important to be transparent and show all that. So the net I need to see, I appreciate, you know, everybody's common in regards to urgent and important. Can we stagger all of that better analysis? I'm not going to be excited.
Speaker 6: About adding a.
Speaker 0: Chief $360,000. I'm also concerned about the assistant city manager at another. Oh, yeah. $300,000. I can't go there personally. I think we're going to have to tighten our belts there and the salary, if in fact, because in the past, when we did have two assistant city managers, we didn't have a pillow. And I don't know what her salary is and benefits and all that, but that is another person working in the city manager's office. So I think we need to take that into consideration. But at the end of the day, I'm very happy that we have to be able to balance our budget because that does force us to make these tough decisions. And I appreciate everyone's presence here at taking all the questions. Yeah. And I want to do a shout out to our police department because no new positions. Thank you, Chief.
Speaker 1: That's good.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Well, and there's a couple of remaining slides, but it depends on whether the council wants to provide input on them. The next one is vehicle replacement requests and then department requests that went beyond personnel. Oh. Like on.
Speaker 0: Member matters. First.
Speaker 2: Thank you. You know, the vehicles are the vehicles. And I think of the irony. I support the comment about a pull a pull vehicle that's available. I understand that the fire crews go with their vehicles so that when that radio squawks, they have to run. So. I think that's I'll leave it to management to figure out the best way to get the most life out of the vehicles with those constraints. And the only other thing I would ask to look into, especially if some of the newer electric cars are being looked at, is that we don't have to buy them because the technology move so fast and they're very expensive to maintain in the out years. So especially when the battery packs have to be replaced. So please do some studies. We don't need to own things. And no thank you. And the only other thing, I just want to retreat just one quick second back to that, because Ms.. Potter mentioned that the permit techs and the INS inspectors are being and the planning people are being paid for out of fees. That's the reason I brought up having a general fund planner type, because the fees are the top priority. They have to serve the customer and there's nobody serving the the city as the customer. So all these ordinances that are city. Benefits that talk about the building and the maintaining of the city, I believe need to have somebody who works for this, works for the city, not for the applicant.
Speaker 3: So does that translate to another general funded position?
Speaker 2: I think we get it out of that. I'm not going to tell you how to do this, but the assistant city manager is the pot of gold to use that out of that.
Speaker 0: Let's go next. Nairobi.
Speaker 5: I'm going next, so I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Can I clarify one thing? So for the permit fees we collect as a portion of the permit fee, the community planning fund. So actually what we do take in, we do collect money that can be used for the kinds of ordinances and other kinds of work that you're talking.
Speaker 2: Well, as long as it will be used and we get those things in sync with the projects, because the projects are rolling along, they get first start, stop ship waste, got first, you know, just fine. And these things are still waiting.
Speaker 6: I just want you to know, too, that we are planning to bring the M zoning referral on June 6th. So that's the plan for now. So that's. Thank you. That's coming. Yeah, it's that's the plan. I'll just say that's the plan. We'll see how the agenda goes. But we do have it's really more a staff in capacity. The funding is there and it's just the the staffing capacity. And we have the ability to fund that kind of work without tapping the general fund, and we're prepared to do that with the recommendation of the permit.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that SHIPWAY has got time because they pay an application fee, they got them in the queue and we have to do it. And zoning and inclusionary housing that we could get are not in the case.
Speaker 6: It's actually the permit, the state permit streamlining law that requires us to when permits come in. So. Well, that's why that's.
Speaker 2: Why I'm making a big deal out of it.
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely. So I just want to clarify that we can do that kind of work with the non general fund funded money and we do collect a portion of the fees paid goes for community planning efforts for the initiatives that you're talking about and can we can do that.
Speaker 1: So quick question.
Speaker 5: Is this our last item for feedback?
Speaker 3: No, but I think general feedback would be.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to make.
Speaker 0: Sure that any.
Speaker 6: One time would be the one time.
Speaker 5: All of his feedback.
Speaker 2: Before and just mentioned.
Speaker 3: The library.
Speaker 2: Because I'm going to be going to be leaving shortly. Yes. Thank you. I really appreciate this. My niece appreciates it. I think based on the front, the the forward slide and the forward slide, I think has been has permeated. This is the the PERS curve that has $45 million at the at the apex of it. I'm going to be looking first to put one time money into that. That's where I'm looking first. And I think we have to. I will. You know, I think when we all get in the mix and I look at the minutes of this meeting, here are the people's input of I think the the technology upgrades are and the the outside general fund funded requests that none of these requests have a purse charge attached to them. They don't carry a purse burden. So if the fund has the money, we spend it. If. We have to put general fund money to it. I think that's where we have to balance off against. Funding the retirement and the other post-employment benefit burden that is is not going to go away. And to the mayor's point is, we don't want to be shutting parts of the city down to try and backfill that. So we have to act now.
Speaker 0: Any other comments before you leave? Know that I have an amazing trip.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I much appreciate it.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And have a safe trip. So. What I kind of didn't see on that. Can you go back to not that one. The one after that. One more. That one. So again, there's all these large numbers. No. And then. See, I didn't. No, not this one. This is the ongoing the one time money. And I didn't see a total, you know, by again, I could add this up, but it kind of seems like it's hidden. It should just pop out because I don't know if it's like $10 Million or whatever it is. So I agree with my colleague about I think one time money should be put away into these pension trust funds, whatever it is that we decide to do. But, you know, to the extent you do have general fund one time requests that again, meet your criteria, use of one time funds for one time efforts with long term efficiencies. You know, I'd like to have that the kind of the gauge that when you do come back, you know, I'm not saying I like to look at this holistically. So, you know, I could pick and choose one or the other and I'm not going to do that. I'm going to trust you to bring back a budget. One time funds that that meets that criteria 59. So. But also.
Speaker 1: We.
Speaker 5: Okay. So that but there's no total on here. I mean, I could add it up, but.
Speaker 0: I agree. We should have.
Speaker 5: 1.2. 1.7. You know, 3.2. So in another, you know, 5 million, 6 million the next year. I mean, that way we can see because what is our our number that we have is a 10 million. So is it 10 million then? We want to do 5 million here, 5 million here or 3 million here or 7 million here. So let's see what that number is. I think it was ten. Maybe it's something different and then kind of come up with the different projections. I mean, I don't have a problem with any of these individually, so I'm not going to, you know, pick and choose. But I'm trusting you to come back with with a list that balances the need to start funding this trust and that these one time efforts on long term efficiencies.
Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft.
Speaker 7: When we come back on the sixth, I'd like the council to consider a policy for officially what we will do with one time many. So it's it's just there and easy to do. And I think I'm hearing some direction I would like to consider. I would like to suggest that we consider an allocation of 50% of any one time money that comes in goes to the trust. And and then we can have discussion of where the other 50% would go. But I think it's the kind of discipline that the kinds of numbers we saw require.
Speaker 0: In other comments.
Speaker 7: I've commented enough.
Speaker 0: All right, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, in a lot of ways, the the liabilities, what they are, they're our responsibility and their responsibility, their vested interests that that exists that we have to that we have to meet. We don't really have a choice in that nothing comes. We don't if we don't take care of that, we're going to have bigger problems. So I don't know that 50% is necessarily enough. I think sometimes we might need to dig dig a little deeper. I'm fine. I'm fine with setting a baseline. But I also think that when we when we're looking forward at what's coming, I think especially from the outset, in the beginning, being as, you know, prudent as possible, I think early on is going to be helpful. And I you know, I think. Ultimately it is a policy decision. But at the end of the day, when we're when we know that those are. Important things that we need to have set asides to have them just be left is kind of TBD. And I know it's a policy decision, but it you know it. It's going to be the largest expenditure, I think, based off of what I'm hearing from my colleagues and my own preference. So in terms of one time requests. I do think that the i.t. There is an efficiency need relative to the i.t expenditures. So I'm more inclined to look at something like that. And I think also with some of our. Some of our. You know, the building maintenance issues. I don't know if there's if there's a plan in terms of getting other funds to help us with those sorts of things. Or what's possible relative or what our plans are for the buildings in question. That's something that I would like more information on, because I think it's one thing if we're we're making an expenditure to put off additional costs later, later on. But if we don't have a plan for what's going to be, you know, what the usage is, I think we're. We're not best served by by making those sorts of expenditures without that information. I also think that, you know, with the fire, fire engine, ambulance, things like that, where there's expenditures that are being made relative to the maintenance we really need, what have we spent specifically on those vehicles that are that we're trying to replace? Like what? What is going to be the ongoing cost if it's not that? And so having those vehicle specific nets would be helpful and looking at them not just for this year but the year prior as well. Right. Since it's a two year budget, what have we spent in the last two years relative to the vehicles that we're trying to replace in terms of the the vehicle, the vehicles for the other usages? I think, you know, pool vehicles are great. I think looking at the, you know, wherever we can reduce other expenditures, if we can look at electric so that we're not using so we can reduce other expenses, I think that'd be great.
Speaker 1: But I'm I'm also a.
Speaker 3: Little bit concerned about the upkeep of those vehicles and if the upkeep of those vehicles is going to be more expensive and that sort of thing. And what sorts of, you know, what are we looking at relative to that?
Speaker 1: If there's if there's costs that could.
Speaker 3: Pop up that we're not budgeting.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 3: So I think if we can have that information along with the totals and and have the breakdown relative.
Speaker 1: To the general fund.
Speaker 3: Everything that's outside of the general fund, if we've got the money there, I don't really have a problem with those expenditures.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft.
Speaker 7: And just for clarification on the building repairs, and this was before the vice mayor's time on the council, public works actually did a very extensive survey of all of our city owned buildings, and they did essentially a triage list. There's photos and it was it was pretty alarming. So I think they have, in essence, their marching orders about where in what order they're doing those repairs.
Speaker 3: Right. And I and I understand that. And I and I am aware of that. I think my question is really, you know, what is our plan? I think we also want to know because we're going to have questions, why are you fixing up these buildings? Do we have a plan for what their usage is? And I think if we can at least spend a little time talking about.
Speaker 0: That so that it's not just.
Speaker 3: Which I mean, I get the triage portion, but I think the.
Speaker 1: Inevitable second question is.
Speaker 3: You're working on Carnegie. What are what are our plans for Carnegie? So if we have plans and if there's you know, if we're going to be renting it out or using it for different functions, could we use.
Speaker 1: Those funds.
Speaker 0: Potentially to offset general funds.
Speaker 3: Or expenditures, or are those going to cover other things relative to the building moving forward that need to happen?
Speaker 7: And so may.
Speaker 0: I? Yeah.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So when I when I see the, the, the Oh. Club on the list and it's a roof I think was the, was the item. And I understand you need to replace new roofs. The building is really in such deplorable state. That condition that. It just. I mean. Maybe that's what we just need to do to be able to keep using it, because I know it does bring in some revenue, but it's I mean, the restrooms, the kitchen and many of the public spaces, it's. It's deplorable. So I but again, we'll just, you know, keep that on the radar.
Speaker 3: And separate from this budget, we can bring just the item of buildings back to council to talk about a long term plan and and include the auto club and Carnegie and any other buildings on the list.
Speaker 7: And we can we can certainly maybe have placeholders for these these particular capital expenditures without deciding to actually spend the money until we have a clear sense of.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 7: And and why.
Speaker 3: And and that's the idea behind a CFP, is it it does allocate or estimate amounts for projects and does a plan for when we think it will be done. But if it's a capital project, construction project, it comes to council for approval as well. And if there's a design, it would go through the process to any process. So, yes, you'll see that, too.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And we're going to.
Speaker 5: Have one quick clarification. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So on this idea that we would. Do 50% of one time money to this trust. I mean, how are we defining one time money? Because, for example, transfer tax is technically one time money, but we build that into our budget. At some level, right?
Speaker 6: I think we're defining as surplus surplus 25%.
Speaker 3: The previous year.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I just want to be clear that we and.
Speaker 3: Surplus is funds that we receive over 25% reserve.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'm good with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, so I wanted to thank you everyone for being here. Council staff. I don't think there's any members of the public hanging out with us.
Speaker 1: That's quite a few nights in a row.
Speaker 0: Okay. When I look at this, I agree with the comments in regards to. Um. Okay. Analyzing the automobile issues. What's the analysis? Are we spending more maintaining? You know, there's got to be some ways that you actually figure out when is the right time to buy versus just keep maintaining my mileage. I'd like to see on any of the vehicles, not just the years. I do want to make sure we're just using best use of our vehicles. Um, in regards to the, my priorities when I look at this thing, the building maintenance, the roof. So I think that million dollars, I think if we're going to have the buildings, we're going to have to fix the roofs. So if if we don't want to I mean, I'm happy to sit down. We can do the analysis. But if we're keeping those buildings, we need the roofs. So the the homeless assistance the net dollar amount on this because this is actually it doesn't take into consideration the grant that the police got for. So I want to see net dollars.
Speaker 3: It's 61,000 is the net. Right.
Speaker 0: So on the summary here that I had this for, I'm not going to page 60 has the 125 there.
Speaker 3: 125 but in the note 61,000.
Speaker 0: On the pitch. I'm looking at the homeless. I think that's good. OC The purchase of the Union Pacific Remnant parcels, I'd actually like information on that. I think that that is a long term investment for our community that we are trying, trying to figure out how to use bicycle and better access. So for me that is could very well be a worthy way to spend money in regards to the long term of our community, the historic buildings. I agree with vice mayor in regards to, um, you know, what are we doing with these buildings as much as we might like them, there's a lot of we have a lot of older buildings. We can't maintain them all. Not with this budget is a priority unless we have a plan for them. The $83 million, I think that's just we don't have that kind of money or have to figure out a plan. Um. The camera readers. I think that's very important. I think that that's. Good use of modern technology and we have problems. And if you can do with technology, let's figure out a way to do that. So that and that's just turning 50,000 each year. That's much more, you know, to me, that's a good use of the money. Office reconfiguration city manager. I don't even know what that is. That's another hundred thousand dollars if it's connected to another city man. Assistant City Manager I'm probably not interested. But oh, and then in regards to the pension liability, setting aside money for that. That's not my top priority because I don't think we have a long term plan if we're not ready to get serious and have a serious discussion about how we actually accumulate those costs. I don't think it's the best use of using one time money for the city, and I would prefer using it for roofs and other things. And when we're ready to sit down and have a serious discussion about how this stuff gets accumulated, then start investing the people's money. Otherwise, all we're doing is we're going on. We are continuing a course that cannot be sustained and is not sustainable. So for me, not a priority until we have that serious conversation. All right. That being said, everyone, have a good evening. And this meeting is adjourned 5 minutes after ten. | Regular Agenda Item | Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 to Provide Direction on Funding Requests for Budget Adoption on June 6, 2017. (Finance 2410) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05162017_2017-4325 | Speaker 0: Himself on that one. All right. So now that motion carried and 5li had pulled because I just wanted to clarify that's on the direction that we as counsel are giving to our representative to vote at the Joint Air Bag MTC meeting. That's coming up. And my concern was on the staff's recommendation has a letter that they want to send with their concerns, but it also within the body of the report says to oppose. And I want to find the exact language. Okay. Under discussion, it said the city's a bag delegate should be directed to oppose the current proposed budget and work program and approve a budget and work program that reflects the continued commitment to involving local jurisdictions and important regional land use and housing decisions contained in the draft comment letter. However, the recommendation just said Authorize air bag delegate to vote on the A bag and empty consolidation budget and work plan. So I wanted to clarify at least my understanding of this that I would support is that we're directing the delegate to, in fact, oppose the current proposed budget and work program and approve a budget. You know, that said in that paragraph, and I would have preferred having that paragraph be the recommendation that's within and I'm not sure if it's member Ashcroft or member matters matter it. All right. So member matter, S.E., did you have any questions on this? That's coming up.
Speaker 5: No, it's quite clear with the staff report in the letter and your comment.
Speaker 0: All right, so then I'm just. I guess I'll move that. Based upon what we just said and start to have a second.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. Hi. And I want to thank you for taking that on.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And then Stephanie can send out the letter and our comment letter. Thank you. And now thank you. And then we go to six. Okay. Six B as and boy, did we decide we are doing that for 10 minutes. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Direct the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Delegate(s) to Vote on the ABAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Consolidation Budget and Work Plan. (Community Development) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05022017_2017-4078 | Speaker 0: All right. So now we get to number nine counsel referrals. Nine A is the first referral.
Speaker 1: Instead of directing staff to give you an update, Almeida's 28 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. This item was posted as Councilmember Smith.
Speaker 0: Number matter.
Speaker 5: S.E., thank you. And I just want to put a fine point on that. The referral was to a request to direct the city manager. And City manager direct staff. So I got that right in there. In 2008, the city of Alameda approved the local action plan for climate protection, and there was requirements in that plan to periodically review it. So this is a referral, but it's more of a reminder because it's even if the referral doesn't pass, the policy document says we're supposed to be reviewing and updating it. And it's been a while. A lot has happened in within that while we're also on our own. And we're lucky we have CASA and now a umbrella group to fill the role that the original group of individuals I see they're stuck. There was one of the people who brought this to the council back in 2007, I think it was, and launched the effort. I think it's absolutely important nexus for the ordinances that we're talking about for animal tree light pollution. Those ordinances are tied into something like this. We have AMP initiatives with. How to handle solar power and net meter. Net metering in the future is tied into this. There are a number of issues that are coming to a head, so the time is now. So I'm asking my colleagues to consider the direction.
Speaker 0: And we have quite a few public speakers. Oh, so anyone has any questions before I call the speakers?
Speaker 9: Now after the speakers, I just want to let the council know that I've invited, even though this is a very community driven process, we also want to provide staff direction on what this could look like working with the community. And so Liam Garland is here, acting public works director to also answer any questions from the council.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. I want to go ahead and call the public speakers, Sylvia Gibson, Jeff Gould, and then. Or. You're stuck there. Stuck. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I'm Sylvia Gibson and I'm here representing CASA with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. And thank you, Councilmember Matariki for bringing this to the Council. This referral to review and update the local climate action plan that was written in 2008 and it spans until 2020 its goals so part of this referral. Well, it's just the beginning of a process that will take some years to complete as we look to review and updated probably in 2020 to have an update ready. And in the meantime, to look at goals that we've met and celebrate those and look at goals that have not yet met and create a kind of a game plan for meeting those goals that are part of the current climate action plan. So the process will need dedicated involvement from every city department. So it's not like something we can just throw to one department and say, you do this because sustainability is is everywhere. And in addition, involvement of community stakeholders, individuals, groups, nonprofits, business partners, the utilities, the schools, the students, etc. and course is prepared to help coordinate the community involvement that's needed for this update. And we ask the city for leadership in the form of a few dedicated individuals or a green team to to facilitate, update and and our continued efforts to make Alameda the most sustainable city in the Bay Area. So thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Gould. Jeff.
Speaker 4: I. I like to thank council member Mary for bringing us up and. With respect to CASA, I have to say that I don't believe Alan Bean is all that green anymore. I've watched our content mix go from 84%. About four years ago to approximately 14% green. Right now, that was due to the sale of our seas and our geothermal part of our bio mass energy of we've been producing to Shell Oil Company. Other words are green power went to the highest bidder. Now. Alameda did a great job prior to that being green today. Like I say, we're not. Now all the proceeds from the sales of the dresses and all of our green power for the past four years. And now into the future, another two years. But the new contract they just signed. Will produce, you know, maybe $20 million. That money needs to be a part of this update and review. That money has to be allocated in a way that makes sense and this review slash. Update is part of that process. And I believe. Simply. Directing staff to handle this. Is only part of a plan. I believe that several members of the community. Need to be part of a committee that creates this update and this. A future plan. Thank you. I support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Baer stock and then Richard Baker and then Alan Pryor.
Speaker 11: Well, thank you very much, Madame Mayor, and council members. I also want to commend Frank Maher for bringing this up again. He was at the beginning of this process ten, 11 years ago. And to renew it before the whole council and our city is a truly a remarkable step. I think you can hear from the celebrations that we heard from already and the intention from your council member and also the seriousness of the challenge that we still face, that we need a robust, vigilant review. Clearly, Alameda started and has been and I agree that we've been a model city in the whole barrier in many respects in the country. The selling off of our clean energy was a complicated decision, but it has been a ten year period. The city only had about 5% of emissions and that came from the government and that was reduced. The ferry was a big problem ten years ago. We have a ferry boat system that is now clean. AMP has taken some steps, but we need another addition to that. There's been a tremendous work on recycling school gardens and of course the consideration of putting solar into our schools, which I strongly support and hope the financing of that can work out and that similar things could be done for the hospital. But we need to accept the challenge. You need to accept the challenge. And as has been alluded to already, citizen participation actually initiated this 11 years ago. It was fully embraced by the council and all the other by business and civic groups, the schools and others. We need that same kind of spirit that goes into the next steps. So I would like to urge that we look at transportation, at the codes for new buildings. There's a big surge in buildings. The Planning Commission has dealt with these in past years. We need to be very strong in that as the updated plan comes into effect to take the successes we've had and bring them further. The fact that there is going to be a kind of a celebration soon is a great step. It was anticipated in the plan that the council adopted ten years ago to have in a regular review, a public review, not just in C2, in a council where there are a few people here. And that had taken place a couple of times with the participation, I believe, of the majority of the council members and the mayor. But we need to do that if we're going to truly achieve success with the whole public involved and to take it the next step. It involves public transportation, biking, not just one day to school, but biking. Lots of people in this town, a lot of steps that we can do with public participation. I'm also the president of the United Nations Association in the East Bay and then in Northern California. And I would like to suggest that when the review takes place and I will finish with this point, that there should be some consideration that Alameda will not only work with the governor and the state and the county, but that Alameda will adopt the principle that in in the context of the global accords that were adopted by every country in the world in Paris last year, 193 countries, it was up to voluntary action of businesses and countries and cities, and that Alameda should aspire to and hopefully will have a recommendation and an adoption that we will conform to the goals of that global climate accord. Otherwise, we're going to be facing sea level rise here and public health problems and a shortage of the things that make Alameda a great city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bangar. Mr. Prior. And then it's Abby, and then she's our final speaker.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council and city staff. I'd like to preface my remarks by pointing out that even though this plan has the tag word of climate in it. Even if all of the. Ice sheets in the world were status quo and there was no melting and no increase in temperature. All of the issues raised in that plan would still warrant attention by a conservation minded public and its public agencies. I'd just like to point that out. They're all good. They're all good. Areas that we should focus on as stewards of the earth. The the area that I would like to highlight or bring to your attention that I think meet that needs needs some more focus in this this new update is a look at the policy and decision making processes that Alameda municipal power users and the Public Utilities Board which essentially follows the lead of Alameda Municipal Power in making various decisions. I think I think the. A working group or however you want to phrase it that that that updates this plan needs to take a hard look at those policies and how decisions are made. I'll point out a few in the brief amount of time I have. One is the recent change in the rates for rooftop solar. Now much is or is made about. It's our own public utility. Well, at that meeting, there was something like 25 speakers that spoke against changing it. No one spoke in favor of changing it. Yet it was changed. And that put Alameda Municipal Power right in line with the state of Nevada, which adopted a similar change in their metering program for solar. And it led to hundreds of layoffs in the rooftop solar installation business and in Nevada. Another area that. I can't seem to get any traction on is doing a simple feasibility study on whether it would make sense to put a solar farm on Mount Trash, more city owned property that has no no other use in sight. And get a study just to see if that's feasible. But yet there was there was a feasibility study done as to whether we could establish a microgrid at site. Well, it turns out that it's not feasible. Part of the reason cited was there won't be any solar there, even though all of the new buildings will be solar ready. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Alan Prior and then Ruth. Abby. If you want to speak on the asylum, please submit your slip.
Speaker 4: I'm Alan Pryor and I'm speaking for Gabby Dolphin. She couldn't make it tonight. And she writes, thank you. Council member matters for your referral. To update the city's Climate Action Plan over Earth Day weekend, I gathered 100 signatures in the space of 3 hours asking for AMP to let Alameda do more solar and a Change.org petition has gathered 197 signatures asking to have the same as we move forward. I encourage collaboration among council members, public utility board members and members and the citizens of Alameda to chart a bold new course for Alameda in mitigating climate change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ruth. Abby. And then she's our last speaker.
Speaker 8: I'm really happy with the Community Action for Sustainable Alameda and I wanted to rise in support of the council referral. I think that we have a really big opportunity here in Alameda not only to update our greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, but also to set a course for sustainability, which includes a lot more than just greenhouse gas emissions reduction. But it includes revenues, jobs, industry, things that we want here that can be a win win. And there's no conflict between jobs and the environment in our and this new energy world. And we're really looking forward to the collaboration with the council, with the staff, with the community to chart our course for the next 20 , 50 years and will really recommend council move forward to ask staff to initiate a process. We're ready to support in any way we can, and I very much appreciate all your leadership on these issues over the years.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Brody.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to commend my colleague for bringing this to our attention. I could sit here and talk about it for 10 minutes, but I'm going to I just agree with everything he said when he made his original presentation. And I appreciate all the speakers who also provide a comment. So please don't confuse my brevity with the lack of compassion for this issue. But I am going to ask, though, make a motion that we move this item, maybe tweak it just a little bit to make sure that the comments that were made by the speakers are incorporated into whatever plan of action staff comes up with to implement this vice mayor.
Speaker 8: I want a second with a friendly amendment. I think we're really strapped in terms of staffing. And I while I appreciate Liam working on this and working with the various groups. One thing that I would like to have looked into is whether or not we could have a consultant come in to work on this, since we haven't done an update for for some time. Or if there is funding out there for for those sorts of consultants, the San Francisco Foundation had been offering funding previously. So if we could get an outside consultant to help kind of coordinate either a public workshop or hearing on this and working with the different groups, I think that that could be very helpful in terms of facilitating this and seeing this to fruition in a timely fashion and also looking into if we could work with. We have a number of different MPP and graduate schools in the area, a number of whom have folks who have a background in environmental issues, who are looking for theses projects to work on. And that could be something where we partner with one of these local schools to see if they have a student who has that background, who's interested in working with a consultant to actually put together a feasible report that the council could then look at sometime in the next year. So those are friendly amendments.
Speaker 4: I'll defer to the writer on the referral if that's acceptable.
Speaker 5: I don't care how it's done. This is this is this is one of those things. It should be. All right, staff up, because this is, as I mentioned before, is this is a document that mandates that staff does something. So the referral is a reminder. It's not I mean, whether it's voted on or not, staff still has to do it.
Speaker 8: No, I.
Speaker 5: So whatever by any means necessary, it's the city manager has to figure that out.
Speaker 9: Right. And we can look into that. And if we do an RFP or a contract or it will likely come back to council. But. Liam. And Liam has already like. Looked at a path forward. It is about a two year process to make sure that we first meet with all the stakeholders and all the different departments and do the analysis and the inventory track where how we buy data, how well we are meeting our old plan and then taking it, as many of the speakers said, a level or two higher and then figuring out what that greenhouse gas emission improvement will be over time. So. We will start on it. If it sounds like the council is headed in that direction and it will be a very expensive process and I think it's a good idea to look at both students and working with the community and hiring a consultant.
Speaker 8: And the other thing is, I think we should have some sort of you're saying it's a two year but potentially a two year process? I think a timeline setting out specific goals and dates would be helpful more than, you know, more than just the first time it will come back to council. But I think giving different milestones throughout that process to just make sure that we're keeping on task and on target.
Speaker 9: And we do have that draft already. And it would if it would start in May and the final adoption is planned, I think, for June 2019 or.
Speaker 0: And we're Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. So I my question was just and I adopt everything everyone else said, this is very important and we need to do it. So just looking at this city council referral tracker, is it fair to say that this would be quality of life slash environment category?
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 3: And so with this, I mean, this seems pretty pressing. So could it come ahead of. Some of the others are wrapped in with it or you need to get more information and get back to us. City Manager Um.
Speaker 9: I think a lot of it is concurrent. I would, I would like to move. Keep moving forward on the night sky and dark sky and the heritage trees, which are scheduled for October and November. This would start before then, but. I think we have to work on them concurrently. I don't want to slow down some of the other things if. Unless the council wants to finish one before the other. But I think we can do it concurrently. And it's two different departments. And so from that perspective, they can work together and not and share sort of the workload.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, I look forward to the next steps then. Okay. But yes, I'm fully supportive.
Speaker 9: So. So is this a medium or a high priority?
Speaker 0: I'd like to speak. Thank you. I have some concerns about the point that this supposedly the plan itself has a target date of 2020. So I'd like to know what staff has done today on making sure we're ready to meet the. Because I'm sure this process is not dependent upon a referral. This is something Steph's aware of. So I'd actually like to know because the way I would look at that should be what should be happening is that assume staff has been working on this and has a plan, and I'd like to hear that.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Liam Garland with Public Works. Yes, staff has been, along with the community, moving forward a lot of initiatives consistent with the original Climate Action Plan. There was an update to council in 2013 which shared that there had been reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of about 8% below the 25 baseline and the 2020 goal is 25%. So. And let me clarify, this was a 2013 update to the City Council on the 2010 results. It's essentially looking at the emissions in 2010, doing the calculations and the modeling to come up with about that 8% reduction. The target for 2020 is a 25% reduction. So in one sense, you look at that 8% reduction, you say, oh, well, the plan was passed or adopted in 2008. You've already got about 8% reduction a couple of years later. That means you're trending in the right direction. On the other hand, that was in the midst of the Great Recession, where a lot of this is driven by transportation and you had vehicle miles traveled going down. So in that sense, the wind was at the city's back in terms of reducing those emissions. It's very likely that when we go through the process of trying to update those emissions, that are going to be much more difficult conversation about where to target resources, how, what actions to prioritize. And that's something that not just a conversation here, but is with community members who had just spoken. Does that make any sense?
Speaker 0: So that was 2013.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: So what's your next? What is your next step? What's going to happen?
Speaker 4: Well, what I'd propose is that we've got the the event in May is that that is a springboard for the community. CASA Public Works, Alameda Municipal Power, other city departments to reengage on what's been accomplished through the Climate Action Plan, what remains to be accomplished or what needs to be focused on next? There are some big questions potentially in that examination of was that original goal the right one? Other cities have looked at that and said, let's set a new and different goal. There might be other areas for activities that weren't even conceived of back in 2008, but might be areas we we invest in more heavily now.
Speaker 0: Okay. But so what is stuff? Suppose that stuff's planned. So that to me, this shouldn't require a referral. And I'm trying to figure out, did it require a referral? Has staff been working on this? Do the staff already have a plan? You can't apparently came to council in 2013. I wasn't on council then, so I don't know if back in 2013 then there was direction to come back in 2017 or what. But is was already the plan.
Speaker 4: What staff would propose. And this is after reaching out to base for use in transportation Alameda municipal power and obviously having an internal discussion and public works is that that we come back by this December so the end of the calendar year with essentially laying out a proposed scope for the update. And again, that's not that's not going to be an easy question if everything is on target. And, okay, that's an easy discussion, but that's not likely to be the discussion we're having in December. It's likely to be. Where do you want it's likely us seeking approval from the city council about what new policy initiatives you want, us working with Costa and the community to get more public input to then bring back to the council at a later date.
Speaker 0: They said the current plan by staff is. Doing something in May with those groups and then an update to council in December.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: All right. Council has everyone on board for that. And then in the meantime, if you can follow up with vice mayor suggestions, if you think that would be helpful to try to get a consultant, if we can get funding, things like that. And staff may already be working on that. Groups may already be working on that. I'm not sure. And then so and I just and I don't know if there's other policies that council that the city has that have things when you're supposed to be circling back. But I assume that staff keeps a timeline and handles that stuff.
Speaker 4: I do. I do want to note something which is in the next city council meeting, there's a referral on the straws on request ordinance. Yes. So that is an issue that might get folded into the Climate Action Plan update. So that that is where we might we might be moving forward on a couple items all within the same update.
Speaker 0: Okay. But I'm hoping that doesn't take two years. That's my referral. And there were people from the audience that suggested that. But I'm hoping that doesn't take two years to implement. So I appreciate that. All right. So I think you've been given feedback. Is everyone good on that? All right. Thank you very much. And we're going to.
Speaker 4: Are we going to vote.
Speaker 0: For the second? We need to love the motion. So. Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, actually, I want to clarify because the was feedback from Leigh that may not actually be what your motion is, but do you want to repeat your motion?
Speaker 4: Was just move the staff to move the referral with consideration of the input from the community during the public comment. And then there was an addendum and then the controller met her. She said, I don't care how it gets done, I just want to get it done right.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'd like clarification because staff gave us more information of planning to attend a workshop, start work with our partners, community partners in May, and then come back to council in December with an update. So I'd like to make the incorporate that information in the motion if possible.
Speaker 8: It was part of my part of my friendly amendment was to make sure that we have a timeline with dates laid out for each of the next steps. So I hope that that would be included. Liam's comment would be included in that December. We stick with that date of having feedback in December of 2017.
Speaker 4: And I was fine with the comments on the timing, too. I mean, the party has to be high because the ice is not going to stop melting. But, you know, we know it's a two year project, so the sooner we get started. So it may start before some of these, but it will most likely end after some of those. So.
Speaker 0: Right. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And I really appreciate the community's efforts and staffs to continue this massive project and policy. All right. Next nine e. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda’s 2008 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Not heard on April 4 or 18, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05022017_2017-4103 | Speaker 0: Right. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And I really appreciate the community's efforts and staffs to continue this massive project and policy. All right. Next nine e.
Speaker 1: Consider reviewing and updating the rules of order for city council agendas and meetings. It was placed on the agenda of council member.
Speaker 5: Okay. As as with head to toe in a role. I want to finish this one quickly. Actually, this came to my mind after having gone through the two meetings that are referenced in the referral, the referral list request that we consider appointing a subcommittee of our members or tasking the Open Government Committee to review the rules of order. Of the city council. And the reason I think this is important is because we had a couple of meetings, the workshop on the 17th and then the meeting of March 7th, where there was confusion over. How people should be allowed to speak and what were what are basically what are the rules of addressing the council and even among the council themselves? And I received from the city clerk on request the resolutions that pertain to rules of order. And there are some very interesting items in these referrals. I mean, in these resolutions, including. For example, the power of the council to either allow speakers to address the council or anyone else other than the council to address the council during deliberations. That's a council decision according to one of these resolutions. There's also a three minute limit on council members in the deliberations. So it's there are some interesting things, and I think there's also interesting rules around. The limitations of a speaker to address the council and items four and eight. According to the way I read this, it could be read that they could speak on anything they want, including an item that's further agenda. I think it's good to review these and to see if they need to be updated, but just for public awareness . Additionally, there seems to be a gap in and this comes up periodically when there's a very contentious issue is how the agenda is put together and who has responsibility for it. It's really not defined anywhere, clearly, either in the charter or in the rules of order. So I think those are important enough to do whether they're to this, I don't think this is a high priority. I definitely think we should have it looked at and I think a disinterest as I read reread my referral, which was written in March. I think it would be a good task for our Open Government Committee to do as a as a as a, I could say, disinterested party, but a party that's interested in making sure that government is is clear and understandable to to us as well as the public.
Speaker 0: Let's go next to Russia.
Speaker 3: I think you raised some good points. Council member matter. I, I would want the both the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office involved in. Any review because I want to make sure that we are I mean, at some point, it might be appropriate to have the Open Government Committee take a look at this. But I want to make sure that we are up to date on all the applicable laws and rules. And I think that the city attorney's office in the city clerk's office are a great place to start, unless they are the last stop before it comes back to us. But in any event, I do think I would want to hear.
Speaker 8: From.
Speaker 3: Both of those departments.
Speaker 5: Me too.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 4: I mean, again, I thank you for for doing this. I think this is something that's sorely needed for the reasons you mentioned Councilmember Meter, S.C. But also, I think, you know, the public seems to be more cognizant of the length of our meeting times and maybe the quality of our interactions, which with each other. So, I mean, I think if if we could find a way to improve that, I think that would that would be helpful. I mean, I think we all, myself included, we need to look in the mirror on a lot of those things. So and I wonder if maybe having a subcommittee of the council might be more fruitful than having the Sunshine Committee look at it. But I do agree with my other colleagues comments at the city clerk and city attorney should be involved and they don't seem to have a lot of things on this list. So I'd be I would be happy to, you know, participate with any one of the four of you on the subcommittee.
Speaker 3: I would be happy to participate with you. Councilmember Brody.
Speaker 0: My preference is to go to vice mayor.
Speaker 8: Sorry. You know, one thing I do want to be cognizant of. Why do you think it's important that we get updates if there's any other laws or potential conflicts? I would want to be cognizant to make sure that we're not trying to censor or, you know, kind of sway the Open Government Committee in terms of making a decision. So while I would like to hear from our city attorney and our city clerk on that process or if there's any potential conflicts or issues in conflicts, I just I think we just need to be very cognizant of that because we are talking about, you know, the public's ability to communicate with the council and also are making sure that we're as transparent as possible. Not that I think that our city attorney or city clerk would intentionally do either of those things. I just think we need to be cognizant in terms of how we set that up so that there isn't a perception of that. The other thing is, you know, there isn't really a limit for staff time in terms of presentations. And while I think it's really helpful to have the presentations that we get, some of them have been incredibly long, especially when we have very heavy agendas. And so I don't know if that's something else that can be considered or looked at in terms of are we really allocating the correct amount of time for the presentations? And is, you know, you know, have we been consistent when we say something is 30 minutes or 90 minutes? Have we really been hitting those marks with regards to different agenda items? Because I think part of it is also having the public be able to plan for when different items are going to be heard so that they can look at the agenda and make a time estimate for what time they think the item is going to actually be heard. But I think looking into this is a good idea.
Speaker 0: We're Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. So censorship was certainly nothing the farthest thing from my mind. I want to make sure that applicable laws are brought to bear. We have heard suggestions in the not too distant past about the Brown Act. Perhaps doesn't need to apply at city council meetings. And that's that's California law. So that's that's where I was going with that. I would like to piggyback on the vice mayor's comment about the length of staff reports. And I don't so much fault staff, but I think we could give it direction maybe through our city manager that obviously the council comes to the council meetings prepared. We read our materials we have through the Sunshine Ordinance, the requirement that packets go out 12 days in advance. So members of the public who are interested are going to get that material too. So nobody needs to be spoon fed. And on balance, I think the public and you're right, Mr. City, we've heard from the public that they don't like being out until one or two in the morning and actually either do we. And so that we could like tonight, I thought was an excellent example. We had the two Business Improvement Association presentations. They went quickly staff. I mean, council asked their questions. We had a little discussion and we voted and we should be able to do that every time. I think that's something to also be cognizant of. But and I would just reiterate that I would be happy to work with my colleague, council member OTI, if the council, whoever else. Yeah, I'd like to work with you.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 8: And I. While I appreciate my colleague's desire to have a subcommittee, I think my preference would be to have it go to the Open Government Committee just so that we have that kind of independent check and we can have have them have a hearing on it and get the public input. That's just that would be my preference.
Speaker 0: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I am not supportive of a subcommittee. I think that we have commissions and one of them is our open government and I think this is appropriately theirs to lead. And then it goes through them. They have meetings and then it comes to us eventually. So I would be supportive of going utilizing that commission. And and one issue that has come up is the order of items on the agenda, for instance, referrals. And I would entertain looking at the order and possibly moving them to the front. But looking at the order of the agenda items and, you know, I think that should be something that the Open Government Committee looks at first. So we have. Did someone want to make a motion of how they like to handle this?
Speaker 4: I wonder if and again, feel free to disagree. I mean, some of these items, you know, the Brown Act, the way the agenda is written, who gets to talk where? I mean, I think that was all I recall correctly, part of the Sunshine Ordinance. So that may be well within their purview. But I think the way that the council conducts meetings and the suggestion by Councilmember Ashcraft about, you know, staff presentation time, I mean, I do think. We as a council would benefit from some introspection on our own on how we could make our meetings move a little more effectively and more efficiently. So, I mean, maybe there's a way to split the baby and, you know, send some stuff to the to the Open Government Commission and maybe have a different a smaller subset of those items, you know, kind of talked about in council because ultimately, you know, the things that control our behavior I think are best generated from from ourselves. But that's just my thought.
Speaker 0: So I'd like to hear from staff. Sir, do you have any suggestions of how you think it should be handled?
Speaker 9: Well, from the staff perspective, we are already talking internally about how to streamline our staff reports and presentations and making that assumption, as Councilmember Ashcroft said about every council member will read the staff reports and the presentations, and it's a longer time than most other cities. So it will be. Shorter than, or at least we're working on making it shorter. But there are some very meaty things that require the transparency, like the budget coming up. The council asked for a special meeting on the budget. That will be detailed because even if you look at the numbers on the page, you're the story behind the numbers is two volumes to just put in writing and so that kind of stuff. I hope the Council will allow for a more detailed conversation as far as why, whether it goes to the Sunshine Committee or not. I think. Dividing that up since we have a new grandfather on the.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 3: I was going to say we were only giggling because that analogy about splitting the baby to a brand new grandfather.
Speaker 8: So.
Speaker 3: Granddaughter but.
Speaker 9: Tied up a task to have the subcommittee and.
Speaker 0: But I still want to support his subcommittee because I think that it's like, okay, who's going to want to be on it? If you want to have issues, come back to the council, then my preference would be to have it come to council the items and then we can all weigh in if because if we're really looking for it, say this to a member already, if we're really looking for a discussion of how we want to what we think is appropriate behavior, how we, you know, our input and I think it's appropriate to have that come so we could hear from all of us.
Speaker 4: I don't have to be on the committee. So I mean, I just volunteered, but. Go to the city manager's point. I mean, I appreciate that contribution, you know, to the staff side. And there is items like the, you know, the different rent things we had to go through in the budget. That will take a lot of detailed time. And I think the public and the council understands that. But, you know, there's there's a side that this council, I think, needs to take a look at. And, you know, you can't prescribe that. I don't think the Sunshine Committee can prescribe that. I don't think any of the staff members can prescribe it. And I think that has to come, you know, organically from us. And, you know, I'll step aside from volunteering if others want to do it. But, you know, I, I do think that it requires some in-depth analysis and introspection, you know, whoever the members of the committee are.
Speaker 0: So I'm actually supportive of the committee. I want the introspection of all of this, if that's what the concern is. So as mayor.
Speaker 8: So perhaps we could have some sort of report back about how our meetings have been, you know, how many meetings have gone past 11:00? How many items are, you know, running over in terms of the time estimates that, you know, efforts that are being made to kind of streamline different things if we could perhaps maybe agenda is that is something when we come back in September or something like that to hear and get feedback. That way, because I think there's people point to specific meetings anecdotally about will this happened at that meeting or I went to this one council meeting and this this happened, I think kind of just doing a quick review of what's gone on perhaps in the past year or so. And if, you know, if there were meetings that went over, what happened where we. Was it just a busy meeting with a lot of heavy topics that needed that level of transparency? I think perhaps, you know, having some review of of that might be helpful.
Speaker 0: I remember.
Speaker 3: When I was just going to suggest that since it was Councilmember Mattresses Council referral, perhaps he should have the last thing on the motion.
Speaker 2: He was going to be.
Speaker 0: Born after. But we're not the last thing.
Speaker 5: So I don't need to say. But I do want to say that I see no reason why we can't have a subcommittee and have the Open Government Committee both look at it because the subcommittee is on our time and. They're whoever it is, I don't need to do it. This perfectly capable of reporting back, just like the open government. And I do want to go Open Government Committee to look at it as well. So I'd say do both and and move on.
Speaker 4: I like that idea.
Speaker 0: And then my concern would be in regards to any staff time where it is in regards to the priority on this because I personally. So staff, how much time do you think this would take? Everything takes time and we have priorities for council. What's the priority on staff time? You want us?
Speaker 9: Well, the way I think the motion is, is or at least the proposed motion is not staff intensive because it has the subcommittee working on some of it and also the Open Government Committee working on it. I don't want to speak for the attorney's office or the clerk's office, but they I'm thinking that they will be resources through the Open Government Committee and respond as information is requested from that committee. So I don't think it's like the climate local climate action plan, intense work. It's more responsive to the committee, but.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 6: I can just respond that the clerk and the city attorney's office both do staff the Open Government Commission.
Speaker 5: So, Madam Mayor, I would like to see this go forward in the timeframe that because like I prefaced before, this is not. High priority. I think the best thing that could happen between now and the time that the Open Government Committee gets to meet on this is that our subcommittee meets because it's on our time and that we all read these things because you'll find out some interesting stuff in here. For example, I think the council had to. We're deliberating on an open motion. Is there motion yet? I take that back. Okay. Well.
Speaker 4: Normally they're right. There's a three minute. There's a three minute. I mean.
Speaker 5: So I don't think that's the most important thing that can happen.
Speaker 4: I mean, in Oakland, they have a time limit that you're allowed as a council member for questions and deliberation. So that might be something we might want to think about.
Speaker 5: So I've said my say.
Speaker 3: You've made your motion.
Speaker 5: Oh, I'll move that we. I'm. Direct the council to appoint a subcommittee and ask the Open Government Committee to review the rules of order for government that are captured in these resolutions. And that the timing for the meeting of the Open Government Committee is scheduled within the workload of the city clerk and the city attorney.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I motion carries unanimously.
Speaker 4: Who's our committee.
Speaker 0: If you decide that at this time.
Speaker 4: Let's do we do that?
Speaker 0: So did you want to leave this?
Speaker 5: He wants to be on it. I don't I don't care to be on it. I heard two people volunteer.
Speaker 3: I'm still willing to work.
Speaker 4: With you or the mayor or anyone or not.
Speaker 3: Were you were you meeting one of.
Speaker 4: Well, you said that already. So sorry.
Speaker 0: Well, some I'm hearing. So. So I don't support this part of it. Member already a member Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Is that okay with its final menu? Yeah. Okay, then.
Speaker 0: So. So I would actually propose that the vice mayor and I do this.
Speaker 3: But you're the one who objects to this process to begin with.
Speaker 0: Because so to me, it should. My preference would be that we always include the vice mayor and the mayor and something like this. And I've actually proposed that my preference is to include all council members. However, if we're going to limit the two of us, then I then my preference would be the vice mayor and myself.
Speaker 3: But just a point of clarification, Mayor. We can't. It wouldn't be a subcommittee because we would have a problem if there were more than two.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that. So my preference would be then that it's the vice mayor and myself that if we're going to have a subcommittee.
Speaker 4: Make a motion, I.
Speaker 5: Move. Council member owning. Council member.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Host I oppose. And Vice mayor is abstaining.
Speaker 6: The motion.
Speaker 0: Carries a311. Council communications. | Council Referral | Consider Reviewing and Updating the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Not heard on April 18, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04182017_2017-4155 | Speaker 3: Okay, so I pulled this one and I gave this Smith from public works very short notice that I was doing this. I'm sorry, but it's. So this one, just for the public is falling. Following along is a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a short term agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, our water provider to provide services for the city of Alameda potable water system at Alameda Point. The language in this is a very brief staff report. There's a language that caught my eye. Was that talking about in the first paragraph of the background paragraph on page one that we are looking at a short term agreement for East Bay Med to continue services up to six months while the city and has been met to continue negotiating in terms of an agreement that addresses the phasing of new incremental development in the adaptive reuse area of Alameda Point. That's where our Alameda Point collaborative and historic Alameda Point areas are. And this was the language that I wanted to ask about and explore the possibility of the city transitioning from East Bay Med to an outside contractor for operations and maintenance services of existing water infrastructure, if possible, and if authorized by the State Water Board. Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water City Staff is conducting due diligence on multiple fronts on the water quality and public safety implications of changing from East Bay Med to a private contractor and is not currently recommending this approach. And I think given that, you know, nothing operates in a vacuum and we follow the news from around the Bay Area, around the country, and we've all heard of Flint, Michigan, and the horrendous situation there. So my first question is, why would we even be considering looking at someone besides our water utility to provide this these services operations and maintenance of existing water? And this is apparently drinking water, potable water. And also, who else does this? Are there are there private contractors in and what was the impetus for for this consideration?
Speaker 2: Thank you both. Really good questions. So we are actively doing our due diligence to better understand what it would look like to have an operator that's not used. Payment is East Bay, mud is the potable water provider for the area. They typically aren't in the business of providing this operation and maintenance services for a system that's not their own. So they have been providing the service for us since late 1990s through this JPA. The JPA expired in this short term agreement and.
Speaker 3: The JPA would be a.
Speaker 1: Joint sorry, ours with the.
Speaker 2: Waters Agreement. This short term agreement essentially extends the services that was in that Joint Powers Agreement for six months. So we can better understand from a legal, regulatory and technical front what that would mean to have an operator that's not East Bay mud. So we don't have the answers that you are seeking now. But this six months should allow us the time to better understand that we're also working with an outside specialist, a special counsel, to assist us in understanding what it would mean.
Speaker 3: So was the primary consideration for looking at other possible providers. The fact that he's been made doesn't normally do service and maintenance on facilities that aren't their own correct.
Speaker 2: And we're also in parallel to us doing our due diligence for a possible alternative operator. We are in discussions about what the new development would look like in that reuse area, meaning the replacement of the old, the Navy water infrastructure with East Bay mud. So as we have more clarity on that, the operational piece might be able to piece into that as well. So a lot of moving parts at this point, but hopefully the six months will allow us to get the clarity we need.
Speaker 3: Right. And so then we will expect to report back to the council. Absolutely. Okay. Great answers, as always. Thank you, Ms.. Smith.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other.
Speaker 1: Question?
Speaker 0: Questions then and thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So then. Thank you. I will move it. A move approval then of this recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a short term agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to provide services for the city of alameda potable water system in alameda point.
Speaker 0: We have a second. All those in favor of my motion carries unanimously. Thank you. So now we move on to regular agenda item six.
Speaker 2: Hey, introduction of ordinance approving a First Amendment to a lease and authorizing the city.
Speaker 1: Manager to execute.
Speaker 3: Documents necessary to implement the terms of the First.
Speaker 2: Amendment to the lease agreement with Advanced Roofing Services. The California Corporation for Building 612.
Speaker 1: Located at 1450.
Speaker 2: Viking Street at Alameda Point. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Short Term Agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to Provide Services for the City of Alameda’s Potable Water System at Alameda Point. (Public Works 818003) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04182017_2017-4015 | Speaker 0: Yeah, go ahead. So. Who wants to present.
Speaker 2: So I think that I think that a number of us have met with, as well as our city planner, has met with the Golden Gate, Audubon Society. They've done a lot of work here in Alameda, and specifically with our leashed terns and other bird sanctuaries in Alameda and have done a great job working towards conservation and wildlife care standards in other cities, including San Francisco and Richmond. And they have put forward just basic language that would help advise potential developers, people building anything here in Alameda, different practices that could make their buildings bird safe. And I've I've also spoken with a number of other individuals who are architects, planners and developers. And a lot of these things end up coming up later in the process, in particular during the sequel process and other things. And so this would just codify it and put them on alert earlier on to some of the best practices and basic things that they can do to make their buildings bird safe.
Speaker 0: All right, so then. Well, here. Question member matter.
Speaker 4: So we're not giving people ideas. The purpose of this referral is to establish an ordinance that people have to follow, make buildings burn safe. Correct. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Speakers. Marjorie Powell. Then. DeCarlo Annie. Patricia McCann and. Cindy Margolis. And then they are a fat, skinny. Go ahead. All right.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mayor Spencer, members of the council.
Speaker 6: My name is Marjorie Powell.
Speaker 0: I've been a resident of Alameda.
Speaker 6: Now for just over.
Speaker 3: Three years. We selected.
Speaker 0: Alameda out of the Bay.
Speaker 6: Area because of its.
Speaker 3: Wildlife friendly reputation.
Speaker 6: And because, frankly, I was familiar.
Speaker 3: With the LC.
Speaker 0: Romer Bird Sanctuary.
Speaker 3: Which is now.
Speaker 6: Across the street from where we live. Across the street from it, I guess I should say. I'm also a member of the Golden Gate, Audubon.
Speaker 3: Society and the.
Speaker 6: The Friends of the Alameda.
Speaker 3: Wildlife Reserve, which.
Speaker 6: Focuses on the least tern colony up at.
Speaker 0: Alameda Point. But I want to.
Speaker 6: Urge the Council to adopt an ordinance that in that requires.
Speaker 3: Planners to make their buildings bird safe.
Speaker 6: There are several reasons for this. First. If it is.
Speaker 3: An ordinance, then planners.
Speaker 6: Know ahead of time what they have have to comply with. And a number of planners have told.
Speaker 3: Golden Gate Audubon, as you will hear later in.
Speaker 6: Our testimony, that knowing ahead of.
Speaker 3: Time this is in fact.
Speaker 6: Not expensive, it there are many options that will make the building easier to heat and to cool.
Speaker 3: So it eventually.
Speaker 6: Saves money in the long run. But it's also important to note that there are three potential factors that would be involved in making buildings bird safe. Depending on the height of the building and the nature of the design of the structure. One is what you do with windows. Birds don't see glass, so they will fly into windows. That's important both for tall glass buildings, but also for lower buildings that have large glass. Because many areas in Alameda have nesting, breeding birds, and they're the ones who will crash into the building's windows that are lower down because they're moving quickly, particularly the smaller birds. So windows are one concern. Lighting is another concern. The lighting shouldn't be directed where it's not needed, particularly on to water, but also landscaping. If the building is a large building designed with an interior courtyard, you don't want windows that are going to.
Speaker 3: Be attracting birds.
Speaker 6: To fly into a landscaped interior courtyard. Speakers coming behind me will highlight many of these issues. But I did want to say that we think this is very important. It's not particularly difficult for architects to including in planning if they know ahead of time what they need to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Linda. First, I want to thank you so much for spending 2/1 for.
Speaker 6: Staying so you could hear our request. We are really.
Speaker 0: Appreciative. So I'm Linda Colonia, a village in Alameda, about six years. I'm a member.
Speaker 6: Of the board of the Golden.
Speaker 0: Gate Audubon, and I'm the co-chair of the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve.
Speaker 6: And I just want to urge.
Speaker 0: You to adopt this referral to establish. Building standards to protect our birds. So glass in our built environment is a significant.
Speaker 6: Hazard to birds. 300 million birds are killed in building collisions.
Speaker 0: Each year in the United States.
Speaker 6: More birds.
Speaker 0: Are killed by collisions with buildings than.
Speaker 6: Any other single source other than free.
Speaker 0: Roaming cats. And Alameda is really a critical place for birds. We're right on the Pacific Flyway. We have these incredible.
Speaker 6: Shorebirds.
Speaker 0: And we have all.
Speaker 6: Kinds of birds that nest here. So it's really important for Alameda.
Speaker 0: And Alameda has a history.
Speaker 6: Of making.
Speaker 0: Environment and wildlife protection a priority from kind of creating the LC from sanctuary.
Speaker 6: To.
Speaker 0: Zoning, the wildlife reserve up on Alameda Point. So we think this is really the next step. As Marjorie said, it's competitive so long as you do it at the beginning.
Speaker 6: Both San Francisco and Oakland did this several years.
Speaker 0: Ago and Richmond just did.
Speaker 6: It.
Speaker 0: In November of last year. So we think it's time for Alameda to do this, too. Thank you for your time and I hope you'll adopt the referral. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I guess.
Speaker 2: Good morning. City council members. I'm Patricia again, and I also am a member of Golden.
Speaker 0: Gate Autobahn.
Speaker 1: And the friends of.
Speaker 6: The Alameda Wildlife Refuge Reserve. And I also.
Speaker 2: Just strongly endorse.
Speaker 6: This bird building.
Speaker 2: Anti bird safe building ordinance.
Speaker 6: This would establish Alameda as credentials.
Speaker 3: As a bird friendly.
Speaker 6: City and could encourage nearby communities.
Speaker 2: To do the.
Speaker 6: Same. Please move forward. And while I am here, I am also supporting the city, exploring taking title to the uncompleted strip of Shoreline Park, which also would be good.
Speaker 0: With.
Speaker 3: An agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. These lips. I just noticed these lips we should actually had, like on hers. That has agenda item nine and nine city. Okay. And then Cindy's has nine A and nine. See also. And then the one's nine.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We combine nine B's.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll make another one.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's two of them. All right.
Speaker 6: Hey. Thank you all for hanging late. I really appreciate it. And so do all of us. The reason this is so urgent is because there are so many development plans in Alameda. And so it's very important that we get ahead of the development cycle so that we don't add additional costs to the developers who want to develop in an environmentally responsible way. In Alameda. As some of the speakers have told you, the wildlife cohort in Alameda is incredibly special. It's actually very special relative to all the other Bay Area. So we have more than 200 species which live just at the refuge alone, just in that little section of Alameda have been seen. So if you take the whole island and the cross-section of all the different varieties across the island, there's a lot of different birds. That includes endangered species, threatened species, species of special concern. These are birds you really don't want to lose. And we've used birds as a harbinger of the environment for all Alameda schoolchildren. So we've had a program for years where we're going into the schools and educating the kids about the birds. And they get so excited thinking that they're special birds in their own community. And it helps them identify with the community and with the nature that's around them. As this other speaker said, it's the second leading cause of bird mortality, and it's totally preventable with a smart ordinance. I am going to encourage that. The city of Alameda take a leadership role nationally on this topic, and it's actually not very difficult. So three other Bay Area cities within our catchment of Golden Gate Audubon have adopted these as well as some in the South Bay. But what you are able to do based on the science which was provided, which is in the referral packet from Cal Academy, that study establish that the standards for bird safe windows should be a little bit smaller in terms of single plate design. So you can have multiple plates, but each individual plate of a certain size should be mitigated in some way. It doesn't mean you can't use glass, it just means the glass has to be mitigated properly. If you do that, Alameda is able to take a national prominent role on this, which is a very important statement for a city that holds the most important protective colony of an endangered species in the nation. And the American Bird Conservancy has assured me that they will step up with Alameda and declare how important what you've done is. So I am going to ask that the planner take that additional step of the leadership position because of the bird life that is so special in the city, adopting the bird safe building would govern all new construction. And as we're looking at increased density of housing, one of the things that's going to make Alameda so special is our shoreline and our access to public space and birds become a way to connect people to those spaces. And what you don't want to do is build a bunch of buildings that are going to have dead birds outside their windows. So this solves a lot of problems for the city. It reconnects the city with its island heritage, with the wildlife around us, and with the beautiful shoreline that we enjoy as an island city. In addition, there were priority around dark-sky and lighting is another important factor. That's part of the bird safe constellation, if you will, part in the face of issues that were talked about. So there's buildings, there's lighting, and there's also the relationship of the landscape to the building as those things relate to each other. And this would solve that in the way that other cities have solved that. No up lighting, no downloading, no water lighting, but lighting for security. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So she's our last speaker on the nine A, if I'm reading this correctly, your. Now are there's nine be. I'm sorry on this form.
Speaker 6: Good morning. I am not going to speak much because.
Speaker 0: You are sorry for this already. I'm sorry. Before you continue. So she's speaking on nine. B is. But the slip says.
Speaker 7: We agree to continue.
Speaker 0: So I didn't know that. Or is that okay? Work is perfectly fine, right? Yeah. Okay, then. Go ahead. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to say I'm. Especially excited to see Almeida potentially join the growing list of people that are concerned about bird safe buildings and cities that have adopted ordinances already. And I think it's especially fitting to have this decision made in April when we have Earth Day and we have a lot of friends birthday and a lot of a lot of attention toward. Our natural resources. And I'm here tonight just to say hello and hope you support us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And hello. So she's our last speaker on. So we have other speakers online. So then do you want to hear about them or an online? Okay, Pat Lambrew, I'm 90 also. So if anyone was here on nine A or nine be. I did already call you.
Speaker 6: I wasn't sure. So we combined nine B, 99 D, I think we've probably said enough. Then I was going to just mention how important landscaping and trees are in conversations with folks who live right near a well-lit building. They have been in a long conversation to get ahead. There is some speaking up for the hedge. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 7: So may I suggest may are you? You said there was a slight nuance difference. Maybe you can explain that. And then maybe we can dispose of this before.
Speaker 0: The night on 99. So I did a separate referral because I want to make sure I actually from reviewing the Golden Gate Audubon website, they have make the city safe for wildlife. And they have multiple things. They have the buildings standards for bird safe buildings, but then they also have tree care and bird safety tree care, and then they have lights as another thing. So the artificial light and referred speakers on all those. So I wanted to make sure we're looking at a comprehensive. Effort to protect our wildlife. So in addition to the word safe buildings and and I have previously done referrals for the artificial light and the trees. And I, you know, I I'm hopeful that we could. Look at the whole appetite for birds. And the other two, the artificial light and the trees were ranked as medium level on our priority thing. And I don't know where we're going to put this, but I would hope that we're providing a good habitat as well as looking , you know, the trees, lighting and build building safety together, which is why I yeah. And I did my seven to make sure we're doing a comprehensive effort here.
Speaker 2: And I think the sample basic draft for the Alameda Bird Friendly Ordinance Framework, which is one of the attachments, includes things on the importance of landscaping and feature related standards as well, including atriums, greenhouses, things like that, as well as the lighting aspect I think. I hope that that addresses some of the concerns, I think. My hope is that this this gets folded in with some of the other elements that we're looking at and so that we get something that's comprehensive instead of something that's piecemeal.
Speaker 0: That's why I was bringing it to you as a comprehensive effort. I appreciate hearing that. Vice Chair.
Speaker 7: I mean, I would agree with the vice mayor that I think the the draft ordinance from Richmond accomplishes that. I mean, I would like to be able to have us celebrate that we're nationally recognized for this effort. So to the extent that there's extra things that are not in that Richmond ordinance, then I'd be in favor of that. But, you know, not to pontificate for too long because it is late. But, you know, we do care about our wildlife here. And, you know, we've done a lot of work. Councilmember Matt Arrestee. I mean, taking the lead on protecting the SEALs. Mm hmm. So, I mean, that that's really strong. And I, you know, just real quick, I remember I was out there on first sight over the weekend, and I remember getting distracted by just watching this bird play in the sand. And I was supposed to be paying attention to the property owners. But so I do think this is an important thing. And I know it's kind of a small thing, but, you know, all of our wildlife is important. So I think it's important we take this the step.
Speaker 0: So it sounds like I may have heard that. So if you're agreeable to combining them somehow so that we are looking at a comprehensive partnership, and that's just that's what I want, but I want to try to make sure we're doing that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I mean, we're going to look at where this fits in the priority that we established. And also it will go to our city planner right to to look at. And we you know, I want to know what all the considerations are. And I have met with a lot of these ladies out here, the advocates. But we need to find out from a practical matter, what will that mean in terms of. You know what? More financial pressure on developers. We've had a little experience lately about how, you know, the changing landscape, but oftentimes you can meet a lot of criteria. But yeah, well, yeah, that's something that our planning department.
Speaker 0: Can take a look at. That's. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: So do you want to set a priority on where this fits in?
Speaker 4: And may I suggest that it's a medium just like the lighting ordinance.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 7: And I think it might.
Speaker 4: And I'm right. I move that we adopt a we give direction to a to consider a comprehensive. A bird friendly ordinance with protections for other wildlife as consideration is referred to. And I can be.
Speaker 7: I'll second.
Speaker 3: That. And and just by way of discussion, if we were looking at applicable criteria, I think that this is a referral dependent on other city projects or work efforts because I know we are there is an effort in planning to update a number of our codes. So oftentimes work product can be grouped together just saying sometimes it helps to look at applicable criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 4: The medium status.
Speaker 3: With medium.
Speaker 0: Priority. Yes, we have a second. Second. And so then I just want to clarify. So we're actually combining 99 versus. Yes, yes. All right. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously and we've disposed of nine B now we can go to nine C.
Speaker 1: Consider directing staff to prepare for it.
Speaker 7: Thanks for waiting.
Speaker 1: On the city of Alameda acquiring.
Speaker 2: Taking title the uncompleted strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay.
Speaker 1: Parkway.
Speaker 0: All right. And I brought this referral. That's pulling up and we have one speaker on this and an and this is considered directing staff to prepare a report on the city of Alameda acquiring or taking title to the uncompleted strip of Shoreline Park next to the Harbor Bay Parkway. And some background is as the proposed hotel was being discussed at Bccdc, there was discussion of the strip and and it wasn't really clear it was being discussed as a benefit of building the hotel. But it really wasn't clear that this, in fact, is actually the city's as they are. This is something that the city could take possession of, is my understanding from the discussion. And so I brought the referral because I'd like us to consider taking possession of it just on our own and seeing what the if that's a possibility and the costs involved. And so that's why I brought this. Now we'll have our speaker, Pat Lamborn.
Speaker 6: Thank you all so much. Thanks to the entire city council for staying and including this and the nine, A, B, and C, thank you to the city staff for staying so late. And thank you to my sisters from the Golden Gate, Audubon Society. | Council Referral | Consider Adopting a “Bird-Safe Buildings” Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04182017_2017-4046 | Speaker 6: Thank you all so much. Thanks to the entire city council for staying and including this and the nine, A, B, and C, thank you to the city staff for staying so late. And thank you to my sisters from the Golden Gate, Audubon Society. So there were some visuals, maybe that we don't need. There was a map that might be helpful, basically. Right. This is to us to ask the staff to prepare a report on just two places geographically for you. You know, maybe you have the map in front of you. It's essentially 23, 50 Harbor Bay Parkway. It's a small piece of land. It's actually two parcels. Right. And on one side is Shoreline Park, small, you know, grassy park with the bathrooms. The other side is a concrete extension of that park shoreline part of the map. So I don't know if we can pull up the map item. I mean, I don't want to lengthen things. There's also a darling 10/2 video of a girl on a bike. So anything you want to do. But it is helpful to place it geographically. Parcel one personal one is 1.17 acres. It's zoned commercial for an office building or a restaurant. Right. That's clear. Parcel four is what we're talking about. It's a strip of land right in front of the bay. And I sent you all a memo, and I don't know if you remember reading it. I certainly wouldn't imagine that you would remember it at this moment at 130 on or whatever the heck time it is on on Wednesday. But I did write up the memo. I went through planning documents and went through B, C, C amendment agreements and amendments. And I did that precisely to ask that you when you directed staff to prepare the study, that you put a timeline and a deadline on it. We're in possession of these documents in. One of the things I cited is actually a public document. It was a letter from Dan Reidy of Harbor Bay Associates when they zoned parcel one to be commercial. He literally referred to this parcel four as parcel one is next to the strip of land reserved for the Shoreline Park. So I truly believe this parcel is dedicated land to our city. And if I wrote the memo, hopefully to hasten that study, I think it's in our hands. Our staff has written many of the B, C, D, C amendments. So I think we could set that. The other thing I wanted to say is I wanted to ask that you make this a high priority and why would I do that? You have all these priorities. This well, this is why I was going to put this more diplomatically to city council meetings ago at 11 at night.
Speaker 0: But it's too late.
Speaker 6: To be that diplomatic OC. Why should this be a priority? Parcel one is owned by Mina Patel. She is its own commercial. The last commercial development she brought to our planning board was for a five story building. Our planning board okayed that. She planted that building right on the property line of parcel four. Now, if that's a public park, I don't think we allow that. And the former city council approved that plan. So I think it's time to really clarify. This is Parkland. You know, Patel still owns the other parcel. Let's make it clear, it's adjacent to a public park, if that's what the study brings back. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Cindy Margolis. She's our last speaker on this item.
Speaker 6: In case you're not sick of me yet. I am Cindy Margolis, the executive director of Golden Gate Audubon. And I strongly urge the city to take this under consideration. What Pat has just talked about, this is really important. You almost had a giant, ugly motel planted in the middle of one of almeida's gems of a shoreline park with a vista facing the bay. And in San Francisco. And it would have obstructed that entire shoreline. If you don't take proper possession of that land and claim that for the city, with all of the covenants that would govern how a park property would be treated, you, that could happen again. But for the grace of a decision by Bccdc, the city was spared that decision, and it shouldn't be up to Bccdc to make those decisions that should be up to our city. So I encourage you to do that. Thank you very much. And we appreciate your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Um.
Speaker 0: Member matters.
Speaker 4: Do I think we should do it? I want to know. So I move the referral.
Speaker 3: And the utilities. The rest of us have made comments.
Speaker 0: What did you want to set a priority in your motion? I want to hear some rationale.
Speaker 3: For any specific. So I spoke to our city planner, Andrew Thomas, about this because I wanted more information. What he informed me is that this is actually this strip of Shoreline Park and the city attorney may have even more clarity on. It is something that the city would require the developer of the adjacent property to pay for developing as parkland and improving and maintaining. And so we have had some pretty lively discussions about our budget, our upcoming budget and the fact that it's not unlimited, that we'd like to do things with it and we need to do things with it. So I could not support the city taking on a responsibility that rightfully will belong to a developer. But I would love to hear the city attorney's amplification.
Speaker 6: If I may, just briefly and frankly, I didn't go back and look at all of my notes on this, but we have done some some preliminary research and all of the documents as well. And first of all, this that's why I want some clarity from you all what we're looking at, because this strip of land that has been mentioned is actually already to be dedicated to the city. So we have there is already a public access easement across it. So we have our public has free and unfettered use of this property. There are minor improvements on it. But the idea is that when a developer, as we've done throughout throughout this area, when a developer develops the adjacent property, we typically require that they do some additional improvements to this this strip of land, which is why we have not yet taken the property. We can take the property, we can accept the property. We all again, we have an easement already, but it has just as councils have determined that they wanted to wait until they had a developer who could add some improvements before we accepted the fee title.
Speaker 0: Never matter.
Speaker 4: I think one of the original format of this council referral was to direct staff to bring back a report on the request. And I, I appreciate the the explanation, but it's buried in the minutes. And it's also maybe it's not what you would do if you were writing a report. So I again, I would like to know. And the referral says direct staff to if you read the referral, it says direct staff. Find out what steps it would take to acquire this property and what considerations are. And we would get that in a report. And then we can decide what to do with it, that we're not deciding whether to take it tonight or not. We're seeing what the rules are around it, and we're saying that we're interested.
Speaker 6: So, Councilman Madras, my my point was and I'm sorry, maybe I was unclear because it's so late is I'm just trying to understand if you're interested in it.
Speaker 0: Only that strip.
Speaker 6: If you're looking in some at some broader piece of property. That's what I want to get clarification.
Speaker 0: That strip. Just the strip. Okay.
Speaker 2: And because you want cost estimates of a purchase, I mean, that's more.
Speaker 0: Well, I understand you can take title. All right. So I'd like the analysis of what the status is. All right. Vice Mayor?
Speaker 2: No, I think I think the the other thing that would be helpful is just what is the you know, if we take title, which it seems like we can as as right. We can take title what the costs would be to fix up the park or maintain it or both. And then also, you know, if if we lose the ability to get those improvements from somebody who develops the property later on.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I guess that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you. I guess that's what I'm concerned about, too. I mean, in my day job, every couple of months, the city of San Leandro wants to take title to East 14th Street, but they want Caltrans to improve it and make it pristine. So, I mean, the question to me is then, I mean, if we already have a right to take this title, I'd rather take title when it's developed and then we're not paying for it to be developed. Then take it now when it's raw and then we have to pay and foot the bill to to develop it. So, you know, that's my concern. I'd rather take something that we don't have to spend any money on. So.
Speaker 0: So I was hoping to be able to have staff give us the information of what the status is, what the you know, the questions that vice mayor raised and then have that discussion and then we would give direction. At this point, we wouldn't be making a decision on the merits.
Speaker 3: Is it? QUESTION Thank you. Is it is this issue even right? Because I thought that we've heard that the hotel owner is planning to make another application. I mean, I've heard it.
Speaker 0: That could be part of the information you provide. But this isn't supposed to be a discussion on the merits right now. This is actually just supposed to be that we would be directing staff.
Speaker 3: To decide whether whether we direct them to or not. And. Yeah. And what priority we would assign it.
Speaker 6: I know we are. We are. We are happy if three of you are directing us to do that, to come back with a report on what the current status is, that's not a problem. I just wanted to make sure that we were looking at the right amount of property. So it's only the strip. Okay.
Speaker 0: And it wasn't just the currency, as I like other questions.
Speaker 2: So if if there's if there is a new proposal that's submitted, perhaps we could roll this report in. Presentation that is made relative and that application.
Speaker 3: Rather than asking staff to spend.
Speaker 2: Staff if if. If. A new application.
Speaker 0: So my concern honestly was when I went back DC My recollection of the hotel and the presentation. Really suggested that this is not property, that the city has access to, that their gift to the community for their trade, their benefit to the community was this. And it wasn't really made clear that this is actually something the city already has a right to. And they weren't separating that right to this property and the additional benefits they were making it seem as though this whole strip was a gift to the city, which isn't true, which is why I think it's important that that's actually my in bringing this, because I think it's very important that if a developer is going to be supposed to be giving us a gift because it's for the public benefit, because they're within 100 feet of the water, that it actually be a real gift and not something that we already can take right frame to. So.
Speaker 2: So perhaps what we're also seeking is it appears as though there's our our city attorney's interpretation is different from the developer's interpretation. So I think it would be helpful to get guidance of that in either case.
Speaker 3: So such time as the project comes back now.
Speaker 0: So the priority I would agree that it be. So I don't want to wait until they this developer I if they end up doing an application of that, like you said, then then we can look at if it makes sense to include it then. But otherwise I would like us to resolve this issue. So that's very clear. That's very clear. So that we as a community know, is this our.
Speaker 2: Property, whatever the cost? I have a question for city. Do we have a timeline on how you have this information readily available that you would be basing your analysis off of in terms of whether or not we we actually could take it by. Right. Or.
Speaker 6: You know. Yes, we started doing we started pulling together the document so we could do it relatively quickly, at least to confirm to you what the city's rights are. If you want us to do additional analysis about us of potential improvements or things like that. We haven't begun that.
Speaker 0: Analysis. I mean, I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: But then my my concern then is, you know. The last in line now bumps the others. So, I mean, I, I don't know if this is any higher priority than any of the others that we've we've approved, especially given the fact that some of those have of lingered for months. So, I mean, I don't know which one I would push aside in order to do this one. Maybe my colleagues could suggest one. I don't know.
Speaker 3: Well, that council member matter. I made a motion. Why don't we see where that goes? That might.
Speaker 4: Well, I just want to make sure I will appreciate the motion. That includes the question the council member, Villa Vice Mayor Villa asked, and also it considers the question if we take title to it, does the A future developer still have to provide land to the improvement to it?
Speaker 0: Or could they.
Speaker 4: Or could we compel them to or could they provide that as a as a benefit, a public benefit? So that's emotion.
Speaker 0: That is there.
Speaker 2: Well, are we going to discuss where it goes priority in terms of priority?
Speaker 0: That's the second version.
Speaker 4: I'm going to suggest a priority if you go back to that. I don't think this is more important than homeless homelessness or social services or the other or the Amex development. Those are those are front line issues. And I think it's a medium.
Speaker 0: Miriam? Yes. Okay. So there's emotions there. Second. A second. But all those in favor. I.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: I suppose I can afford one motion carries. Thank you though. Was our motion to continue going through all these referrals or is it just the first three?
Speaker 2: So you did.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: A full agenda. Okay.
Speaker 7: The nine are that it. But before we did that.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: So you make your notes.
Speaker 0: Yes. I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn at this time and bring back these other referrals. It's 135 member matter. I see.
Speaker 4: Um, can I make a motion first to table the remaining?
Speaker 0: However you want a word that.
Speaker 4: I'd like to suggest and make a motion that we table. Um, what.
Speaker 0: Is to.
Speaker 4: Nine DNF?
Speaker 0: Okay. What does that mean then? When do we hear those?
Speaker 3: You know what? I'm actually I want it. And if it's a motion for reconsideration, definitely have to be someone who voted against it, considering that. No, the motion to adjourn because before you you all voted to hear all the agenda items and I voted no.
Speaker 0: How is the work as a. So as city attorney, I.
Speaker 6: I didn't. Okay. So you do need it does need somebody who would be changing their position, which could potentially change the result, who has to bring a motion for reconsideration.
Speaker 0: There was this a motion for reconsideration. And we're at 1:30 a.m. to adjourn at this point to table this points.
Speaker 4: I think the if I'm successful in getting a motion to table the remaining agenda items. Then we can adjourn without having to vote on.
Speaker 0: A motion for reconsideration, a motion to table.
Speaker 6: I think you could I think with the council member matter, he said is correct. If you vote to table, then there's you finished your agenda.
Speaker 0: So that was a motion motion to table.
Speaker 3: And I want a discussion, though, on this, because we have kept the housing authority executive director here all evening long and her item is next. And I actually think that we would do well to 90 here.
Speaker 0: 90. Okay. So you have a motion that very.
Speaker 3: Okay so if you want to.
Speaker 0: In and.
Speaker 3: 90 and then we table.
Speaker 4: The rest. I'm willing to do that. I withdraw my motion.
Speaker 0: To the motion to hear 90 and then table the rest the second.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I any oppose. Okay, we'll do 90.
Speaker 4: Okay. This was my referral. Um, the referral is to propose to return the City Council to its role as the Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority. And my request is that a request that the city council direct the city manager and city attorney to present to the Council the steps necessary to reinstate the | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay Parkway. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04182017_2017-4077 | Speaker 4: Okay. This was my referral. Um, the referral is to propose to return the City Council to its role as the Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority. And my request is that a request that the city council direct the city manager and city attorney to present to the Council the steps necessary to reinstate the City Council as the Board of Commissioners for the Alameda Housing Authority with the responsibility for policy and approval of the HRA budget. What I would like people also, and I'm mindful of the threats that the federal government has made against sanctuary cities. And there's quite a bit of federal money that comes in the form of housing vouchers and housing subsidies. So I also like the the report to include an analysis of that and. I think I'm not insisting that we actually do it immediately, but I would like to have us consider taking the steps. The justification for this is we all know that there's a housing crisis here, and I believe that the best way to address affordable housing has been and will continue to be through the housing authority. It's more reliable and it's more has more certainty than the home market rate. Deliverance of affordable housing units. Alameda residents also expect the city council to do something about housing. They also have expected in the past when that council was the policy board to do something about when there were problems with the housing authority. And I've heard some complaints about from the residents of Constitution Plaza about the change in atmosphere and changing some of the rules there. That's a minor point. But those individuals expect to go to an elected body to seek to seek of a voice, to a sounding board and in a direct line to action. I also think personally that if I'm being held accountable for housing the city as a council member, I think we should have the authority and with our rec system, whether it stays or goes, all of all of the rental activity goes through the housing authority as well. And we're being the council is the expectation of people as council. Responsible. That's my justification.
Speaker 0: Hey, we have a speaker. Uh, I know it's the first, but unless. Or is it just one too?
Speaker 2: There's a.
Speaker 0: Okay. Vanessa Cooper.
Speaker 3: Sara, are you speaking with Officer?
Speaker 0: I have left if you want to speak on this.
Speaker 6: Well, actually, no, because I thought the room would be full and you wouldn't know I was here. I just wanted to make sure that I was here to answer any questions that you have. We are mindful that, you know, in December, we got a 5% cut on our Section eight program that approximates to about 82 families that we have to unhoused somehow by the end of the year. So we're really looking at that. We expect to do that through attrition, but we don't have budget authority until April 28th. And if the government shuts down or the president's bill for the budget passes, we can expect increasing changes to the Section eight program, which is really the bulk of the work we do. There's not a lot of policy making there, unfortunately. It's not driven policy. And so I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. We are concerned about sanctuary city. We are concerned about the just the sort of level of tension right now in terms of the federal and the state government. And my staff are fully occupied on getting people housed, keeping people housed. We are at almost zero vacancy every week. And so we're busy tackling the housing crisis.
Speaker 0: I remember Ashraf.
Speaker 3: I'm so. And Ms.. Cooper, we heard Councilmember Matt Arrestee refer to complaints. He's heard about Constitution Plaza, I think maybe Independence Plaza perhaps. Are you aware of what those complaints are?
Speaker 6: Right. So so when I first came to the housing authority, we looked at our policies, we looked at our lease, we brought in a new lease, which, frankly, was not that popular, actually, it had been designed by my predecessor and implemented under me. We have really moved through the housing crisis to try and maximize the use of our housing. And frankly, sometimes that has meant we've had to enforce the rules more clearly. So, for example, Independence Plaza, we have clearly enforced the rules about extra guests. There were multitudes of people leaving early in the morning who were not on our lease. Similarly, we have enforced payments so people were behind on their rent. And in order for for this type of housing to work, you have to get the rents in place. What I do realize is for some people, they don't like a more formal property management approach. But I will tell you, for those that have complaints, there are those that come up and say to me, thank you so much, you know, we want addressing such and such or this wasn't getting getting done. So the other thing to say is that the housing authority also has a much more formal complaint process now. So there's a site manager, the manager is available. There's someone on site seven days a week for people to talk to. Then there's a supervisor that's available. And then then we have a complaint form. We have a social worker who is available to every single resident, not just in a properties, but also in the private market in a section eight units that social worker and our translators will help them fill out the form if they can't do it and they will get a response back. We say ten days, but I will tell you, those responses go out in 2 to 3 days unless there's some kind of data inquiry. You know, sometimes and I think you've probably seen this yourselves where perhaps what you're getting from the tenant is not exactly what the data shows on the other side. So I'll be honest with you. You know, we're in the business of housing people. And when you house people, you have to address the rules. And there are some people who don't like the rules and there are some people who do. Those that get caught in perhaps stronger enforcement of the rules are more likely to be unhappy. What I will tell you is that the residents at Independence Plaza have had lots of new improvements. They have had us go through and sort out a lot of their parking issues, which has been a 20 year problem from what I can see in the documents. But not everyone is happy with that. And some people would like to have a softer touch in terms of that. But it's our job really to maximize the use of affordable housing in this market.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Anyone know the background in regards to why was it separated by was housing authorities?
Speaker 6: Well, yes. So there's a long history of coming together and coming apart. What I will say is that at least from the research that we've done, the work that was done in 2012 to separate was predominantly to put in place a fiscal and reputational firewall so that the assets that the housing authority has, which, for example, have large capital needs, would be dealt with by the housing authority and not impacted by the city. And similarly, you know, we're very much a retail business, and other than your permit center downstairs, you're not an amp, you're not really a retail business. So in terms of tackling those tenant issues, those types of things, this sort of reputational and financial firewall was put in place.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 7: I mean, I'd like to hear more about this plan and this idea, mostly for the reasons that my colleague mentioned. You know, and I, I don't receive a lot of complaints, but, you know, I do. I have received one kind of continuing complaint. And if the complaint is with the person who said the resident manager, what would you call.
Speaker 6: Right. So so your complaint is with me actually, we've been been working on that, but they do pass them up very quickly. They are instructed as soon as they get those complaints, as long as they can be resolved right there, face to face, they come on right up.
Speaker 7: Now, her her issue is not with you. Her issue is with the person that runs the. The building so mean. But the point of that is that there's no accountability to an elected official like a council member matter, he said. So I'd like to hear more about this. And I also think that the rent thing, if we do do a contract with the Housing Authority, I mean, the buck stops here with us on all that rental stuff. And to not have a lot of these considering having some control over that when we're making the policy and we're dealing with the constituents, I really think it's important to have this discussion. So I think. Mr. Matter SC for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: Um, so I, I mean, it's true. As Council members, we hear from disgruntled constituents all the time. When I look at the housing authority, I try to figure out what what's broken that we would be fixing, what's the problem that we're trying to address. I mean, I think that, you know, as the city, we do have rental properties that at Alameda Point and we keep ourselves busy just making sure that's all administered well. But my biggest hesitation and why I won't support this council referral is we have the potential of placing these housing authority section eight funds in jeopardy. And I don't take that lightly, and I would not in any way want my name associated with taking that first step. I think this is a very dangerous time. And, you know, for all intents and purposes, people the next four years to be fooling around with something as essential as funding for needy people housing. So I think there are a myriad of ways to address problems that people have with their housing providers. And we should know as well as anyone that, you know, there's always many sides to an issue. So I just think this seems like an extreme remedy with a lot of dangerous repercussions. And I I'm kind of chicken when it comes to stuff like that.
Speaker 0: Last year.
Speaker 2: You know, I have concerns about the fiscal impacts of a decision like this. And I also would just say that I think that there are other checks because just like we have when we have a contract with any other provider of services, I think there are there are connections. Our staff is working with the Housing Authority staff, and I think we could maybe address some of the issues relative to the rent program in connection with the contract for services. And I would prefer to do it that way than to kind of take a bigger step right now when there are so many so much funds at Jeopardy. Based off of what's coming down the pipeline from the federal government.
Speaker 0: All right. And. So great. So at this point I'm hearing two to choose member two just said and I'm going to I wanted to ask Steph, could we have just some some more of a discussion rather than this? So this referral is speaks to looking at having the city return a housing authority to the city. But could we just have a presentation from the Housing Authority? Where we could talk about, you know, what about these complaints? How do they address it, things like that. And then at some point, we could reconsider if we decide based upon that, that we do want to look at more. But at this point, that's what I would suggest, is that we have a presentation by about the housing authority where we talk about things and answer these questions. But I would not be agreeable to supporting this referral. And my concern is that that's why I asked why did we set it up this way initially fiscal firewall. And I think that that could and I wasn't on the council when they did that 2012. And were Madras were you on you weren't on the council then either. Was there anyone here that was on the council in 2000? Okay.
Speaker 3: So elected at the end of 2012, I said, okay.
Speaker 0: So it was a fiscal firewall apparently. So I would think that that is an important reason to keep it separate for fiscal reasons. And then yes, member Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: I didn't mean to cut you off. I didn't mean to do that. Oh, well, what I was going to say is we have this council referral in front of us and we've just tabled a couple of others. I. I think that we, there's other ways we can. You know, find out more about what the housing authority is doing. But right now we have a council referral to present the steps for the City Council to return to its role as the Board of Commissioner for the City of Alameda Housing Authority, which would make the Housing Authority part of our sanctuary city resolution that we did. And that's what's before us. And that is what involves giving direction to staff and nothing beyond that. It's just not agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay, so, so.
Speaker 7: But modify.
Speaker 0: It. But we want to list that we'd like a report.
Speaker 7: On and just get a report.
Speaker 0: To review. All right. Very. Member matter as you. Would you consider modifying your referral? Well, then I.
Speaker 4: Don't think it would be a referral, I would think. You know, maybe concurrent with the next report on. The Rent Review Advisory Committee and the. Managing of of rental complaints and supervision that's being contracted by the housing authority could be expanded to include. The status of the of the housing authority projects. President.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was their privacy issue.
Speaker 6: I was just trying to ask if there's a privacy issue, because, like the Section eight folks have privacy. Yeah. Well, yeah, so so I. I'm not there's a federal privacy rule that is specific to section eight. So I can't come to you and say, Mrs. Smith and my unit, such and such, I can tell you is how many complaints you received, how they were resolved to a certain extent, except for the very smallest properties. I can't tell you. I could tell you, you know, there were five from Independence Plaza and three of them.
Speaker 4: Were getting worse.
Speaker 6: Yes. That that we could do.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. So we're good with that one?
Speaker 4: Yes. Withdraw or referral.
Speaker 3: So you were.
Speaker 0: Saying thank you. And now.
Speaker 3: Uh, that was the last.
Speaker 0: Time enabled.
Speaker 3: Everything. Yep.
Speaker 0: So we just. So do I. I'm sorry. I don't. During the meeting. Do we just continue to. Right. So there's still during the meeting then at this time. Okay. So it's now 155 in the morning, um, during the meeting. Thank you, everyone. Have a wonderful morning. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Present the Steps for City Council to Return to Its Role as Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Not heard April 4, 2017] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_03072017_2017-3971 | Speaker 7: Thank you, Ms.. Spencer. So I brought this call for review. If you've had a chance to read the staff report, I think it's fairly straightforward. A call for review by the C o. It's my counsel referral concerning the call for review process. Those words are just too similar in my mind anyway. My council referral asks that the council consider revising the City Council call for review process to appeal board and commission decisions by requiring that two rather than just one. City Council member members initiate a call for review and state a reason for that appeal. And just by way of brief background. Currently, a single council member can ask that a decision of a city border commission be appealed, and it's been taking place sometimes without even stating a reason to do so. Now there is always the appeal process that any member of the public can engage in, but that does require the payment of a monetary deposit to the city because there is a cost in additional staff time for preparing for this appeal process. The financial requirement doesn't apply to council members, and my reason for bringing this is that I think it's always good to get a second opinion, if you will, just validating that, yeah, this is this is something that we need to look at as a council. You would have to get three votes to gain that majority to approve an appeal anyway. And it just might be that those two heads are better than one and might say, for instance, just taking the case of the most recent call for review appeal that we had at the last council meeting of a planning board decision that had been approved unanimously by the planning board, and it was called for review by one council member. And this was it involved a private private property owners in some work they were trying to do on their property. I asked them to go back and tell me how much did it cost you if you'd add up all your costs to prepare for the Planning Board's call for review? Because the planning board did say, we want more information on this particular item that had to do with making sure that heritage oak trees were preserved in this project where some work was being done in the proximity of their roots. That was, I think, well and good. And it was a very detailed, well documented appeal and response to it. Those homeowners spent $28,000 getting their experts together, getting engineers, analysis, landscape architects, arborists. They have engaged an attorney, so they paid that and they got the approval. But then within the prescribed time period, this appeal was brought. They ended up spending another $4,500 just to prepare for the council. The appeal before the Council and the council upheld the planning board decision on a 4 to 1 vote. So this is money that these applicants are spending before they even get to the point of of doing the work. And I'm just concerned that we need to be mindful of the time and the cost to both members of the public, to our business community, and also staff time and expenses. So I think this is a reasonable approach, and I believe there's probably some public speakers on this item.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Did any other councilors want to speak at this time before I call the speakers? All right. There are six speakers on this one. If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit yourself. Kerry Thompson. Thomas Ellerby, then Janet Gibson.
Speaker 4: Hello again. As the Chairperson for the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee for the Chamber of the Chamber of Commerce, we felt that it was a really unfair burden that is placed on particularly the business, because that is generally the one area that seems to be called for review more often than on a residential basis. However, it's inconvenient for both residential and business people to have to go through this process. The costs are prohibitive, it adds. It delays projects. There is a fair process for going through all of these projects that people are given ample opportunity to speak at any one of the various planning board meetings, city council meetings. However, the process has to go through and to have them go back after everything is done and approved is just unfair and unnecessary. And I do like the idea of having a second pair of eyes, another thought process, and think that that should be a requirement. They're not happy. The city council is not having to bear that cost. So they're not really having to think about it like someone who a private citizen who is having to really weigh that budget item for themselves to, you know, call that project for review. If. The. Applicant has to go through all of that cost. That is also a deterrent to business. Businesses think, you know, they're not going to want to come and do business with the city if they're afraid that they're going to have to then have this project called for review. Their investors are not going to want to invest in a project, and it's just not a good use of time, of staff's time of the council's time. I mean, there are a lot of other important things that they could be doing. So I urge you to approve Council Member Ashcroft's call for a review referral. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thomas LV.
Speaker 12: Good evening. At the last council meeting, my wife and I were called to defend a project that we have trouble with St Charles Street. We own that property and the call was made in spite of having. A unanimous approval by the planning board. Having four or five months of vetting being done. By the planning staff. Just to give you a little bit about my background, I'm a retired executive. One of a three person council that was responsible for $6 billion business with $24 million overall business. My responsibility is worldwide. I understand what the decision means and the impact that it has, and I don't feel that as I work tonight. The due diligence you gave to everything that you review tonight was applied to me with regard to my project. A simple phone call to any member of the body representing the planning board or the staff would reveal that the city arborist as well had approved a plan that was revealed to our mayor who made the call for me during the during the session. The people that she made the call. On behalf of my neighbors, I'm sure they had an expectation that when they came here that they would receive a different outcome. That it would be repealed. But our mirror only represents 20% of what needs to be done to get it overturn it. Just based on my observations in the meeting, I didn't see where she made contact with any other council member. To have you understand why she had made that call. I think my wife and I have been injured. You talked about it financially. Of course that's a part of it. But this process has been tedious for us. And that call impacted us in a way that caused more mental anguish than I've suffered in a very long time. So I think what you're doing tonight is something that's necessary. We need to rein it in. We need to have. We need to have the same kind of due diligence applied to what happens to me and others in this community that you did when you looked at what has to happen with the homeless in the seniors community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Janet Gibson. And Janet Gibson. And then Dorothy Freeman and then Gretchen Lebow. And Michael McDonough.
Speaker 1: So in Janet Gibson, I know all of you in just hearing this gentleman's comments, I am very sympathetic to that. I think that, however, my experience with the referral process is quite different, and I think that this was an unusual exception. I go back. Ten, 12 years on my street, on Morton Street, across from the Trinity Lutheran Church to the a small Victorian cottage that was there since it was kind of rundown when we moved in in 1973. But by the nineties and in year to probably 2000, they were the people had been there, sold it, and there was an owner who let it run down. It was a rental with several illegal apartments and the shingles were falling off the roof. And and he you know, he didn't fix it up. He just rented it. Navy was still here at that time. Well, eventually he wanted to tear it down and. And build a duplex. Yeah, we all know that tearing down Victorians is not too profitable because you can't build more than a duplex in Alameda. But it was a small house and he thought he could do it. And the neighbors on our street were just we have a lot of nice Victorians. Several have were torn down in the fifties and sixties and we have apartment houses but but it generally is a Victorian street. And so we, we got together and we went to the planning board and it wasn't planning board, it was the Historical Advisory Committee. And we presented our you know, we thought that this House had a lot of assets to it and help the neighborhood and could be restored. But they didn't they voted to were to let it be torn down. At that point. We were able to use the referral process as neighbors in Alameda to to have a second hearing. And it was at at that time that I became acquainted with the Alameda Victorian Society then and Chris Buckley and he did research on it and indeed it was a historical home. The bigger home next to it was the original home. This had been built, built for a family member. It was built by an architect that was famous. And anyway, the council voted to to change that decision. And and now it's it's it was purchased by a young man who's been working all these years and continues to and it looks quite nice now and will continue to even get better and better. It has been a real asset. That type of possibility won't be available to people who don't have the money to spend it. I think we're really talking.
Speaker 0: Finish up your comment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That if you want to be responsible to citizens in Alameda, they need this process to be covered unencumbered.
Speaker 0: Dorothy Freeman.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members and staff and public. I'm Dorothy Freeman. Some staff and business people have objected to the call for a review process as causing unnecessary delays and overload of staff. Time for business. The rules associated with the referral process are designed to keep action on the process short. Within ten days after the decision, another major objection about the referral process is from the Planning Board regarding council referrals for decisions the Planning Board has made. The public has a right to request a review without adding layers against them. When the 2100 Clement development was before the Planning Board, there was a very important issue for a homeowners association rule requiring garages to be used for parking and not filled up with storage. The city staff, the developer and the community all agreed on language that would be included in the homeowner's association rules. Parking in our neighborhood, as in all of Alameda, is difficult. So this rule was very important to the community. During the planning board meeting, when the rule was discussed. One planning board member remarked that she agreed or disagreed with the rule because she liked being able to use her garage for storage. There was no further discussion on the rule and it was, as it was known, the project had to come back to the planning board the next time 21 came before the Planning Board. The staff report still contained the recommendation to the homeowners association to require that garages be kept available to park the number of cars the garages are designed for. There was no discussion about the rule until the last 5 minutes when the planning board members were formulating their vote. Then a different planning board member stated that the proposed rule should be removed because it would be a first for Alameda as no present homeowner's associations in Alameda had that rule. At that time, it was too late for public comment or staff comments, and the text was removed from the highway rules. The community members requested a Karl Rove call for a review, but it was determined that a call for review was not necessary because the project had to come to City Council for approval and the Planning Board decision could be heard at that time. The council voted correctly to return the restrictions on parking and garages to the highway rules. There has been a lot of discussion about the time and effort that has to be has to be spent by the developers and the staff to call for a review. The community also spends time researching the information they bring to the council. Our community group spent the entire month of August researching, searching condo and town homeowners association rules. What we found out is all and I repeat all, condo and townhome owner association contracts contain restrictions on the use of garages for parking cars. This includes all the homeowners associations here in Alameda and in fact that planning board members should have and the planning board members should have been familiar with this, at least they should not be making decisions without knowing the rules.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Gretchen Lipow.
Speaker 4: Okay. I'm Gretchen Lipo.
Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 3: You know, my team and I did some research on this, and I'm going to. And I we sent you a letter, and I'm going to just summarize it. We're in opposition to this referral, and one of our goals is to make city government open and responsive to our citizens as possible. Okay. Such a constriction of citizen access to the council should not be enacted unless there is clear and convincing evidence that supports the conclusion that the present procedure unduly burdens council and staff and has some other demonstrable, significant adverse impact on the city. Councilmember Ashcraft Primarily our primary argument is for requiring two council members to initiate a call for review. Is that an individual council member might feel pressure to accommodate the wishes of constituents regardless of the merits or cost and time burden. However, no data is presented to substantiate this claim. Our letter includes an analysis of eight matters which have been call for review from 2015 through the current date.
Speaker 1: Seven of the eight calls.
Speaker 3: For review were either high public interest items or matters that impacted a much broader sector of the community that the property that was the focus of the call. The high public interest items were Harbor Bay, Hotel, Park Street, shipping, container development, mixed use development at the corner of Webster and Taylor and the Harbor Bay Assisted Living Development . All four of these property projects were approved by the Planning Board. The calls for review resulted in three of these projects being rejected or amended by the council, with the fourth project being rejected by a regional agency, BCD. What our citizens should have free and easy access to the appeal process rather than requiring them to lobby multiple council members to call for review or pay the substantial fee required for a citizen initiated appeal. In these four instances, a fee of what 850 to $220 would have been required. So we're asking you to reject this referral. And I feel like I gave a little bit of that as I gave a speech about a year ago on the container thing where I said a committee of people in Alameda spent in the city spent about $100,000 on this job to come up with a.
Speaker 4: Plan for.
Speaker 3: The area that they were going to build these containers. That plan was didn't have anything to do with the proposal that finally came out. And so we said, wait a minute. You know, does the planning board know that the city had a committee that worked on this, came up with a plan? Oh, I don't think so. And so that particular project was rejected. Anyway, I just want to end by saying, you know, this is a time when we need to open up things and be much more user friendly to our citizens and not close the door on them.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Michael McDonough.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Madam Mayor and the rest of the council. I want to thank. I'm Michael McDonagh, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to thank Marilyn as the Ashcraft for bringing this as a referral. And this is an issue that we have great despair over. And if we want to have some some facts, since 2012, up to 2006, beginning of 2016, I believe there were something around six call for reviews between 2016 and I guess it was middle of 2015 and the end of 2016 there were almost a dozen. And it's interesting that some time ago this wasn't a problem, but now that it has become a problem, I'm glad that you brought this up because it's important to bring a referral. The council needs more than one person to bring a referral like this, is my understanding. I don't see why this calling for a review. Is that not true? Not true? Oh, that was my understanding. My fault, Valerie.
Speaker 7: I'm the only one who brought this one.
Speaker 6: Okay. All right, then. And I'm glad you brought up the dollar amount that the young man had last last council meeting. 32,000 or so to get that. But the business community has spent millions. And it really has hurt our reputation as a business. Business environment. This is something we're trying to achieve here in Alameda, especially at some of the areas, for instance, Alameda point where we want to attract business. But if the business can go through the process that's established through the planning board that is appointed by you guys and that to do their job and it's approved and then after spending millions more because they think they have an approval, have the rug jerked out from under them, just does not do well for our reputation. And, you know, there is a process, so all the public has to do is participate in the existing process, which is the planning board. And then when they do come to the council member council here for final approval, in many cases participate in that process. And if they don't if they're so interested in these projects, then there is a process for them to have easy access to show their opinions, not after the fact, when they don't like the decision. And if they are so interested in the decision, it should be possible that they would pay the money that's that's necessary to pay to do that. And it's been shown in the last year and a half, many times that that the one council member rule has been abused a bit and not necessarily by you guys, but it has been something that's been called to our attention. The business community doesn't like it and we would really support this. I would I would recommend three, but I will accept the two because I think that's better than one in this case. So we support this and urge you to pass it on behalf of the business community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. He's our last speaker on this item.
Speaker 7: And so if I can just reply to some of the comments and I appreciate the members of the public coming out and speaking. So in the examples that were cited by a couple of of our speakers about projects that were indeed called for review, and there was some modification made. There is still no proof that they couldn't have garnered a second opinion from a second council member, and it wouldn't have prevented that project from, you know, coming back to the council. But I'm just saying that sometimes I think even as elected officials, we need to police ourselves and that it is not unreasonable for us to just have the opportunity to stop and think of what all the implications are. And I think that this is a time when we're we're moving forward. We have, you know, hopefully we're attracting new business. We want to create jobs. And there are all kinds of reasons that someone might want a project called For Review. The addition of that second opinion and that the the person bringing or people bringing the appeal state the basis for that appeal, I think is just fair and reasonable. So those are my comments and I'm happy to hear from my colleague.
Speaker 0: I thought each one.
Speaker 9: Of.
Speaker 0: Them wrote me.
Speaker 9: Thank you, madam. I said a quick question of staff. So we did a referral on this last year and it's in the queue and, you know, kind of at the tail end of. Of the timeline. I mean, if we pass this, we would still have that referral. Come back with some other substantive reform ideas or.
Speaker 1: We have a referral that wasn't this specific for two. So we would and that ranks in the middle, um, priority of the council goal setting workshop. And so when we bring that back. The Council could add this as a part of that to say look at the referral process, but also specifically look at this request.
Speaker 9: And again, hypothetically, if we pass it, I mean, we get this is a change to the municipal code. That's where we're. Where we have that authority.
Speaker 4: It would require a change to the municipal code. So what you would be voting on now is basically what the city manager just explained. You would be telling staff to go back and look at modifying the municipal code to accommodate this, and I think it could be done in connection with staff's already work in progress on it
Speaker 9: . Meanwhile, we would have if hypothetically it's passed, it wouldn't be implemented until whenever that is on the schedule. So we could have council direction that we want to be able to call for review, but. It may take 6 to 10 months to implement. So. That may be something we should talk about. I mean, I am kind of sympathetic to the fact that. Folks can have this happen with no skin in the game. I mean, the couple that had the. The garage. I mean, they had a lot of money invested and. I understand the business issue, too, but it, you know, kind of hit home to me more with a residents because residents don't have. Is unlimited amount of funds. As you know, we all like to think businesses have. And yet, you know, they had to expend their money. But those that wanted to call for review had no skin in the game. They could just all one of us, we could put it in there and then they get a free, free ticket. And if you get a free ticket, I mean, you're you may think twice about calling something if you have to pay $2,000. And I mean, I don't know how much I mean, I can't engage in a dialog with you, but I'm not quite sure how much you had to spend for that extra that extra time to bring it to the council. 3500 or 4500. So those that were against the project. Which, by the way. Passed 4 to 1. How to spend nothing. So I think there's an inequity there. And if just like I think I said this when we did the referral, the Supreme Court, it takes four of the judges nine. Now there's eight, but four to hear something because in their mind, if they're not going to overturn it, why should they spend their time? So in my mind, if we're not going to overturn something and you can't attract two people, I think you should have three. By the way, I agree with Mike, but Brown, if you can't. But. There should be some reasonable likelihood that the planning board is going to have their decision overturned. If there's no skin in the game and I mean, I had a problem with then I have a problem with it now and I'd like to see this referral get implemented sooner rather than later if it passes.
Speaker 0: And member matter. S.E..
Speaker 6: I looked at this and I looked at it also in context of the. It's no longer a referral. It's counsel direction because it passed here and it's on the priority list. The first thing that caught me was the requirement that a stated reason for and justification for the review has to be included. And I think the one on the floor that I saw in the oak tree situation is that that wasn't there. That being said, some of the other calls for review did have the justification, but it was hit and miss. And I think that needs to be tightened up and I think we have the opportunity to do that when the priority. The priority set brings that ordinance back here as far as having two members. It means that and this is I don't agree with that. I think any appointed body, there has to be an appeal, a mechanism to appeal to the elected body and there has to be a ability to do that. That's not cost contained. And I think in the act of going to another council member to lobby that council member to get your review on the council. I think what causes the problem or the appearance of problem, because we're going to sit as a quasi judicial body when the matter comes to review a planning board decision here. And we have very strict guidance from our training from the city attorney that we have to be careful not to prejudge evidence that comes during that review . And I think I'd rather preserve that and continue having the ability to have one council member call something for review. And then when the comment was made, well, it should be three. Well, if it's three, it's going to be a council meeting and we're going to do it anyway. And it's already time metered and it's ten, ten days. It has to be within ten days of the decision is when the review has to happen just like the appeal and as far as. I think we need to do a really good job in letting people know the entire process because I heard comments that, well, you should have participated in the process. While the process includes an appeal process and currently and includes a call for a review process. And that's the that's the way it works now. And that won't change. Even if it's one or two people, you'll still have to land that in your project that you you could have it either appealed to call for review.
Speaker 7: And if I could just respond to Mr. Rogers, his comments, particularly on the problem of the two council members prejudging an issue if that were the requirement. So currently on our council referral process, we could have two members bringing a council referral. In fact, the next one is. And then if you go back to the Supreme Court analogy that Council Member Oti offered, I am quite sure that if you looked at the history of the Supreme Court decisions, just because four justices voted to hear an item doesn't mean that all four of those voted to, you know, in a certain way, it's what you would be saying is, yeah, I think this deserves a second look. And it might be that it comes back and the second look yields a different result or it might yield. Again, I'll go back to the planning board review. I think it did make it a better process when it came back, but it doesn't mean we're prejudging. It just means that someone else thinks, yeah, this is worth taking a second look. And as far as making the appeal process financially available to our citizens, I quite strongly believe that if there were neighbors who came to a council member and said, Hey, we're really opposed to this project, it's been approved in our neighborhood, but we don't have the wherewithal to get that $750 appeal fee. What can we do that a council member could recruit a second council member, assuming it wasn't just something that was really just arbitrary and capricious. So I think those are certainly reasonable questions to raise. I think they have reasonable answers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, vice mayor.
Speaker 11: You know, I think that there's a lot of presumption that that either you have to, you know, get another council member on board or speak to another council member. And that that's some sort of extreme exercise. You know, we. Presumably if it's going to council. We do hear from all of you who are concerned when it is agenda ized as it when it is brought for review. And so for the projects that like the one at the last meeting, you know, I heard both from both sides prior to that meeting. And I and and so I don't think it's a huge lift to send the same requests to multiple council members. And that's something that's fully within, you know, your ability and certainly could be done via email or phone call doesn't necessarily mean a face to face meeting with every council member. But as part of the due diligence, when when you are involved in a project or you oppose a project and have strong feelings about it, it's certainly an option to go to the council. And I think that to dismiss that as saying it's really cumbersome to do to talk to two council members and get support, I just don't see that because that happens leading up to the meeting. And I think ultimately at the end of the day, we're still having the process it still allows for and in fact, I think it helps to to reach out to the council members. You going to reach out to them at the meeting, reaching, you know, presumably you've been paying attention to the project. If you've got feelings, you know, strong feelings about it. I don't think it's you know, like I said, I don't think it's cumbersome to reach out for the call for a review. And I think, frankly, it'll strengthen the cases that we do here because somebody has to make a decision to call for a review. And I don't think when we look at whether or not you're adjudicating ahead of time, certainly the person making the decision to call for a review has based that on something, whether it's an ask or they disagree with the the factors that were looked at by the board in making the decision. So I think, you know, for that reason, I'm inclined to support the change just because I think it's in line with everything that we're looking to achieve. And it's it's certainly feasible. And I think it's going to make our it's going to strengthen our process in terms of the cases and making sure that there's merit to them and that there really is something that we're looking for.
Speaker 0: So I will not be supporting this. I think it is important to look at the facts. In 2015, there were four or five, depending upon how you count. It calls for review by council. In the entire year. In 2016, there were four calls for review. At this point, there has been one call for review in 2017. And so you think or calls for review in one year, the planning board makes a minimum and I don't know how many reviewable decisions they make in a year, but they meet 22 times a year, twice a month. And I would just say, okay, let's say they only make two reviewable decisions a year and that's 44 decisions that they make a year. Four out of that would be approximately 10% of the cases. The decisions at a minimum, I mean, it could actually be a much smaller percentage than that. And I am concerned about the Brown Act. We are allowed to only speak with one other council member before something is called for review. And then when you look at the items that are have that let's look at some of these items. And I appreciate I'm going to say assets, research and efforts in regards to speaking in regards to the facts of the decision in regards to the cell phone towers, the school district had taken action to remove those. That was that. Many people in our community think that it is not safe to have cell phone towers on top of our apartment buildings. And that was something that I think was worthy for council to weigh in on. I also think it's important to take note planning board members are appointed by council. They are not elected by the people and council does not speak. It does not go to planning board meetings and weigh in on the issues. There are opportunity to weigh in on decisions of planning board is to call it for review. That is the process. And in regards to, for instance, the due diligence of the only way for council to exercise due diligence is actually to have it come to council. That is where we get to ask our questions and weigh in. We do not do that at the planning board meeting, so it must come to council for us to exercise our due diligence that that is the place where it takes place. But if you look at the cell phone towers, I think it was a legitimate concern for council to weigh in on that issue. When you look at the hotel at Harbor Bay, I call that for review. And and yes, I a council level. It failed. It was a there was a compromise that I would actually say it did not fail. There were accommodate changes that were made in the parking on the Harbor Bay at this level. And in fact, it was member Odie that made the motion that made those changes. Now, if I had had to reach out to say that, say, I would have thought, okay, which one council member am I going to choose to work with on this? Then maybe I would have chosen a different council member when in fact it was member that came up with, I think, a legitimate solution of how.
Speaker 7: To do it. I thought he would have done that.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 0: I don't think. Yes.
Speaker 9: Remark.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: No. Yeah. So we have to guess which is the one. And he, I think he made a good suggestion and that's where we went forward however and I and I did not support that though it was a leave a 3 to 1 vote, one member had to recuse himself, member matter, S.E. And then when that project went to Bccdc recently, again, we had many community members attend those hearings and Bccdc shut it down. So to me that actually validates our concerns that it was within the 100 feet of the bay and that it was not a good project and that's rare for B DC to shut it down. So I think that does mean something. The Shipping Containers project that was also called for review, that was on 1926 Park Street. And in fact our council voted to not allow that project to proceed. So again, by having it come here and that was brought by a member of De SOG, one member. Then we weighed in as a council and we, we sent it back and it had to completely modify the use permit member already. And I brought regards to 1716 Webster so that when there were two of us that would have been allowed, but I again I would not have known. Oh member Oh, you're the one out of all of us that I should be asking about moving forward. And that is because we can only speak with one. So. To me that that is the problem we lost and everything is correct. We failed on that one. But but but again, to me, it was worthy to have it come here. Okay. And then the other, the assisted living project that when I called for review and it was rejected by council, three council members agreed. And, and also when we call something for review. I do attend as many planning board meetings as possible. However, we do not get into the depth and detail of any project that we do when it comes to council. And the council level is where we really then spend time. Exam. That's where we do our due diligence here. And on that project it did fail. And then, of course, there's the structure recently at Saint Charles that came up that I brought. I called for review and that one also failed. However, when you look back at all of them for a year has been the pattern, which is not that many. My opinion, and when you look at each one, I would think at least half of them have either been have been modified in some manner by council when they come here. And I think that really is council's job. We are the elected officials. We are exercising our due diligence when we examine projects and I don't think it is done haphazardly. I did receive an email suggesting that these calls for review, the term haphazard was used. And I and I don't think that that's appropriate. I think that each of us, before we call anything for a review, we do take it seriously. And we are actually and there was also a suggestion that by calling something for review, you are reducing transparency in the process, which to me is absolutely the opposite. We are there are many more people overall that attend council meetings. And in fact, I was on a bus going to to Sacramento today and I asked the gentleman who was very informed if he could name the planning board members and no, he could not. He can name every council member. So in regards to who does our who do our residents expect to make the decisions? Who do they know? Who do they have the relationships with? It's council. And as much as I appreciate the work of the planning board, I do think it is important for council to protect this ability for us to do our job and be accountable to the people. So I will not be supporting this.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mary Spencer. And so I just want to reiterate for my colleagues in the audience that I'm not suggesting that we eliminate the appeal process. I'm just suggesting that we put a little more thought and deliberation into it and also that we be mindful that there is a cost. Nothing is free. We talk about wanting a free shuttle around the island. It's a great idea and a number of us are scrambling to figure out how to pay for that free shuttle. It was interesting to hear the example of the cell phone towers decision cited as an example, because in that particular case, it is the state of California that promulgates the regulations that apply to the placement of cell phone towers. And the planning director had certainly made that very clear, that the city city law does not. It was the word trap, but it's a local law. A local law doesn't overcome city law. We were bound by state of California regulations. So it was an exercise in a lot of time spent. A lot of speakers came up and voiced their opinions. At the end of the day, there was nothing the council could have done. And so might that have been a case where that second opinion would have said, you know, we've got a lot of items and issues before this council. Let's make sure that what we're doing really counts is really meaningful and within our within our ability to influence. So, again, I'm not saying do away with it. I'm just saying make it fairer all around.
Speaker 0: And in regards to the cell phone towers, we gave direction of prioritizing location so that when cell phone companies want to add them within the city that we have, prioritize what we think are safer, better places than on top of apartment buildings, for instance. So we did give direction to staff that they were able to use moving.
Speaker 7: Forward in.
Speaker 0: A progress that.
Speaker 7: Situation because we realized we can give direction without calling an item for appeal.
Speaker 0: But it has to be in front of us. So that's how that item came.
Speaker 7: In many ways to that issue in front of us. But anyway, I think we've probably said all we need to say. Does anyone else want to comment? Okay with that?
Speaker 0: Well, I already have a motion.
Speaker 7: I will make a motion that this council will consider revising. The city council call for a review process to appeal boarding commission decisions by requiring that two rather than just one, city council members initiate a call for review and state reason for the appeal.
Speaker 0: You have a second?
Speaker 9: I guess I'll second it then.
Speaker 0: All those in favor.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Oppose.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Oppose. Motion carries 3 to 2. Next Item nine be.
Speaker 2: Consider adoption resolution in support of a Congressional investigation regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump. This item was put on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Vella and Council member Odie. | Council Referral | Consider Revising the City Council Call for Review Process to Appeal Board and Commission Decisions by Requiring that Two, Rather Than Just One, City Council Members Initiate a Call for Review and State a Reason for the Appeal. (Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_03072017_2017-3951 | Speaker 0: watch it. Anything else? All right. So next item ten a consideration of mayor's nominations for appointment to a Recreation and Parks Commission and Rent Review Advisory Committee. And that's the landlord position. So for the Rec and Parks Commission, we had 14 applicants, 12 or 14. And if anyone was going to ask, they were all interviewed by myself and staff and. Daddy might say a little louder. Wow.
Speaker 9: It's like, wow.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: So I won't be nominating Mindy Chan or Rick and part commission. And then in regards to Rent my View Advisory Committee, the landlord position, I believe that there were five or six people that applied and I will be nominating Jeff Canberra for that position. And that being said, we will now what's the terminology return to closed session? So we're going to go into closed session for item. Which was it, 3eb. So thank you. And you all can wait for us if you'd like. But we're going back into closed at this time. Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. It's now 230 in the morning and we have just finished our closed session and it was on item. Three the conference with labor negotiators. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Recreation and Parks Commission and Rent Review Advisory Committee. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_02212017_2017-3883 | Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously so five d. Angela. How about.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Members of the council and mayor and vice mayor. I'm Angela hawk about i've lived here for seven years now and I'm here talking about five D because it is a commercial development at site.
Speaker 5: That is meant to be the site, a business.
Speaker 2: Park. And maybe I'm a little late to the party, but I don't believe California should be building any business.
Speaker 5: Parks anymore unless they incorporate.
Speaker 2: Housing. And I don't necessarily understand what putting it on the consent the agenda means, but we need all the housing we can get. And I just wanted this opportunity to bring it to your attention that this is an opportunity to leverage commercial development for affordable housing. And I believe that the Council did prioritize housing at their last Friday meeting. And I think this is an opportunity to do a new direction for not just Alameda, but for the state as a whole. We should not be building business parks without housing, especially without affordable housing. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. All right. So on five D do we have a staff member that wants to speak to that? We speak to it because. Jennifer Isaac So and if you could share in regards to point our obligation to the Navy and what the deal is and we punch in house jobs. I'm sorry.
Speaker 12: Sure. Jeremy Mayer, Council members. Jennifer Bass, Refuse Director. So I want to just zoom out a little bit because the area that the the point of the staff report is just one part of a much larger mixed use development. I made a point. There are about 1400 housing units that are been zoned for Alameda Point in general. This area is an area that is focused on jobs. The when the base closed, the city of alameda lost about 18,000 jobs, which actually kind of created an imbalance really between jobs and housing in the city of Alameda. And there is always been and really kind of the underpinnings of the no cost conveyance agreement with the Navy was to replenish those jobs, to try to essentially mitigate those impacts that the Navy caused when it left and we lost all those jobs. And so the bottom line is the agreement that we have with the Navy is to focus on a mixed use community with a real focus on replenishing the jobs that were lost or trying to bring back some of the jobs that were lost at the time that the Navy closed. And that was called an economic development conveyance. And the city has that agreement. And that was one of the kind of conditions of the city getting the land for free from the Navy was to make sure that it gave a lot of attention to trying to replace the jobs lost during the during the closure of the base . I do want to say is that it is we do plan for a mix of uses you know 1400 housing units right now. Zero of those units have been built and we're working really hard to get units built. But, you know, they're this is a 20 to 30 year plan, but there's 1400 housing units planned for the larger Alameda point. And then quite a bit of making sure that we have some land available and zoned for commercial development as well. Does that answer.
Speaker 0: The record also in regards to the no cost conveyance? If we build more than 1400 homes, then we must pay 50,000 per unit. That's built in addition, is that.
Speaker 12: That is correct. 50,000 of that 50,000 per unit inflated over time according to an index. So from the time that we. But yes, we'd have to pay 50,000 to the Navy essentially for for land for the for the land that the Navy transferred. And we also built all of the general plan currently zones that property 1425 but we would have to redo that. We'd have to pay that additional amount.
Speaker 0: Thank you, vice council member matter.
Speaker 7: And I think this explains this quite well. The whole point of reuse of both military bases was to replace the jobs that were being lost and to recognize. And that's where the 1400 unions recognize the need for jobs, housing balance. And our target has always been jobs that are well-paid and jobs to replace those that left when the Navy left. And we also keep in mind and there's a dynamic here that when those jobs left, the houses didn't leave with them. So we're playing catch up. But we also have to catch up with the additional need. And I think. Recognizing this is the enterprise zone, also recognizing that there are some contaminated areas within site B that are unsuitable for housing. I think that this plan, which is developed over the last 17 years, is a solid plan and I move that we approve item five D.
Speaker 4: Mind if I say something? Thank you. Thank you for your explanation. Miss it. And I. I think I probably speak for everyone on the council to say that housing and a lot of affordable housing is a very high priority that came out of our priority setting workshop the other day. But Councilmember Matariki is right that when way back when I was on the planning board and we did the zoning and the entitlements, there's a reason why certain uses are slated for certain areas and we have designated the cleanest areas around me 2.4 where housing will go. And with that, I'll just say there is some pretty exciting conversations taking place that aren't quite ready to be introduced to the public, but for how some very well needed housing can be can be provided. But when it comes to affordable housing, well, just talking about the Enterprise District, we will hear an item later on the agenda about the economic development, the updated strategic plan update. And one of the concerns that was raised and it concerns me is that the city is now acting as its own developer for this enterprise zone. So we're doing request for proposals. RFP is trying to find folks, industries, you know, acceptable kinds of clean tech light industry to come out. But yet we also require of our developers that they pay a very steep price per acre because they have to help to replace that aging infrastructure, everything water, sewer, telephone, electrical, you name it. And that's providing an impediment to the business interests when it comes to funding affordable housing. And yet another item we'll hear tonight is an update on our legislative agenda at both the state and federal level. We've got to beat the Bushes and find funding sources for the affordable housing that we very much need to build. So it's not that we're putting one interest above the other, but we are operating off of a plan that is going to help the city remain economically viable to get this base redeveloped so that it allows us to do the many things we want to and need to do. Thank you, though, for raising that.
Speaker 0: Any other councilmember comments? There's a motion on second. All those in favor. I am curious. Unanimously. Thank you. Five G and. Member matters, he has to recuse himself because he lives within a certain area. Oh, and. Vice mayor also. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Receive the 6-Month Status Update on the Enterprise District Development Approach (July 2016 to December 2016). (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_02212017_2017-3933 | Speaker 1: He's instructing staff to provide an update on the negotiations between the city and friends of the Alameda Elliman animal shelter at the March seven City Council meeting. And to if a memorandum of understanding has not been reached between the city and that Council provide direction on the terms of an email.
Speaker 0: You and I brought this all because of the last council meeting. Right before the start, I was asked to announce that the item would not be on the agenda for today, which I thought it would be. And when I asked, Is there a new date, there was no date set. So I think it's important to for us to get an update. And and honestly, it's been eight months or something like that of negotiations. I think it's time to set the terms. So now we have speakers as Swati Shah and Marcy Pearce and Tenzin Peterson. You may think each get 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Hello, everyone. It's been a long night, so I will save my remarks for the next council meeting. But I really hope that the attention that was paid tonight.
Speaker 5: To all the.
Speaker 2: Other very important issues will be focused on the shelter soon. Some time. Because as much as I love trees, as much.
Speaker 5: As I love what our city does.
Speaker 2: People come first to me and my animals are second. And so we spend.
Speaker 5: A lot of time on a lot of other issues. And so I very much look forward to a healthy discussion similar to we had about other subjects today.
Speaker 2: To be about the shelter, hopefully at the next meeting.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Marcy Morrison Pearce.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Councilman. I'm Mattie and I began volunteering back in 2009 when Maddie needed some community volunteer credits in middle school. At that time, the shelter was run by the police department and the volunteer program was minimal. Back then there were about 15 active volunteers, including us, and we came to find out from a friend later there was a list of people who wanted a call about volunteering. They never got called from the police department. Back then, I really didn't know much about the rescue movement. We were blissfully unaware of things like euthanasia rates. We didn't wonder why we didn't get much training at all before we worked with the animals. We didn't question why there were no other volunteers. When we were there, we didn't ask what happened to the animals when there were no volunteers allowed in on holidays or days when the shelter was closed. Now enlightened by the rescue teaching we've received through fires, we see problems existed when the animal shelter was run by the police department. That's more word to 2012 when FAS took over and formal training was instituted for volunteers. We started learning about animal enrichment, using and improving what seemed like wasted time an animal spends behind a kennel door. Working with the dogs to make them friendlier. More responsive to people. More obedient, more adoptable. Hence the lower euthanasia rate that's been admired throughout the country. It doesn't happen by accident. It happens because volunteers have that intention. As a volunteer, once a week we come in, we walk dogs, we play with them, we clean up their puppy kennels. We have also been involved with the foster program. We kept two tiny Chihuahua pups in our house for almost a month, raising them to get used to human touch and interaction. We adopted a little terrier mix that fell in love with me at the shelter, and my parents fell in love with him on my dad's 80th birthday , a week after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. We put a bow on Smiley's head and he became the best present my dad ever got. And I believe that dog kept him out of the assisted living for a long time. Now, smiley is the love of my mom's life. I have chased a little Chihuahua who escaped from a harness from the Grant Street Marina through the city's vehicle carwash. I have been the object of Chase from a pit bull who escaped from a kennel and just wanted a good walk. And I tell you all this not to tell my own horn, not to toot my own horn, but to impress upon you this. And this is the important thing. Of all the volunteers I see on a monday afternoon, I do the very least. That's the kind of volunteer force we have. It's a strength of our volunteer force. About 300 strong. That makes for us great. I haven't even told you about the many, many hours Ophelia and Frances put in to raise money for their shelter out the night that many of you attended. The night on the Hornet. Volunteer hours were converted into a money figure. Even at minimum wage, thousands and thousands of dollars we put into this shelter. If the police department takes over this place, that shelter is, will the volunteer force remain as strong? Will the police department recruit train coordinates, sustain and support the force of volunteers and make the shelter a great place for animals and for the community. It didn't happen when I was there, when I worked with the police department. Didn't happen. Getting involved is not only good for the animals, but for the community. And I know that bell rung. So let me tell you, Alameda is a progressive place. Lead us forward. You are leaders, as you said, Councilman Matarese. We look forward. We don't look back to the time that the city had a pound. That's not what alameda is. Value. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And lastly. Marjorie. Marcy, next time, please turn in this clip for you and Matty. Both of you have sat there all these hours and it could have been 6 minutes and then I wouldn't have had the feedback. All right. So.
Speaker 1: You need a location for 11.
Speaker 0: All right. Uh, so we need a motion to continue past 11.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: Although I favor.
Speaker 3: My.
Speaker 0: Motion carries. Thank you for coming down.
Speaker 4: So it's like Tenzan version.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Tenzin Peterson. I'm 11 years old, and I began.
Speaker 1: Volunteering.
Speaker 2: At the Alameda Animal Shelter last year. I really care about animals and believe that they make very good friends and companions. I believe it is the city's responsibility to care for animals and make sure they are treated well. I want the city to accept this proposal because forces saving animals lives. It will be able to send 95% of the animals in the shelter to loving homes. It costs less for farmers to run the shelter than if the city ran it and was doing a great job taking care of all of its animals. I urge you to accept Foster's proposal of $908,000 and keep the animal shelter open. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Patricia Phillips and then Deb Knowles. Then Susan Feltman. Gettleman. GETTLEMAN And those were my last slips on this item. If you want to speak on the side of, please submit your.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Pat Phillips and I've been a feline volunteer for a couple of years. Purpose, sorry. In last.
Speaker 4: Year I've.
Speaker 2: Seen a lot of kids being surrendered because people, their owners are moving and they can't take them with them. Or even worse, they've been abandoned. If you just surrender your pet for whatever reason, wouldn't you want to take it to a place.
Speaker 9: Where you know.
Speaker 2: They're going to be taken care of and they're going to be safe where they're going to get a second chance? If force does not receive the funds they need to maintain quality of service, I'm afraid that this will this will affect their live release rate. And if they lower this rate for no doubt we'll lose a lot of the volunteers. I mean, as a volunteer, I wouldn't want to come in for my ship to find out that one of my favorite healthy, lovable, adoptable shelter buddies is not on the adoption board. It's gone. So please consider this. When you make your funding decision, it's the right thing to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Deb Nelson and Susan, I think.
Speaker 2: Here's Pat.
Speaker 0: You can go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hi. My name is Susan Gettleman.
Speaker 5: And I would like to speak in support of the FAA's funding request. Members of the City Council. I know that the city has received detailed.
Speaker 2: Financial information.
Speaker 5: From FAS about the cost.
Speaker 2: Of running the shelter properly and humanely, and about.
Speaker 5: Why the FAS.
Speaker 2: Proposal makes.
Speaker 5: Economic sense for the city. I'm not here to talk about those details.
Speaker 2: I'm here to talk about my personal experience.
Speaker 5: I love being a volunteer at FAS. In the past three and a half years, I volunteered almost 1800 hours.
Speaker 2: At the shelter. I love the time I spend interacting with the animals at the shelter, and I love the camaraderie.
Speaker 5: That I share with staff and with.
Speaker 2: Other volunteers, all of whom support and appreciate one another and have a passion for the well-being of animals of each animal that comes into the shelter. I see staff working far beyond the call of duty to keep the shelter running.
Speaker 5: As it should be run, not because it's just a job, but because.
Speaker 2: They're committed to the humane treatment.
Speaker 5: And the.
Speaker 2: Adaptability of the animals at the shelter. And I see a large and devoted group of volunteers who have been a key part of the shelter's successful performance over the past five years through the collective efforts of its board staff and volunteers.
Speaker 5: FAS now provides medical care.
Speaker 2: Behavioral assessments, daily socialization and exercise.
Speaker 5: And dramatically.
Speaker 2: Improved adoption rates for the city's.
Speaker 5: Stray.
Speaker 2: Abandoned, neglected and surrendered animals.
Speaker 5: I'm proud to be associated with Fox and its mission. I'm grateful for the.
Speaker 2: Opportunity to be an active and appreciated member of the community. And I would like to.
Speaker 5: Be proud of my.
Speaker 2: City of Alameda for providing us with a level of funding it needs in order to continue. Buzz is a well-run organization with honest, hardworking and dedicated staff members and volunteers, and all of them deserve respect and full support from the city. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Deb Nelson, and she's the last speaker on this item.
Speaker 2: Yvonne Last but last but not least. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council. Pardon me.
Speaker 4: They've the best.
Speaker 2: Class. Well, maybe. Maybe not.
Speaker 4: We'll see.
Speaker 2: So. So what I'm here for? I'm Deb Knowles. I'm the president of the board of directors for FAS. And I guess there's been a fair bit of misunderstanding, miscommunication about where things are. From my perspective with with our negotiations and I'd like to set this set the record straight this evening. First of all, our proposal is for 908,000, and our total fund funding to include fundraising is a million for.
Speaker 3: Not.
Speaker 2: 1,000,009. In terms of staffing. We are not proposing that the executive director or the operations manager get a pay raise. We are proposing that our staff, those are our hourly employees, receive a 6% pay raise. We are also not recommending that we add four staff. We are proposing that we add one staff. So that's where we are today. That's not where we were a year ago when we began this journey. But that is exactly where we are today. And I guess what I would do is I'd urge you to to to direct staff to update the website. There's a lot of information there that is very dated at this point. And we want to make sure that we're.
Speaker 3: Going down the going.
Speaker 2: Down the road together. And I think that if we had more accurate information out there, that it certainly would help us have a more constructive process going forward. And finally, we had some really good news today. We've been working with the city manager's suggestion. We've been talking with APC and we have hammered out a draft menu to begin working with them on an ongoing basis. So we're kind of excited about that. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And APC. And I wanted to share in Apex Alchemy two point collaborative. For those that don't know. All right. So I brought this referral asking that Steph provide an update at the next council meeting March 7th and during the public meeting so the public can all speak on the agenda item. And then we could give feedback and that if an M you had not been reached by that time, that we give direction to staff on the terms of the M or you between the city and us. And I brought this because as we heard from the speaker, this has been going on for a year. I actually brought my first referral on this item back on July 6th, so that's eight months ago. Council gave direction five months ago at the first in October 4th. And I think that it's critical that we way we as council receive an update in a public meeting and then we can have our public comments on the substance of the referral and give direction if necessary, on the terms so that we can move forward and be done with this. And I think it's critical. I think a year, eight months, five months, it's plenty of time.
Speaker 2: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: So thanks to everyone for speaking in. I'll also disclose it. A couple Saturdays ago, my husband and I went down and spent a couple of hours at the shelter and it looks great. The volunteers, the staff are doing a great job. The place looks great and we even took a dog out for a walk, which was fun, I think, for all of us. But I. I just want to clarify when the mayor says, Mayor Spencer, when you say this has been going on for over a year, but it's my understanding that the city just got the financials back in January. And so it's hard to do negotiation when you don't have everything in front of you. But that said, I'm feeling that there's been a lot of progress. I mean, I do keep in touch with the different board members and their consultant. I'm also aware that this item is it's a contract and it's appropriate that a contract be heard in closed session. And in fact, at our next council meeting on March 7th, it's on the closed session agenda. So I, I think that both sides I commend you for I can I can tell that, you know, progress is being made. And between now and March 7th, there just might be even more progress to report to us in closed session.
Speaker 0: I'd actually like so in regards to it's on the closed session agenda. That agenda has not gone out. And I know we had been told it was actually going to be on the agenda for this meeting and then it got canceled. So I think it's critical that we have some certainty that it is actually going to be heard, which seems to be a moving ball moving target. Any other comments?
Speaker 10: Well, I just would like to say that there has been movement in both sides towards the middle. And the details now are. Much, much smaller and more approachable than they have been in the past. And I feel like there is goodwill on both sides. And there is no question at all from that point of view about the good job that Ford has done. I live release great, good volunteers, just as Councilmember Ashcroft said, and the city does not intend to bring it back into the police department. And we don't intend to take over an operation that has been done so successfully by the friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter. So that said, we are working on the details in between. And the closed session is to talk about price and terms from the council's point of view. And so is.
Speaker 4: That March 7th.
Speaker 10: And that is scheduled for March 7th. Ideally, if we got input from the council in closed session, then we could go back and meet with the FAS board and then come back soon after that, if that is the preference of the FAS board and the council.
Speaker 0: And we're matariki.
Speaker 7: That sounds reasonable. The one thing I don't want to have happen. Can you also say again that the police department's not going to.
Speaker 10: The Alameda Police Department and there's a smile over there and has no intention and will not take over the the Alameda animal shelter.
Speaker 7: And the second thing that I'd like to get a commitment on is I don't want to hear. Or get an email while we're going through this process that there's a sign up on the door saying the shelters close because there's no money.
Speaker 10: We've had that conversation with the board and the feeling is that there is enough funds to get us through. The end of April, I think is what the last conversation we had. If there is an issue, we have also said that we will make sure that the animals are cared for and continue on with a process in the interim until a decision is made on the details. So the employees are secure and the animals are secure.
Speaker 7: And and then lastly, I think it's very important because with all the good intentions in 2012 to save the city money and to to get a a knowledgeable animal care group running the a a shelter, not just a dog or animal control facility. It didn't anticipate the actual costs. And I think. Looking at the actual costs and and having that good discussion between city staff and force management to narrow down truly what the budgets are and what the projections are. I think we'll be in a better place than if we rush something through and. That's all said that in the backdrop that you're saying that we're going to have an update at the next meeting. And my expectation is with that direction, go into a room and don't come out until we have a deal. Just like any other contract, it's done in good faith where the negotiators at the table prepare a contract for the city council to consider.
Speaker 0: So I don't think it conflicts. I think we can have an item on clothes that we are all privy to and we can still have an item on the open agenda where we provide an update to the people and the people can weigh in on it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I have no problem. I have no problem with it. But in open session, direct giving direction and open session I think is a bad idea and it's not good faith bargaining, right?
Speaker 0: But you also.
Speaker 4: You report out at closed session, right?
Speaker 0: If we haven't. So actually, I have my understanding that we can give direction to staff if we haven't reached an agreement in the in the closed session that we should be able to. So have it on the agenda, get an update and then we can decide if it's not been reached, that we could have that as an option to give direction to staff at that time if we haven't made a deal. We should still have an update on the agenda on that. The public is aware of it.
Speaker 2: If I can add, I think and we have talked with city staff, has talked with Foster about this issue. And as Councilmember Matt of us has indicated, when you're doing negotiations, price, terms of payment, those kinds of things, it's better to do in a closed session. So we have informed the FAS staff that have been engaged with us in negotiations that March 7th. We will be getting hopefully what, some final direction from the city council. And based on that, we believe quickly we can work with with the force staff to get the document drafted, which we've already started trying to do the preparations for, and then be able to come back quickly with something for the council. And if we can't get agreement, then we will come back to the council and say we can't get agreement, but to do a closed session and to come back and tell everybody what happened. I would recommend highly again.
Speaker 0: I swear to you, I say so.
Speaker 9: I just think that if we're going to if we're going to meet in closed session, this is how we handle our contract negotiations. Normally we can give direction. And, you know, frankly, I mean. I think many of us are in this position where we've been speaking with folks on both sides and there's open lines of communication. And I certainly want to empower staff to get a deal done, which is what I would hope would be the point of the closed session.
Speaker 0: So there was a comment in regards to updating the website so that it's accurate and things like that be done in the meantime.
Speaker 10: Yes, we can do that. The first proposal was on the website. The second proposal we can put on their website or but put both of them on and how the progress has moved forward.
Speaker 0: Remember.
Speaker 6: You know, I was just kind of on that and I kind of agree with. My colleagues here that typically these type of negotiations don't occur in public. That's the reason why we negotiate price in terms and in closed session, whether it be a labor contract or a lease or this, which I think is a substantial contract. But might I suggest that instead of like updating Web sites, you know, having competing Web sites, you know, having this negotiation take place in the newspapers and on the Internet is that both sides take down their websites, stop the press releases and stop the letter writing and sit in a room and hammered out until we have a deal that we can all be happy with. I mean, that to me would be a better use of everyone's energy instead of, you know, me getting misinformation from one side. And, you know, he said she said this website, that Web site, just, you know, clamp down it and get in a room and get it done.
Speaker 0: So my concern that is, is taking which I agree with you, it's taking away, I think if that's what you're saying, it's taking way too much time. And I think that it is appropriate for council to give direction. I it was going to be on this agenda and then for some reason it was removed. But I think our public is entitled to an update and I think that we can keep it on, we can put it on the agenda, and if we don't need it, then there would be nothing to say. If we have a deal, we don't have a deal. I think we need to have a discussion about what's going on.
Speaker 10: Well, the problem with us meeting in closed session and getting price and terms is then we don't give the opportunity for the FAS board to take that information and see if it works and work it out and then come back as a partnership.
Speaker 4: And I understand. And Councilmember Ortiz pointed at the same time, I don't think that we as as a city council can really tell our citizens whether or not to communicate, you know, this but but.
Speaker 0: They have a First Amendment right to participate in the process.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 6: And that that's not helpful to resolving the situation.
Speaker 4: I think we can tune out.
Speaker 6: Whether it's from one side or the other, is not helpful and it does not create an atmosphere of mutual trust and bargaining.
Speaker 4: So well, I think we can tune out some of the background noise and we'll all rise above this when we get that resolution that I think we're this close to getting. So at this point, I Madumere this was your item. Do you want to make a motion?
Speaker 0: So I'll just limit it to the first part. Direct staff to provide an update on the negotiations at the next Council meeting, March seven, 2017. On the Public Agenda. I have a second.
Speaker 7: I will second that if it means just reporting out the as usual from the closed session. Under the requirements for reporting what happens in close to.
Speaker 0: And so there's a motion in the second. All those in favor.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: I. Or sham fails. Okay.
Speaker 4: Well, still.
Speaker 0: It's eight months or a year. It's ridiculous. Let's keep going.
Speaker 1: Nine Be consider sending a letter to the Alameda Health System in appropriate health insurance plans regarding the lack of contracts covering many Alameda residents and urging them to reach agreements and creating a committee to review the issue. Providing access to on island health care for me to residents and make recommendations on how to proceed. | Council Referral | Consider: 1) Directing Staff to Provide an Update on the Negotiations between the City and the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) at the March 7, 2017 City Council Meeting; and 2) If a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has not been Reached between the City and FAAS, that Council Provide Direction to Staff on the Terms of a MOU between the City and FAAS. (Mayor Spencer) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_02072017_2017-3802 | Speaker 1: Of taxable tax allocation. Refunding bonds to refund bonds of the former Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in approving related documents and actions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I. Do we have a presentation? Yes. Otter.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. Tonight, staff is requesting that the successor agency authorize the issuance and sale of tax allocation refunding bonds of the former Community Improvement Commission. These bonds will refund tax allocation bonds that were sold in May of 2011, just prior to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. The original bonds were sold to raise funds necessary to acquire the Island Motel and convert the former motel into permanent affordable housing, now known as Park Alameda. The bonds were sold in a high in a high interest rate environment due to the uncertain climate around redevelopment. State legislation governing former redevelopment agencies has strict requirements about when you can issue new bonds. New bonds can only be issued if there is a savings to the taxing entities over the life of the bonds due to the original bonds high interest rate. There will be substantial savings to the taxing entities over the next 24 years, ranging from 4.1 to $4.6 million. Annual savings could range from 165 to $200000, depending on final bond pricing. The city is a taxing entity and would realize an annual savings of 50 to $60000. This savings would come as additional redevelopment property tax trust fund moneys to the general fund. If the successor agency authorizes the issuance and sale of the bonds, staff will then seek approval from the oversight board. Following Oversight Board approval, we will then submit the request to issue bonds to the State Department of Finance. Once we have secured the office, approval, staff will prepare the official statement and other documents required for the sale of the bonds. The official statement and related documents will be presented to the successor agency prior to the issuing of the bonds. Tonight's action authorizes staff to begin the process of issuing and selling refunding bonds to provide savings to the taxing entities over the life of the bonds. I, as well as our team, is available this evening if there are any questions. That concludes my staff report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions? Answer. Do we have a do we have any speakers on this item? Any speakers? None. All right. Do we have a motion move?
Speaker 2: Approval of sales bonds.
Speaker 0: I second all those in favor.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: My motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. I will now adjourn the S.A. CIC special meeting and. And open the regular city council meeting. Roll call.
Speaker 1: Roll calls. Been noted.
Speaker 0: Five present. Thank you. Agenda changes. I have a question. How many speakers do we have, if any, on items? Nine, eight and nine. The. | SACIC Regular Item | Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds to Refund Bonds of the Former Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Approving Related Documents and Actions. (Community Development 207) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_02072017_2017-3844 | Speaker 0: All right, so this referral is something. So I was able to attend the US mayor's conference recently in D.C.. During that time, I was able to hear from the mayor of Seattle and he shared things that they are doing in their city to. Assist immigrant and refugees. Immigrants and refugees. And and trying to do it utilizing volunteers within their community or people that want to volunteer and provide services to assist. Whether it's including. Counseling, psychological counseling, things like that, but also legal services for immigrants and refugees that have legal issues. And in a conversation with our vice mayor, as we were speaking, I said my number one takeaway from the conference was, in fact, that I think our city, because of the people we have here and we've heard it all all night, I'm going to say we have people that like to volunteer. And I think within our community. And then we also we have people that are immigrants and refugees. So if we can connect the dots and provide those services, to me, that was the number one takeaway from the mayor's conference for me. I was able to share it with our vice mayor and then she said, and I'm going to pass it to her.
Speaker 4: So I was in Seattle the weekend of the Women's March for my niece's first birthday, and we participated in the march. And I connected with some activists from Seattle and folks who worked for one of the council members office in Seattle. And they shared with me that they were doing a program to basically facilitate volunteers, volunteer assistance, attorneys coming in, working with the school districts to provide different services. And so essentially, I heard about the same program that the mayor had heard about, and it was serendipitous that we both heard about it independently, but we came with the same takeaways, which is that, you know, our city had just become a sanctuary city. We want to make sure that this is and, you know, that we are actually doing things to support our children, our families. We have a number of families in Alameda who and faith based organizations who are supporting refugees and refugee families. My partner went to school with a number of refugee children who had been taken in by Alameda families and, you know, really going and using, partnering with our schools to educate our our schoolchildren about what's going on. Give them context, allow them to know what resources are available oftentimes. That's a great audience that we can engage with. Our students are very thoughtful. They've been very active and activated by everything that's been going on. And, you know, I feel that it's a good opportunity to also empower them with information and knowledge about what their rights are, the rights of their classmates, friends, families, neighbors, that sort of thing. I do want to share that today. Actually, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has approved $750,000 to go towards immigrant and refugee defense of immigrant and refugee populations, which will be administered through our social services agency. And that's going to go with an additional $750,000 that was given from an anonymous donor. So it's altogether 1.5 million that's going to be going towards immigrant and refugee defense. And a lot of that having spoken with some of our supervisors who are very excited about this. And is is the education and training aspect of it. And so if you look at the referral that Mayor Spencer and I put forward, we really want to facilitate this. And so many, so many members of our community have contacted both of us to say, I'm an attorney, I'm an immigration attorney. I have these specialized skills. How can I help people? How can I let them know what their rights are or provide services? In law school, I participated in a number of legal clinics that were free naturalization clinics where we were doing one on ones, giving just kind of cursory pro-bono guidance and counseling as to timelines, fees, costs , what type of paperwork was involved, what kind of documentation was involved. And so to the extent that the city can act as that facilitator and really do that to bring our community together and to offer these services, I've also heard from a number of business owners, nonprofit executives, who are saying we want to make sure that our staff is educated as to what they should do if they're under different events and how we can help our staff who might have concerns whether they be about clients or fellow employees. And so one statistic that I do want to put out there is 439,000 residents of Alameda County are immigrants or refugees. That's approximately 30% of our residents countywide. A number of those do live here in the city of Alameda. And I think that this is a step for us to take to actually connect them with those services that are readily available in the community to help facilitate that. To help. In ensure the fact that we are in fact giving them an opportunity, an opportunity for clear pathways and to actually activate and make sure that they are using all of the laws and resources that are available to them and at that.
Speaker 0: And I do want to add so I appreciate the vice mayor joining me in this referral. And so thank you, member Ashcraft. Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella. So I'm not sure in the referral, the piece about what the school district does is a little clear, a little less clear to me how we would implement . Although I will hasten to add that the Mayor and I sit on the liaison committee between the city and the school district, but I did a little digging around myself today, and I see our library director, Jane Sasaki, there in the back of the the the chambers, because the Alameda County Bar Association has long had a program called Lawyers in the Library. And you may or may not know that our main library is one of those locations. The first Wednesday of the month, the lawyers who are volunteering pro-bono come and they all have different expertize and you go in the order of a lottery. But Jane tells me, just like he tells me, that everybody manages to be seen. And in fact, the library has now added another evening, which is lawyers in the library at the West End Library branch on the third Monday night of the month. And I appreciated her saying it's a little less private because they don't have the individual conference rooms that the main library does. But staff and we have great library staff has created a semi-private corner for those meetings because confidentiality is always important when you're dealing with a lawyer. So what Mr. Sakai mentioned, and I thought it was a lovely offer and I think it dovetails with what the mayor and vice mayor have said, is if you can arrange for a pro-bono lawyer with immigration and refugee rights expertize, we could offer library lawyers in the library on another night, Monday or Tuesday at the main library . I would leave the details to the folks who are who are doing this. But like the vice mayor, we actually attended the same law school but few years apart. But Santa Clara Law has has a very good legal clinic and I volunteered for another one when I was practicing in San Francisco. And it's just it's really a very satisfying, fulfilling work to help people understand their rights. So, yes, I know my community enough to know we have really dedicated, smart, talented people. And so if there is a way that we can connect them and the library, which we're also proud of and I love knowing that it's also at the West End branch is willing to step in. I think we're we're off to a good start. Thank you. And Birdie, did.
Speaker 3: You want me doing concerts?
Speaker 0: So we, you know.
Speaker 3: Should we wait.
Speaker 0: Till we do have public comments?
Speaker 3: I'll hold my comments till the.
Speaker 0: All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the public at this point. Anna Rossi. Polly Lim. Fred Engel and then Michael Yoshi.
Speaker 1: Mayor. City Council people. Staff. My name is Anna Rossi. I am the chair of the Alameda Deanery. Welcome the stranger refugee group. We've been in existence for about one year now, and I got to go sideways for a second and say I also graduated from Santa Clara Law School. I have a reunion. We can. We can. First of all, on behalf of the Refugee Project and our group, we want to thank you very much for having this conversation. We've been struggling for a year to bring the refugees to the front, to the forefront of Alameda so people would understand how much assistance we can give to them and how much help we need. We started off thinking, this is easy. We can transition a family and I could do it by myself. And reality is, it's a really hard thing to do. Our group consist of volunteers from the four Catholic churches in Alameda. And we have about 80 volunteers, not all at once. They go up and down. We have a core group of 2020, but we have 80 people who have offered to help at various times. Our current family has been here since the summer of 2016. There are young father and even younger mother and an 18 month old baby. The father assisted the US government in translating in Afghanistan. He spoke fairly good English. His wife came, not speaking a word of English. They knew one person in Alameda before they knew us. Now. The husband has a full time job 40 hours a week. He just got his driver's license, which was really exciting. The wife has learned some English, and she can she can talk to all of us. And they're starting to make a home in Alameda. In what was originally a very strange community to them. It wasn't the hills of Afghanistan. Our current family is on the cusp of really being self sufficient. Which means that our next task will be to look for yet another family. When we started this project and have a company, this family. Through their transition to a home in Alameda. We've all shared in this wonderful journey not not just the family. We've learned so much and we've grown so much from it. But what has been the hardest for all of us? What has caused us nights of not sleeping. Nights of crying. Nights of laughing. Out of hysteria. Is housing. We had a very difficult time in this wonderful community. And Alameda is a wonderful community. Finding somebody who would rent a house to a refugee. I personally said I will guarantee one year rent. And they said, we don't rent to refugees. Now, I know that's illegal. I'm an employment lawyer, but you're not going to sue every landlord in Alameda. So we've. A few more seconds. But we've decided that what we need to do is have a breakaway group to start up a transition, a transitional housing research project for refugees and immigrants. And it will be multi denominational and non-denominational throughout the island of Alameda. We've had a first meeting of four people and we're planning on growing that shortly. But what would be really helpful to us is to have the support of the city of Alameda. And I read your a little blurb that said you wanted to support without having a lot of money. And I understand that. And one thing that we figured you could do for us, you could do for the refugees and you could do for the immigrants is designate one house when you're doing low cost housing, one house for refugees and one house for immigrants wouldn't cost you a penny more than whatever you rented out for it to low cost housing. And it would give recognition to the refugees and recognition to the immigrants. It would be a way for the city of Alameda. To show the county, the world, the United States. That you're really, truly willing to support these people. They're people just like us. And they've come to this country looking for something that I sure hope we can give them. It would truly represent the city of Alameda support of refugees and immigrants situation. And we ask you to consider that. And we thank you very much for raising this issue tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Holly.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Holly, Ronnie Lim, and I am a board member of Filipino Advocates for Justice and a resident of Alameda. And as a Filipina immigrant, I encourage the city council to adopt efforts that will provide services to immigrant and refugee residents and students. The last time I was here, I spoke to you about adopting a sanctuary city policy and the importance for a community to offer safety and support to its immigrants and refugees as a way to create thriving individuals who can engage and contribute to their communities. I am proof of how safety and support can do this. I am also an educator teaching ethnic studies at Laney College. Last night I taught how stereotypes like the Yellow Peril stereotype deemed Asian-Americans as a threat and how this imagined threat has caused implications like the wrongful internment of Japanese-Americans. We are at a critical time where the present measures are passed, and we have the choice to learn from our country's mistakes and make the right decisions for our community. For me, that means offering resources to our community, like Seattle's Family Unity Project counseling and peer support for our immigrant and youth. Sorry, but our immigrant and refugee youth. Clear avenues for the public to support. Site for the public to report. Incidents of bias, hate speech and violence. And the formation of a city supported group that can support these programs. I know these programs are needed because research proves it. I once worked for Human Impact Partners, a public health nonprofit organization which released a study in 2012 about the health impacts of deportation on the children of undocumented immigrants. At the time of its release, an estimated 4.5 million children nationwide who are U.S. citizens by birth live in families where one or more of their parents are undocumented. Nearly 30% of undocumented parents reported that their children were afraid, either all of the time or most of the time. Nearly half reported that their children had been anxious, and almost three fourths of undocumented parents reported that each child had shown symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We can all agree that we want a safe and healthy place for all of our residents. I encourage the City Council to not only consider efforts but to adopt and implement an immigrant and refugee support programs and services rooted in community needs and input. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Fred. Michael and then Alan Prior. And if anyone else wants to speak on this item, please submit your slip.
Speaker 3: Mary Spencer, vice mayor and council members. Thank you for your time. My name's Fred Pringle and I'm here representing Philippino Advocates for Justice. We work with young people and their families in the Filipino community here in Alameda and we.
Speaker 6: Are.
Speaker 3: Hearing from a lot of them that there is a lot of unrest and worry from our community members with the current political context in this country, specifically executive orders and other policies that are coming down and don't know what it means for them and their future in this city and in this country. And so we wanted to take the time to thank you, Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella, for making this referral and to the council members for and staff for seriously considering the needs of our immigrant community here in Alameda and the supports that they need that can be facilitated by the city as a group that particularly works with young people here in Alameda, we understand the role of young people in immigrant families. They often have to take on the load of translator and as sort of bridges for adults in their families to the larger world. And so the focus on the referral and the Seattle model on schools and outreach to young people we think is particularly powerful and hopeful. And we think that it's a really strategic way of focusing your outreach efforts to support as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. And so thank you again for your commitment to all of the people of the city, including immigrants, refugees and everyone else affected by the recent developments at the national level
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Michael Yoshi, then Alan Prior.
Speaker 6: I put my trying to put my alarm. Watch out here. Okay, I'm out. Madam Mayor and City Council members Michael Yoshi from Buena Vista Methodist Church. I'm the pastor there. You may have known that we have a refugee ministry that we are engaged in, and we're accompanying a Central American family currently and as part of the East Bay Interfaith Immigrant Coalition that is also participating with a number of other current Haitians in the East Bay and. We also I wear another hat and that is I chair the Advocacy and Justice Committee for our conference in the our church belongs to the largest denominational conference. So Northern California Nevada is our conference. We have this committee that under that has an immigration task force as well. And so we're very tuned in to what's going on with immigration issues around us today. In fact, we'll be having a consultation on February 20th in Berkeley with our immigration task force. You're invited to come, if you'd like to, will be networking with attorneys and with community organizers around what they're doing around immigration concerns at this time. Our new bishop Bishop Maneuver Carcano, who just came to us this past year, is also our national chair for our immigration task force for the United Methodist Church. We have 60 sanctuary congregations across the country. We have a large network of congregations working on immigration issues. And so what I offer to you today in first of all, thanking you for Mayor Spencer and for Vice Mayor Avila for bringing this forward. As you talk about wanting to network with different groups, including faith communities, we offer the resources that we have and some of the experiences and expertize that we have on this issue. And we look forward to having meetings with you to consult, talk about best way so we can work together as a whole community. I really think the idea of working with the schools is a great idea because I think children and youth are being impacted in ways that I think, as some of the other speakers have talked about, are not always recognizable for them. But post-traumatic stress is definitely happening among families. We see this taking place in particularly around children and young people who really are assimilating feelings about the larger climate that's going on today. So with that, you know, I just want to lend my support to the proposals that you have before you. I also echo my concerns about housing, given that we're concerned about that as well. And if there's ways that we can collaborate on working on transitional housing for refugees, we really would be interested in working with you on that. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Alan Fryer and then Sister Pat Nagle.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor and council people.
Speaker 6: I just want.
Speaker 2: To applaud you for what you're doing here. This is great. I'm. Took public speaking with gym back there, but he got all the.
Speaker 6: Smarts out of it. I mean, I was just.
Speaker 2: Blown away with the number of people that were at the march, the gathering that we did at the.
Speaker 0: Islamic Center.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And, you know, and the stories that I hear, you know, from teachers about students that are, you know, afraid when they get to school, you know, Monday morning, because they don't know what's going to happen with their family and where they're going to be living. And. And I also want to share a friend of my wife called this weekend and she's an immigrant and it doesn't quite documented. And she had some really bad pains in her gut. And she was afraid to go to Highland because she might be turned in. And my wife called one of the council people, and she got her in touch with a super advisor in the county. And they assured her and she went to Highland and everything was fine and they didn't turn her in and she came home. So, you know, this we've got a really good community here and it really is inclusive of everybody. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Sister Pat. They don't. She's our last speaker on this item.
Speaker 10: Mayor Spencer, council members, staff and and everybody here still. Well, I can't tell you how heartened I am by this effort. I am deeply moved and I really appreciate your commitment. This is the way that we can change the world. We come together around what we have in common. We can change the little place where we are now. We can really strengthen our relationships with each other. And that will affect the larger system. It'll affect the world beyond. So I am very heartened by this. I want to speak, though, as you know, in support of the efforts to address the housing issue here. We cannot say that we welcome refugees and immigrants if we don't help to provide housing. I had one very difficult time finding housing for the family that we have worked with. And so I encourage you to think outside of the box and to find ways to bring us all together property owners, landlords, realtors, citizens, renters, owners to talk about this issue, to Facebook, and to create a response. We all share. Every single one of us. The right to safe, secure housing. So thanks again. And you can count on my efforts to collaborate with you in whatever way.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And she's our last speaker, council member. Do you want to go.
Speaker 2: Next or go next? Yeah, you can go first.
Speaker 0: Remember matter arresting.
Speaker 2: I think you've laid a nice outline of a plan that we can adopt. Here in Alameda. And I'm hoping to get a recommendation from the Social Service Human Relations Board as as a body so that we can understand in the context of what resources we have and what resources have been offered, how this plan or elements of this plan can be implemented. So I'm willing to support this to get the ball rolling and. If we can do.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Member Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing forth this referral. When we did the Sanctuary City Resolution a few weeks ago, one of the arguments I remember making was that if we're going to have a saying that everyone belongs here, then we should actually have policies like the sanctuary city that reflect that saying. And this is kind of the next step. If we're going to have a sanctuary, we're going to be designated as a sanctuary city and say that our immigrants and refugees are welcome here and we're not going to turn anyone in and we're not going to discriminate. Then we need to take that next step and back up that resolution with services. So I think this referral does a really good job of starting that process. Now, every day in my job, I do this type of work. You know, people call in with issues. They're more than just refugees and immigrants. But everyone in Alameda and Oakland and San Leandro and you know, we do have the Blue Book, The Eden, you know, two, one, one. But that's not enough. I mean, we have to rely on, you know, all sorts of different resources, like the referral talks about our schools, our folks, like the Filipino advocates for justice and counselors and social workers and attorneys. And that that's one area where I think, you know, our city could do a lot better job of is connecting our residents with services so like a council member matter. So you know I look forward to seeing what shrub comes comes up with and you know, I know that we're hiring a new city attorney or assistant city attorney. And I think that individual is going to be focused on constituent type services problems, issues. So I think that's a very good start. Not all ideas. Great ideas come from me. So I know other people have great ideas and I don't want to steal the vice mayor's thunder. But when her and I were talking about some of the things the city could do as far as assisting our tenants, she came up with an idea that, you know, we really hear from a lot of tenants and a lot of residents that, you know, they their housing problem is is really symptomatic of larger problems, you know, that have festered or gone, you know, unchecked or, you know, it really even looked at. So the idea that the vice mayor came up with was that, you know, we actually have as part of our housing program, you know, a social worker or a case manager or somebody that could, you know, do intake and say, you know, this person, yes, they have a housing issue. Yes, they have an issue with their landlord. But, you know, they're also not receiving the health coverage that they need or they need other services or maybe they do need help paying their rent and they can connect with Catholic Charities or other social services that help paying the rent. So I think, you know, not only do I think this is a great referral, you know, I think we should even do more than just as the thing says, minimal and nominal expenditures. I think we have a responsibility to connect our residents in need and in trouble, whether they're immigrants, refugees or not, with different social services and different services that they may they may be eligible for. And I will say before I close that, you know, Yusef Law School does also produce some really good people. And I went there because of their social justice commitment, and I'm glad that I did. With that, I'd like to move approval on the referral ticket.
Speaker 0: And I'd like to add that I recently attended the first Latino Hispanic roundtable. That's part of our we started it through our Alameda Unified School District, I can't say. And they have offered to provide translators, which is another issue translators. And I also reached out to Dr. Sean McFetridge, the superintendent of the school district, and he does also support the referral. So I reached out to him before I submitted it because a lot of it does include working with the school district and its member, Ashcraft Church. We already have our liaison committee with the school district, so that that would be a natural way to work, work on these issues. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Council communications.
Speaker 4: Vice mayor. I think this is the point in time that I let everybody know that I attended the League of Cities. New council members boot camp and training in Sacramento a few weeks ago. It was very informative, met with a lot of other elected officials from the area. I also attended the League of Cities Dinner for the East Bay a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 0: Along with a few along along with all the women on the.
Speaker 4: Women on the council. And again, I think this is these are the types of opportunities that also help us to connect with our our fellow elected officials to hear what they're doing in their communities. And then I attended the Airport Noise Forum as well, that same the same week as the League of Cities Training. There was at that committee, we voted to move forward with a proposal from the subcommittee addressing the noise issues at the airport, having to do with the gen implementation for those of us who aren't as familiar with all of the terminology. It's basically the new flight patterns that have been put in place since 2014, 2015, that have caused an increase in noise complaints from our constituents here. Both the mayor and I are the liaisons to the airport noise forum. We also had a meeting today and a briefing with the folks from the Noise Forum to help us learn all of the terminology, among other things. And I also attended the LED abatement meeting with the county JPA. And on that board, we've been talking about the different ordinances in place in all of our cities. And in specific regards to the report that came out recently about the lead levels mainly in Oakland, but also countywide and what we can do to work together. With regards to our ordinances.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Quick report out. I attended the Starboy Stalk meeting, as I always do, and there was really nothing of critical import for Alameda. But we did sign off or at least do our part in signing off on the landfill out in Livermore. And I was honored to attend with many of my colleagues the Kona's Barbecue and love with a big basket of Cuban. You've been bought some stuff that I bought that was made in Cuba, so that was kind of cool and I was really honored to participate also with a number of my colleagues at the Islamic Center. And and then we actually marched around the block, which was kind of.
Speaker 4: Fun, past my childhood.
Speaker 3: Home.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft. And I was going to say that I also took part in the gathering at the in front of the Islamic center. It was a Sunday afternoon. Nice weather and it was really sweet. I heard the count was something like 400. But as we were approaching, I brought my husband. I think it's the first march he's ever attended because we're very different people. But as we were approaching, we saw families coming, pulling children in wagons and on bicycles and tricycles and people with their dogs and just all generations. And yeah, it was lovely. And the folks, the imam and the and these very gracious ladies from the Islamic center served refreshments and were just so pleased and so gracious to have us there. And I told other other folks who were there that it made me proud of my city to just see that spontaneous, because I think it was just organized online the day before and folks just came and made their signs and that was great. Then a week ago today, early in the morning, 5 a.m., a number of us gathered to help with a countywide homeless count. The mayor was there and city manager was there. Debbie Potter, head of our Community Development Department, Jim Fran's Social Services Department, and some residents, just some Alameda residents. We all we went first to the West Oakland Youth Center at five in the morning and then we got our census tract maps we all asked to be assigned in Alameda because we want to understand the homelessness situation in our own city and the city manager and I partnered upon because we are also asked to respect confidentiality. We can't really tell you how many and where we saw them, but just let it be known that homelessness exists in our city. And and as the city manager and I observed, sometimes hiding in plain sight. So it's sobering, but it just it speaks to the fact that we are part of this, the Bay Area and this situation exists everywhere. And we're not immune. We're a wonderful city, but we're not immune and we're going to work together and find solutions. But the first step in that and oh, another Alameda resident was Sarah Otis, daughter of my colleague, who is a staff aide to our county supervisor, Wilma Chan. But the first step and these are numbers that go to head at the federal level where I hope they will still be counted in any way. And then that's the first step in knowing what the situation looks like and then to start addressing it. So but anyway, kudos to everybody for getting up at the crack of dawn. Embarrassing. So I already shared, of course, my highlight from the U.S. mayor's conference. And of course, I joined vice mayor at the Airport Noise Workshop. And I want to thank the Port of Oakland for hosting us and as an extremely informative meeting. And then I also had the opportunity to meet, along with staff, the new president of the College of Alameda that I want to share with the public. Jim Karas, he's been he's been there for approximately three years, and he will now be leading the college. And I and I'm actually really looking forward to it. For those of you that are familiar with our college, we seem to have had quite a few turnovers of presidents lately, and I'm really hoping that he stays and that we are better able to serve the needs of our community members that attend the local community college. I think that's very important. And I also had the opportunity, along with, and I believe, member Ashcraft, to attend last night's meeting that I also thought was extremely informative. That being said, I will now adjourned the meeting. Thank you. And it's 9:45.
Speaker 3: P.m..
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to say I just wanted to recognize Brett Webb, who actually organized the Islamic Center event that we had and stand in solidarity along with his partner, Amanda Cooper, who's not here. So thank you so much for taking the initiative. And it was really great to see the outpouring of everybody there.
Speaker 0: That being said, good evening.
Speaker 2: Turning the.
Speaker 3: Point left.
Speaker 2: For Bret.
Speaker 3: There's. | Council Referral | Consider Outreach Efforts to Provide Immigrant and Refugee Support Services and Programs with Nominal or Minimal Expenditures. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_01032017_2017-3625 | Speaker 0: All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously to five C now.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to accept the report on the one appointment of one member to the Open Government Commission.
Speaker 5: So this I've this is my appointee, Heather Little. And Heather has been very active here in Alameda. She's worked on our Safe Streets programs slow down in town and many other different projects here. And she's also been one of the members of our community who's been very vocal about open government and has done a lot to make sure things are as transparent as possible. So Heather's here tonight. And if we could do the oath.
Speaker 3: We know.
Speaker 5: So I'll make the motion if we can accept.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I. I. Motion carries unanimously.
Speaker 2: Bring on bring all this. We can do.
Speaker 0: This again when she comes back. Her daughter just happened to step out right then and we didn't know. Okay.
Speaker 1: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to follow the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California? Well, these are. These are. The things.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 2: Find slowly gather.
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. It's on my calendar.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Six a.
Speaker 1: Adoption resolution, appointing Norman Sanchez as a member of the Historical Advisory.
Speaker 0: Board.
Speaker 6: I move the appointment of Norman Sanchez to the Historic Advisory Board.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 2: I have a question. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Accept Report on the Appointment of One Member to the Open Government Commission. (City Clerk 2210) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_01032017_2017-3721 | Speaker 0: And it was discussed that other cities have more comprehensive policies than we do. And I know that many of us value our trees. And so my referral was actually just in regards to asking staff to review and update the city's ordinance to increase protection of our historic heritage trees, and possibly including adding our risk peer review as part of the referral. And we have speakers quite a few here. So I'm just going to go ahead and call your names and then you'll each have up to 3 minutes to speak. Dee Keltner. Christopher Buckley. Scott Dawson. Rafael Perez. Perez. Antonia Nicosia. Christian. Bucknell. Eric Chan. Sorry, that's the last one. All right, go ahead. Come on up. And thank you for being so patient of our viewers at home. It's how you proximately, what, 925 now? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Greetings and good evening, Madam Mayor, and council members and staff. I'm Dee Keltner. I'm a native Alameda. I did send all of you a an email, so I don't need to go over all the things that I said other than my heart is with our city trees. And my one example is my late husband and I started on our block 30 years ago in 1986, the only landscape and lighting district in a single neighborhood nobody else has won. And over those 30 years, we have put out. A great deal of finance for things that the city cannot do or does not do to the tune of over $300,000, which to me at least shows how much we care, how much they mean to us. And so what I am looking at are issues that have come up recently and in the past.
Speaker 3: Where there is not one single guideline for our planning department.
Speaker 0: Or for.
Speaker 4: You.
Speaker 0: Or for anyone within the city when it comes to a tree, meaning a heritage tree, a landmark tree. Some of our gorgeous trees, like the mail in school. There's nothing private or public property that tells the city. What can we do? What can you do? There is not a guideline, not a code. So what has been created in several of these situations is it becomes the city making up. Not making up, but not relying on any guidelines. Not talking to arborists or not talking to the correct arborists. And I, in a recent situation, we had dueling arborists, which then becomes.
Speaker 5: Really kind of a.
Speaker 0: Nasty situation for neighbors and with the city, and it's not right. So my main comment is, would the city please. Look into guidelines that almost every other city in the Bay Area has. We do not need to be a reactionary city any longer, which means that I or someone else has to go.
Speaker 3: Out and hire an.
Speaker 0: Arborist to prove my point. Or you have to go out and do some research. Please do your research. Get something that is concrete for you and for those of US citizens who might need that information. At least it gives us a guideline. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Next speaker Christopher Buckley.
Speaker 6: Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident I sent you a emailed you a letter a couple of days ago, and I'd like to walk you through several points in it. First, I strongly support the mayor's proposal to direct staff to take a look at strengthening the city's tree protection ordinance. And as you know, the mayor know that many other Bay Area commit communities have stronger ordinances and urged that the city council accept this direction and have staff, you know, come back with some recommendations. The and there are some examples of other ordinances that I think would be good models that are listed in the mayor's referral. I think Walnut Creek is a especially good model, but there are others too, including some that are not listed.
Speaker 4: In the referral.
Speaker 6: I included several specific recommendations which I would request be looked into as part of investigating an improved ordinance. The first would be to expand the definition of protected trees to all. Trees go beyond the existing coastal. Right now, just coastal live oaks and certain street trees, but include, you know, other species, except those are specifically termed undesirable . And if they're over a certain trunk diameter, Walnut Creek, for example, has a trunk diameter of 28 inches. It could be a higher number. It could be a lower number. And they also identified blue gum, eucalyptus and Monterey Pine as undesirable species. So that might be, you know, an option to clearly define what is removal, what triggers a permit requirement. It could also include cutting routes over a certain quantity.
Speaker 4: Topping excessive pruning.
Speaker 6: Other ordinances have definitions of these and also standards that apply to them, particularly International Society for Cultural Standards and for development related tree removals to require consideration of reasonable project alternatives, including alternative siting of the improvements or configuration.
Speaker 4: Or redesign.
Speaker 6: That would avoid removal or damage to the trees. And Scott Thorson, who's going to be on, I think, speaking on a few minutes, also included some recommendations. I urge that those be considered as well as part of investigating.
Speaker 4: A better ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Scott Dawson.
Speaker 4: Okay to be last.
Speaker 0: Even close to the last. We got like another six figures.
Speaker 6: My name is Scott Dawson and I live at 1143 Bay Street this summer. An application to tear down a two car garage was submitted by my neighbor to the planning.
Speaker 2: Mr. Dawson, will you be sure you're speaking to the MC?
Speaker 4: The plans are.
Speaker 6: To expand to a three car garage and also build an accessory structure as part of this project. Total Square Feet about a thousand. The area needed to build this structure is located around in between.
Speaker 4: Three coast live oak trees which are part.
Speaker 6: Of an environmentally. A protected class of trees is mandated.
Speaker 4: By the state.
Speaker 6: Of California. The trees are magnificent. And because the proposed building was so close to the trees, I began to.
Speaker 4: Examine the city of Alameda.
Speaker 6: Codes and ordinances which provide specific instructions for the care of the trees and their long term well-being during.
Speaker 4: Design and construction. I found that our city.
Speaker 6: Codes offer very few guidelines that detail specifically a process at the Planning Department level to evaluate projects for submission in environmentally.
Speaker 4: Sensitive areas.
Speaker 6: Especially for smaller projects, not always subject to public review.
Speaker 4: We have no.
Speaker 6: Checklist that the Planning Department.
Speaker 4: Can use as a template.
Speaker 6: To provide.
Speaker 4: Consistent and enforceable.
Speaker 6: Oversight to these types of situations. In short, as a.
Speaker 4: City, we must rely on private citizens to bring their concerns to the department. Or we are we.
Speaker 6: Are at the mercy of the applicant developer to provide their assessment or interpretation of the environmental impact of building near protected.
Speaker 4: Categories or categories of trees. This policy leaves our city open.
Speaker 6: To developer influence and also puts additional burden on our planning department, which must make the call. On which they may have incomplete or inaccurate information to base a decision on which I in regards to approval or modification of designs submitted for review. As Chris mentioned, I reviewed I researched tree protection codes of nearby.
Speaker 4: Cities such as.
Speaker 6: Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Fremont and Concord, and found them to be more comprehensive and defined, basically a guideline for a planning department.
Speaker 4: The purpose for me being here tonight is I would like to see the city of Alameda.
Speaker 6: Adopt a more comprehensive ordinance.
Speaker 4: That establishes policies, regulations and standards.
Speaker 6: Necessary to ensure that our city will continue to realize the.
Speaker 4: Benefits of an urban forest. To set forth the jurisdiction of the city council.
Speaker 6: Over certain groups or classes of trees, and to provide a mechanism.
Speaker 4: Or trigger by which council will automatically review.
Speaker 6: Projects which have an and potential environmental impact on these protected classes of trees. I would like to see us establish a tree advisory board or commission to set goals and.
Speaker 4: Establish policy or a community community forestry.
Speaker 6: Program. A Program to Relief. Alameda to specify cooperation between city. Departments and agencies. The establishment of a heritage or landmark tree provision and establishing a permit guideline with criteria and standards for approving regulated activities.
Speaker 4: Such as.
Speaker 6: Pruning, grading and trenching around protected trees.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Rafael Perez. Antonia. Gotcha. The kosher.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Antonia Nicosia. I'm a native of Alameda. And I'm also a physician in town. 46 years ago, I watched a grove of oak trees burn when the city cleared the land for the construction of island townhomes. So I have a soft spot for tree advocacy, especially as we urbanize. While reviewing the plans and design review for the neighborhood project that Scott was talking about, I realized that the planning board didn't have any template or any guidelines to follow, and not having that template has caused our community a lot of heartache and over the last six months and and basically a fear that a group of folks is about to be decimated. And I really don't want to see that again in my lifetime. So I would like the council to consider establishing as a standard tree tree protection guideline. And as it relates to any projects impacting the health of trees and before we move ahead with this project in our neighborhood, I'd like to see us adopt something. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kristen Bucknell. Eric. That looks like a stew is churned there in Eric. There are Christian. And we don't have any more speakers since the other speakers on this item. All right. Thank you. Amber Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: So I. I got the letter delivered to my house, but I also was at a neighborhood party in the neighborhood where this project in question is taking place. And as sometimes happens when there are communications that go out on listservs and my email blasts, there's a little in for me a misinformation because I checked in today with Andrew Thomas, our planning director, about this project. And next week the city council will hear this proposal for the expansion of a garage on Saint Charles. I believe it is the street behind Bay Street, but they are working with arborists. There are no trees that are being cut down or decimated. In fact, if you saw the photographs and I'm sure we'll have the opportunity, there's some pretty amazing engineering design that is going into protecting the trees roots. It's it's very well thought out, which is not to say that we don't need to update. We do have an ordinance, a tree ordinance, but it hasn't been updated in a number of years. And the reason I'm pulling my phone out is that I also wanted to just. Suggest to our council and also to the public that as the city manager noted in her comments on February 17th, it's a Friday from 10 p.m. to 4 p.m. and probably the library across the street. The council is going to hold a priority setting workshop, which is great because we have some of the library director might have been surprised about that, but put it down in your in your calendar, Jane. But the this is a good thing because we hear all the time from the public about things that we would like they would like to have us do, which is great. I tell my constituents all the time, you are my eyes and ears in the community. There's no way that I can know about some of these projects before they come to the the city council. But so I emailed Andrew this morning and said, Gosh, you know, what can you tell me about this? I'm getting lots of emails and hearing from folks in the neighborhood. And Andrew's response was that I have no doubt that our tree ordinance would benefit from an update. It's been probably years since it's been updated, but we do we do have a tree ordinance. And in fact, some of this council has even approved like the trees that are part of the pallet. And Mr. Buckley has we've worked I remember when the army the theater was going in on the choice of trees for the the Park Street area around the theater. But anyway, the point that Mr. Thomas was making is, is the bigger question for for me is where does this fall on the priority list? Because this will come out of the the planning department. It's their jurisdiction. And and that's not to say that trees aren't important and we don't love them. We do. And we will protect them. But here are just some of the requests that the city council and the community through the council have already identified as priorities, and they include the Universal Design Ordinance. And that came to the the Planning Board almost a year ago last February. And the weight or maybe it's coming back to the planning board in February, I'm going to stay away from dates, but these are lists and universal. The design, of course, is to allow people to age in place or if you have disabilities, that's important. The public art ordinance amendments. We had some controversy, you could say, about how those funds would be allocated assisted living ordinance amendments where we can and can't cannot perhaps locate assisted living facilities, amendments to our affordable housing ordinance. I mean, we've heard for months the better maybe, you know, years now how much we need more affordable housing, the mixed ordinance that's mixed use. What can be done in our mixed use zoning districts, the cell tower ordinance amendments that came before us a long time ago. Marijuana cultivation legislation. The voters passed the measure in November, amendments to the state mandated second unit amendment. So my suggestion to our council is. Sure we could direct staff to look into this and let's set about amending the tree ordinance. But if we could wait just a little longer and really just over a month and consider this in the hopper of everything that's coming to that particular department, I think we would do everyone a greater service. One of the things staff told me is that when and not Mr. Thomas, but someone else is that when the council says when we want this kind of that done, they don't always realize. The six requests are all going to X Department. And they're panicking because they've already got deadlines that have to be met. And what is it you set aside to do this? So on. There's no question that we love our trees. They're important. But I'd like to have it folded into the priority setting workshop to see when we could best do it and all the other requests justice.
Speaker 0: So I think the ask at this point is whether or not we would want to proceed with the referral, which is what a referral is about. And much my understanding that all of the referrals. That we will have that bigger discussion at the priority setting as the priority setting, hearing council meeting. But that that is a separate step then. But the ask is tonight. The ask is tonight is whether or not we want to ask staff to look at this referral of that member matter.
Speaker 6: I do want staff to to do the revision to.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 6: Tree ordinance and we can talk about where it sits in the cat in the list of of ordinances that have to be updated on the 17th. I would like to know to consider adding. Some other facets to this. So it's not as prescriptive because these are good examples where there are heritage trees, where there are protected trees. But I think one of the speakers, Mr. Buckley, brought up trees that are not desirable. And anybody who's live by poplar trees knows that they're poor urban forest inhabitants because they go into sewers and liquid ambers. We love them on Gibbons Drive, but they're a huge liability to the city. So I think if we're going to go forward with this, we include principles of principles of historic trees. And how to manage them because historic trees become deceased and often die off during or in drought. How we manage drought. How we manage from injuries. Anybody remember the controversy on Shoreline Drive? They don't even want to talk about parks treatment. Yes, I think we we do need guidelines. And I think the point was that there is no guideline staff does a heroic job every time a tree issue comes up. Dealing with it without the benefit of a guideline. So I'd like to have that broad brush topic be included in what staff considers to bring back to us. We can put it in the priority set.
Speaker 0: And I just want to clarify real quick. It's my understanding we actually do have a code section that was in my referral unit code section 13 does 21.7 C, however, it's one paragraph and other cities have policies that are ten pages, something like so much more comprehensive than what we currently have.
Speaker 8: I think our assistant city manager has had to say something.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. If you go to our public works key documents, we have a city of Alameda based retreat plan that was adopted in 2010. And there's two volumes in each volume is about 135 pages. We definitely have the guidelines and it talks about all the care and maintenance of our trees, from planting to young trees to adult trees, to what do you do with our trees during construction? So I'm I think we need I would just like the council to understand that that we're not starting from scratch. We absolutely have these documents in place. Maybe it's a question we need to go back and make sure that we're following these guidelines. But we have these guidelines.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 5: So I was on the historic advisory board, which whenever there's a removal of a tree excluding coastal evokes and other historic trees. That's the board. And this is mentioned in the mayor's referral that has jurisdiction and does the review and looks over the arborist reports and the planned construction I think and we've often referred to the master master document, it can be quite cumbersome. It is quite large. Allen is very helpful. Allen Tai is the planning board staffer for the Historic Advisory Board. One thing that I do appreciate about the Fremont policy guidelines is that it is very, very direct and easy to follow. And I think one of the things that has consistently come up with the Hab has been that there there seems to kind of be a disconnect in terms of the public's understanding of the process and who they should be going to. And frankly, a lot of the time, I think one of the the issues that comes up is you get a homeowner who's thinking, I'm going to do this or that, and they don't realize I've got to go to the have you get a neighbor dispute that goes on. And a lot of these things, if somebody had the information readily available ahead of time, you know, I think they could plan for it and and make different design and planning decisions ahead of time before it becomes contentious. And in in hearing from a lot of our constituents about this issue, I think that, you know. Frankly, having served on the Hab, we took the decision very seriously and basically did everything we could to try to find a way to mitigate. And unless it was going to cause structural damage to, say, a historic home or something like that, we very, very rarely, if ever, approved for the removal or any sort of construction that would cause, you know, or threatened damage to the tree. So I think. Finding a way and also members of the have have on this issue in terms of whether or not we need to update our policy in the manual on the former chair Dennis Owens worked quite extensively with Alan on just all of the policies related to the Hab. And so rather than starting from scratch, I really do think it's important for us to look at the resources that we have spent a considerable amount of time compiling and perhaps make them more user friendly. And where there are areas that that may be confusing or at issue, find a way to buy them.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. I think we all agree that we love our trees in Alameda and we want to protect them and we want to encourage more of them, especially in some areas that don't have them. But, you know, listening to the vice mayor explain the process that's currently in place and the assistant city manager described the voluminous guidelines that we already have. I mean, I wonder if this is a solution in search of a problem, given that I think we we do have, you know, a significant set of guidelines, a significant process. And I and the emails that I received and this is why I have a little bit of concern about this , you know, seem to be not a general. I mean, do we have a problem in the city? But there is a dispute between the neighbors on Bay Street and the property on on Saint Charles. So, I mean, I wonder if, you know, that's something that, you know, we're trying to circumvent the process, which hasn't really played itself out yet. And we we may, in fact, have an opportunity as a council to weigh in on that, depending on if it's appealed by the neighbors or the landowner or the any member of our council based on our current process. So, you know, I'm not really sure, you know, it's necessary to. You know, do a referral that calls for a brand new a brand new board when we already have a process in place and, you know, have a significant amount of guidelines. And we've done a lot of work on this already, you know, but if we put it on or if we wanted to put it on our queue. My understanding is we have over 40 items on our queue and members, the council members and mayors could put more items on there. We don't need to go through the referral process to do that and eight of them are planning. So, you know, there's a big chunk of stuff that we're going to have to go through and this probably should be one of those.
Speaker 2: But may I ask a clarifying question?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Ashcraft. And maybe it's the city manager. The city attorney if. So if this council referral were not to be, you know, we're not to get a majority vote. Can this topic still come up at our priority setting workshop?
Speaker 8: Yes, it can. There'll be an opportunity at the priority setting workshop with the facilitator to say, Is there anything else in addition to everything that's listed? Hopefully there isn't, but there will be an opportunity and things to sort of do. We really want to look at all of these things.
Speaker 0: So I'd like to clarify, first of all, my referral does not specifically ask for a new board. It is actually more broad than that. And I think that. There are multiple suggestions, including expanding the definition of protected trees to all trees based upon a certain diameter of the trunk. And and I think it is appropriate to do it as a referral. This is not specific to one project. This is in regards to our policy. And I do appreciate that there's a master document. But in regards to the actual policy. I think the. Based upon the I'm going to say the confusion, whether or not we have a policy, it appears it's not necessarily being implemented and it would be appropriate for us as a council to look at policy and and include our our current our community, our current community, so that they can also have input. And I think that this is a very important issue to our meetings. So I swear I have a question for.
Speaker 5: Assistant city manager. Are currently what we've been referring to as our master plan, that is. Can you can you just repeat where that's available and whether or not it's it's you know, why it's not necessarily referenced in the current city ordinance.
Speaker 3: That last question. I don't know. Um, and we could. Mhm. But the if, if you go to the public works websites so the City of Alameda Public Works website and you go to Public Works key documents. The first place I looked was under trees and it's not there. Right. It would be the first thing where we would probably want to link it to that. Right. So then I went to public works key documents and it's there and it's the city of Alameda Master Plan and it was approved in 2010, so not that long ago. And there's volume one and volume two. And it is you're right, a voluminous both of them are large documents, but they're very comprehensive. And I think it was maybe councilmember matter you were there. So I think a lot of time and effort went into that. And so, um, but we'll definitely link it to trees.
Speaker 5: So, Councilmember Modder, I see you since you were there when when this was worked on and you're now, you know, here. And I put a question to it.
Speaker 0: I'll try to back up here.
Speaker 5: So, you know, my my question would just be, you know, as part of this referral, what what are you hoping to accomplish?
Speaker 6: A number one is to look at the intervening seven years because we've had seven years of drought since then. Right. And. Apply what we've learned in the drought to the practical management of trees. Second is that.
Speaker 4: We.
Speaker 6: I think with my own experience in the Commercial Owners Condominium Owners Association and a residential condominium owners association, there is not. Broad knowledge of what's what the requirements are.
Speaker 0: Mhm.
Speaker 6: And I think that's can be improved. And I also think the user friendliness, it's a great reference.
Speaker 4: Document that we.
Speaker 6: We put together. Um. Well, it's there, but how to connect it into implementing day to day. So I don't think actually, I don't think this is a huge. Ask of staff. I think it's a it's a optimization. Of what we have because we have a board that looks at it, the planning board looks at it, planning staff looks at it. But its trees are trees are a hot topic. You know, when something bad happens to it, when a tree is cut down, it draws attention. And I think it's important enough that we publicize and optimize the process that goes to a tree removal, to tree planting, trees, siding and to tree maintenance.
Speaker 0: Thought it. Member.
Speaker 2: ASHCROFT So my only concern and maybe someone can assure me that it is addressed, is that. I want my staff to be able to decide. At what point they would be able to give this item. Do you know justice that you can't, you know, just rush through something like this? And I don't know that it rises to the level of putting it ahead of, say, our affordable housing ordinance or also things that have come, you know, have been percolating for the better part of a year. But if we're just saying yes, staff, at some point we would like you to add this to your queue and you , you know, see when that would be. And then and then that way we're not just responding to a particular project that is perhaps making its way through the approval process. But I, I feel that we will get our best work out of staff if we are also respectful of their, their workload and which includes the things that we've asked them to do. So just because it's the most recent ask doesn't mean it should go to the top of the queue. Is that is that a part of.
Speaker 0: This was my understanding. That's why we're having the priority meeting.
Speaker 2: But I think yeah.
Speaker 8: So that's I think this goes back.
Speaker 0: To the beginning. I think voters say the vote is for the referral priority meeting is a completely different discussion.
Speaker 6: And, and my, my comments are get it in the queue because if we say at some point we're going to put it in the queue, then at some point it's going to be three years from now and.
Speaker 2: It might be one year. Right?
Speaker 6: Well, I if we don't put it in the queue, we can place it wherever the priorities lay. And that's going to be decided on the 17th. Or we could say we're not going to deal with it. And then three or four years down the road, there's going to be some trees cut down. We're going to realize that it wouldn't hit. We should have put a checklist together. And then we're going to be in the having the same discussion again or some other council, someone other than me will be having this discussion again. So I think it's important to get it in the queue and then we can talk about where it sits relative to those very important. And those are all at different stages. Some of them are coming to us soon, some are far back. So we're going to get that full scope of what city management has got on its plate and when it's coming at us. And we can see where this one fits in, but I want it to get it on the list.
Speaker 8: So if the council ends up agreeing, I mean, the choices tonight are, as the council member letter said, to either say yes to the referral and we'll bring it back as part of the list of the items for the priority setting. Or if the council chooses to say, no, we don't want to focus on this, then the other option is to bring it up during the priority work session or to not deal with it at all. What I suggest that staff do is that when we come back to the priority work session, that will give us time to really sort of define how big of a project this is, because if it's two volumes, it might be too cumbersome to if we want to make it user friendly, we might want to go to a different approach that is more user friendly, or we might want to just tweak it and say, here is the procedure manual or process for it. And that is two totally different time commitments from staff. And so we can look at that member matter.
Speaker 6: I'd like to move that. We direct staff to do just as the city manager explained with regard to the management of heritage and other trees in the city.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And council communications. Remember Ashcroft? | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update the City’s Ordinance to Increase Protection of Historic/Heritage Trees, including Adding Arborist Peer Review. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3698 | Speaker 0: And. Whereas, Tony de Saag was reelected to the Alameda City Council on November six, 2012, and served from December 18th, 2012 until December 20th, 2016. And. Whereas, during his latest tenure on the City Council, Tony de SOG served on numerous regional agencies, including the League of California Cities, the Alameda Contra Costa District Transit District, AC Transit Inter-Agency Liaison Committee, the Airport Community Noise Management Forum, and the Airport Noise Operations Committee. The latter, which he was responsible for reviving, serves to protect Alameda residents from the airport noise due to the Federal Aviation Association's next gen changes. And. Whereas, Tony de Salk's vision and commitment to the city and in particular Alamitos West End, played an important role in selecting a developer. A developer for CI a that will be essential to the transformation of Alameda point into a vibrant, mixed use development that focuses on job creation and supports the use of public transit. And. Whereas, Tony de SOG actively listened to the community during one of the most challenging periods in Alameda history, helping to pass Ordinance 3148 and ultimately passing Measure L one, which was designed to help stop excessive rent increases and protect Alameda renter community. And. Whereas, Tony De Stark has been a strong advocate of smart growth and good planning and was instrumental in the creation of a Comprehensive Transit Traffic Strategic Plan and information tool, as well as a revision to the neighborhood parking permit program to help address growing concerns surrounding traffic and parking in Alameda. And. Whereas, Tony De Stark has been a strong proponent of grassroots business efforts to support city operations, including strengthening the city's transient occupancy tax and ensuring the city collects its share of Airbnb and similar host services taxes due to the city. And. Whereas, Tony de SA could often be found on Saturday mornings outside his home next to the farmer's market, talking with the good people of Alameda, listening to their concerns now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council or the City of Alameda does hereby express a sincere appreciation for Tony de Saxe contributions of time, effort and experience for the benefit of the city of Alameda. If further resolved that the Council of the City of Alameda, acknowledging his energy and resourcefulness, is hereby congratulate Tony de site on his years of service to our community and extends our deepest gratitude for his many efforts on behalf of the City of Alameda. It further resolved that the Council of the City of Alameda City staff and friends throughout our community and the Bay Area extend Tony de SAC our congratulations and wish him the very best in his future endeavors. Thank you. Oh. Yeah. Uh, we do have some speaker slips.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Maybe we should.
Speaker 7: Go with the speakers.
Speaker 4: First. And then. Then I'll offer my comments. That's okay.
Speaker 0: Very good. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. Harry Carey Monks, Brian Schumacher, Kurt Peterson, Ken Peterson, Jim Sweeney, and then Little Orange. Thank you, Kerry.
Speaker 3: Evening. My name is Carey Monks.
Speaker 2: And I thank you.
Speaker 3: Tony de SOG, for devoting almost half of your.
Speaker 0: Adult life to the city of Alameda.
Speaker 3: Thank you for always conducting yourself with the highest.
Speaker 2: Degree of integrity, ethics and honesty. Thank you for thoroughly researching each issue, reaching out to the community to understand our perspective, and making the most informed decision to benefit the community. Thank you for being independent and impartial.
Speaker 3: Thank you for helping make Alameda the best community.
Speaker 2: City and hometown in the Bay Area. Thank you, Tom.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Gary. Plan. Tony. I'm here as myself. Brian Schumacher, my wife Kathy had a conflict. We just wanted to publicly, personally thank you for all the hours and years you've spent meeting in this room and of course, all the preparation and the homework for this job. I'd like to see in the rest of my time to Kurt. Her. Thank you, Brian. I'll try to make this quick, but I think I might go over 3 minutes. First, I want to thank again Tony for his 14 years on the council, but I really want to thank him even way before that, because when my wife and I who Veronica's very sorry she couldn't make it either tonight when we moved as far as to our home over 30 years ago. We really enjoyed. Obviously it was our first home and it was on the West End and at that time, anyone that didn't believe that there was a little difference between how West Enders were treated for the rest of the island probably doesn't think there's any global warming issue happening right now either. But with the Navy and all, it was understandable. It was kind of tough sometimes over on the Webster Street side. But I just remember as far as we would get, this little sheet of paper on our door, every once in a while we'd go like, What's this? And we'd read it. And it was a little newsletter that Tony had put together for the West End, and I can't remember the official name of it, but but basically it was a newsletter to let us all know what was taking place in our area, you know? And it was great. Was it? It actually brought Veronica and I from being pacifists for the city as far as government to be very strong activists of both he and Jim and Jean Sweeney and Jim is going to be speaking were also neighbors of mine were both really strong and doing that so I thank you very much, Tony, for that. It really meant a lot and I'm trying to keep up the good work. Also, the situation that I also want to talk about is as far as lots of different things is. Many. As far as the fact that I want to thank everyone that's here today, because they're obviously activists in a way. And the people that are out viewing this that are activists in a way. And I would hope that you would not only, I guess, keep informed of what's going on, but also speak with your neighbors. They're in the same situation as you. They have the biggest financial investment they've ever made. It's either their mortgage or their rent. So they're both. Don't be afraid of your neighbors to talk to them. Explain what you know. I encourage them to read our two local newspapers. Most of the time they're pretty unbiased. But there's a lot of other blogs that you can get. Hopefully you read as far as people that are going to give you more fact than their opinion. But please, I encourage everyone to get more involved as far as in this city and its politics and what's happening. Also moving forward, though, I would also like to mention as far as to our new council, that they can learn a lot from this gentleman. As mentioned before, he actually took the time out of his busy schedule also. We all have busy schedules to have the open forms to meet with people either at the farmer's market or at the coffee shop who is always open to to hear. He always understood he was a servant of the people. He represents the people, all of the people, not just special interests that might have an influence on you, but everyone. Okay. So I would hope that you understand that in the new city council member, when she takes her oath tonight, she understands. Keep an open mind. Understand? We're all in this together. We all have a stake involved in Alameda. We all want Alameda to be the very best. And I hope that the rest of you can live up to the legacy of Mr. De Scott. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Can Paterson? Can Paterson. And then Jim Sweeney. And then little.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council. Councilmember de SAG. Got a lot of thoughts to come. I keep my mouth shut. Most of them. I have to say, though, that, Tony, I have never I have not agreed with every idea that Tony ever expressed. But I agreed with most of them. And at no time did I ever any have any doubt about his sincerity, his diligence, or that he was it not in any person's pocket. He was always an independent. Member speaking, representing, doing the very best for all of the stakeholders of this community. Thank you. Jim. Good evening. Council members may have been mayor and Tony especially, I guess Curt kind of let the cat out of the bag that Tony was our neighbor for so many years. He was a great neighbor and we really appreciated that he had an interest. I think it was back in the seventies that I first met Tony. He was coming around talking to all the neighbors about the airport noise, and he had such enthusiasm. I jumped on board and it was great. And he's always it's always been the same thing. He's had the enthusiasm and the love of the city, the concern, knowledge about what's going on. It's been wonderful. I made a few remarks here. They're a little formal, Tony, so forgive me if they're a little too stiff, but thank you for your 14 years of service on the council. You have left an imprint on the people of Alameda whom you have served so faithfully during this time. Your convictions and faith in the people of Alameda have shown through and this valuable service. You can take pride in the fact that you're a faithful performance of your exacting and vital duties as a council member. Have contributed much to this successful governing of our city. My earlier recollection, I said that. You have been so alert and diligent to bring the light, light and solve city problems for years. You have made yourself available and regularly met with members of the public. To discuss city issues. Your lifetime in Alameda has given you valuable knowledge of its history and experience with its people, a background that enhanced your service to the council. As you leave the Council, I have no doubt that you will continue to provide us with your valuable insight and opinions at Future City Council meetings concerning the issues we will face. And that you will continue your personal efforts to meet with us informally, to share your ideas about the issues our city will need to address. With grateful, thanks and best wishes and we will miss you. Thank.
Speaker 8: That was on my understanding.
Speaker 0: Little wants to go last. And if anyone else want to speak, please turn on your slip.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Dan was on. I'm resident of Alameda for the last 60 years. Tony, I think in only 50 years. Anyway, thanks, Tony. I want to thank you for all your service. 14 years. I voted for you. I supported you all this time since you were a kid. Sort of help. You grew up a little bit, but you know my background. I was stuck in businesses, didn't care about what's going on in the city. But with your being in the council, you got me started being involved. From all the decisions you made. Some of them I agree. Some I don't. I cut you out sometimes at home. Why did he make that decision? But after a while, after an analysis, I now analyze your decision. It was good for the city. You make the decision that it's the right thing for the city. I hope everybody that will follow your footstep will keep that. Decisions should be made for the city and the citizens of Alameda and no one else. I thank you for all of those. And I'm going to miss the coffee shop meeting. The Farmers market meeting and all the information that you give to the public. I'm going to miss all that and I hope somebody does and follow that footstep. Again, thank you. We work together again. I think you woke up a sleeping giant. Thank you. And Lil. Thanks very much, Madam Mayor. Remember of the council finished out. Like a marriage sometime is for better or worse. But under Tony turned out better. Tony knows the story all too well. I'll give a prelude to it. When I was on the control and the Navy base was being taken over by the city and we had what was called at that time to basically use commission. And Tony would show up and he would just raise all sorts of big gavel with us. I actually thought when he spoke to us, I thought he was a jockey. I thought he was about that big. I thought he rode the horses at Golden Gate Field so little. But then he spoke so very, very good. And so I appointed Tony as my alternate to the BHP Use Commission. And Tony knows the story, but you are after our show. I was asked to remove Tony from the alternate position by several members of city administration. And I said, well, she's on I great in all sorts of turmoil. He says off the wall. He shoots off the air rage. A lot of turmoil. So I went back to Tony and I said, Tony, I understand. You've been having a lot of problems there. Great. Lot of turmoil. You should. Yes, right. I should. I tell you. I want you to do. Quit going back to early start in turmoil to go back there and give them hell. Don't take no for an answer. So with that, what is arrived? A fine young man. Is serving the city for 14 years. In a matter of a very professional, dignified person. Always accessible. Always listening. Meeting with his constituents in the West End every week. 14 years. Tony Day still did the job. He was the epitome of a person who represents his community. I think the people of Alameda tonight by the proclamation by the mayor and the council, it is most deserving. Tony, we should walk out of here tonight with your head high. And I'll say one thing for you. You always maintain dignity. You never stoop to the gutter. You never had anything bad to say about your opponent or anyone else. You always had that loyalty to yourself and the community. And Tony, I'm proud to call you my friend, as I'm sure so many people in here have. And we will continue to call you your friend. And with that much said, I want to congratulate you on behalf of my family. But also, there are Q I don't know why that went on. For the first time, your mother gave us a British speaking through a fan timer, but never heard of golf once. But for some reason, you must have your foot to the pedal, because I didn't want to miss Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: You may continue your adulation.
Speaker 4: To you, I may not show you the rest of the evening. Maybe it's a half time. Congratulations on your reelection. You deserve it. And I hope the country will do well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Tony. God bless you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. If you want to book.
Speaker 3: Now, you want to select your preference.
Speaker 4: First.
Speaker 6: Okay. So. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Tony, you know this story. I don't know if the rest of the audience does, but I'm actually here because of you. Because six years ago I was looking for something to do to get involved. And I joined the Alameda Democratic Club. And you were the president the first year and you put me to work and then you made me be the president the following year, and the rest is history. And we also served together as co-president, I think four years ago. So you've always been kind to me. You've always been there when I called you on the phone for advice and being a mentor. And I really appreciate that. Yeah, and thanks. And, you know, I everyone knows my day job. I work for our assembly member and I, I do a good job of keeping the line clear. But today I'm going to blur that line because I do have a special presentation for you on behalf of our Assembly member, Rob Bonta.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 6: I'll just read a couple paragraphs because a lot of what was said was in the mayor's resolution. But, you know, he's the boss of the office. I get to choose who presented this. And I assigned this job to me because I wanted to be able to make sure you knew how I felt and how our family member felt. So whereas the relationship between the city and its residents is a vital and interdependent one, deriving its strength from the quantity and quality of civic involvement and public spirit generated by an individual such as the Honorable Tony de Saag, who is completing his third term of office with the Alameda City Council. And in recognition of his personal and civic leadership, he is deserving of highest honors and commendations. And. Whereas, proud of his rich ethnic heritage, Tony de Saag, his late father, was from the Visayan province of the Philippines and his mother is here from. If I pronounced this wrong, fix it. Kawahara, a hamlet in the southern island of Kyushu, Japan, was first elected to the Alameda City Council in 1996, and with this accomplishment, he earned distinction as the first American of Filipino or Japanese descent to be elected to Alameda City Council. And then it goes on and talks about all your accomplishments, which takes up almost the whole page. And. Whereas, having also focused ardently on such areas as transit and traffic related issues as well as economic development, during his tenure on the City Council, Tony de Saag has been renowned for his superb ability to work with a diverse group of people to forge solutions to the challenges that face the community. And. Whereas, during his years of service to the people of Alameda, Tony de SAC works conscientiously, tirelessly and with an exacting demand for excellence, and his efforts are deserving of acknowledgment and praise. Now, therefore, be it resolved by Assembly member Rob Bonta that he takes personal pleasure in commending the Honorable Tony de SA upon completion of his tenure with the Alameda City Council for his admirable record of responsible citizenship and dedicated service and for enhancing the lives of the people of Alameda and conveys warm best wishes for further achievement and personal satisfaction in the future. I will miss you, my friend.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you.
Speaker 8: I appreciate that very much.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 5: Councilmember de SAG I Tony, you and I first met on the Economic Development Commission way back when, and then you immediately left for the city council. But I have always been struck by your sincerity, by your depth of knowledge and preparation for council issues, as well as the initiatives that you put forward. And I, I count your efforts as one of the reasons why we're looking at transportation citywide instead of just focusing on a piecemeal basis. And that is a great benefit to the city that you've given us. Oh, you'll be missed, but I'm hoping that you'll be still engaged. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Frank. Appreciate that.
Speaker 0: And I want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your many years of service to the Council, and you certainly brought your professional skills in planning to the discussions we've had. And it's true, a number of speakers mentioned this, that you've been a very strong advocate for the West End, and you have to be proud of how you're seeing the West End grow and develop over the years. There's still still a ways to go, but moving in a good direction. I've enjoyed seeing you at the farmers market on Saturday mornings and I hope you'll still be out there and we'll be there. Let me let me park my bike in your yard while I do my shopping. But truly, you are an example of the kind of public service that I'd like to see emulated by others in our communities. So thank you, Tony. And lots of luck in the future. All the best.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Marilyn. Appreciate that.
Speaker 0: City manager.
Speaker 2: I just want to say, Tony. And I don't think I've ever told you this, but you were the first council member from Alameda that I met about two years ago at a league conference conference. I remember and made a good impression then. And it was it's an impression that has continued and been validated by you in many different ways. You're a strong supporter of economic development. You are a really strong advocate for the East End. Weston. Sorry.
Speaker 4: I'm a jet at jet.
Speaker 2: Right. You know, when you became involved in the FAA and the next gen, you got into the minutia of all of those flights to an astonishing degree. And I have to say that I was totally impressed and blown away by some of your responses to citizens about the details you provided because you knew it, and you drill down into those details to make a difference. And when you were on, I went to one meeting and the you made a real difference to the community of Alameda by having them consider within six months a realignment of the flights that are currently flying over Alameda. So and I assume that you're going to continue to push on that effort as a citizen. And so I just have to say that your detail and your problem solving, solution oriented. How you come to each meeting and even develop your own PowerPoints has been surprising. So I just want to say thank you for taking public service so seriously and professionally.
Speaker 4: I think it's.
Speaker 3: I. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So. I want to share that. It truly has been an honor and a privilege to work with member de sa. I you all know I was an on council. I've been on council two years and I have looked to Tony for and I think many of us do for the historical knowledge of the past of our city. And I think he truly does represent an important voice in our city and a historical voice that it is important that it be shared. And I'm going to say respected. And we have many voices in our community. And some people have said that he's a voice for the West End, and he is that. But I actually would submit he's a voice for Alameda. He represents Alameda. He has represented Alameda. He has served.
Speaker 3: Our.
Speaker 0: City well. So thank you very much. Remember de so thank you.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much. This is a. Great evening. You know, this is this is democracy at its best. And before I begin, let me make sure to say congratulations to Maryland as he Ashcraft on her reelection to city council and a congratulations to Malia Vella on her election to council. I know the city of Alameda will be in good hands. If there's anything I've learned about our city. Having lived here for many years, it is this. Alameda is a place where the cup is always more than half full. Let us never forget how lucky we are to live on an island in the midst of one of the most exciting places on the planet. I, too, never forget how lucky I have been, especially to have been able to serve on our city council in the city that I've called home since the mid 1970s. Of course, as Martin Luther King Junior said, longevity has its place. So, yes, I would have liked to have spent four more years on this days, but that was not to be. But I look back these past four years as eventful and productive. So I leave tonight with my heart full of gratitude and positive feelings, gratitude for having given the been given the opportunity of a lifetime by the people of Alameda who have served these past four years, along with previous years of service. 14 years altogether. That's a pretty long time to put things even more into perspective. I served over a span of three decades the 1990s, 2000, and the 20 teens over a span of. Two different centuries, and in, if I can sheepishly add, in to different millennia. And I've served on council with five different mayors and the countless number of fellow council members, including former member Karen Lucas, who used to serve me milk and cookies in the late 1970s after playing with her sons Tim and Bill when we were all youth. That's Alameda. Let us always be a place where someone growing up on what was for a long time, the last home owning neighborhood in Alameda, the 100 block of Santa Clara in the far west end next to the then operating military base. Let us always be a place where someone growing up in the outskirts of town could not only with family and neighborhood support. Grow up and become a productive citizen, but also come one day to serve in the mainstream of life on this island. To serve on city. In City hall. So I never forget how lucky I am. It doesn't matter if you're from the West End, from the Gold Coast or Harbor Bay. Alameda is a place of opportunity for all. Alameda is a place where the door is and has always been wide open. But not by its own accord, but through the care and effort by those all around, both in and outside of City Hall. Let us keep almeida's doors open in that middle of the road way. That's been the hallmark of our welcoming city. So let me close by saying special thank you's. I love to say this to everyone. But time permitting, I can only name a few. First to my parents, my mother to Taco de La. Mom you can wave at. And a thank you to my late father, Ricardo, as well as to my siblings, my older sister, Christina. You can wave to see who is here tonight. Let me also say thank you to Carolyn Monks. My close. You can wait. Carolyn, my close friend who has been with me since the early 2000 and who has been a sounding board about city hall matters. Whether she wanted to be or not. Thank you to my council colleagues, all of you current and past, as well as to city hall staff. Again, current and past. And finally again, thank you to the people of Alameda for having given me the opportunity of a lifetime to have served on our city council. And with that, I now return the keys to City Hall. Thank you. Good night. In Alameda. Keep staying positive.
Speaker 0: Right. I will now recess the regular city council meeting. Well resume at 8 p.m., but 8 p.m. will resume when it is.
Speaker 8: Please take your seats. It's 8:08 p.m. and for our charter, we need to reconvene at this time. Thank you. If everyone could please take your seats. I don't have any. It is now 8 p.m. and per hour charter one.
Speaker 0: We must reconvene.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: If everyone could, please take your seats.
Speaker 8: It is now 8 p.m. and as such.
Speaker 0: Per hour charter. We must now reconvene. So I will now reconvene.
Speaker 8: The regular city council meeting.
Speaker 4: Is 8 p.m..
Speaker 0: And our city clerk will explain the process at this time. If everyone could, please be quiet. Thank you.
Speaker 1: City Clerk So at this point, it's the reorganization of the City Council and the administering of the oath of office. The Honorable Judge G will come up and administer the oath to each person individually, starting with Malia Feller, and then we'll go through all of that. Then there will be a roll call, the new counsel consideration of vice mayor and then the new council members to make comments. And you can submit speaker cards for that.
Speaker 0: So if you wanted to speak, please submit a speaker slip or item one E if you would like to have any comments for the new council members.
Speaker 1: Q Thank you.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 0: Honorable G.
Speaker 3: As.
Speaker 4: All right, Mr. Miller, he's across the podium. Are you prepared to take the oath? Yes, I am. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I am. State your name.
Speaker 3: I Maglia Mary Vella.
Speaker 4: Do solemnly swear.
Speaker 3: Do solemnly swear.
Speaker 4: That I will support and defend.
Speaker 3: That I will support and defend.
Speaker 4: The Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 3: The Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 4: Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Speaker 3: Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Speaker 4: That I will bear, bear true faith and allegiance.
Speaker 3: That I will bear true faith and allegiance.
Speaker 4: With the Constitution of United States and the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 3: The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 4: That I take this obligation freely.
Speaker 3: That I take this obligation freely.
Speaker 4: Without any mental reservation.
Speaker 3: Without any mental reservation.
Speaker 4: Or purpose of evasion.
Speaker 3: Or purpose of evasion.
Speaker 4: And that I will.
Speaker 3: And that I will.
Speaker 4: Well and faithfully discharge.
Speaker 3: Well and faithfully discharge.
Speaker 4: The duties upon which I am about to enter.
Speaker 3: The duties upon which I'm about to enter.
Speaker 4: Congratulations.
Speaker 1: Next is council member as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Like Izzy Ashcraft, who prepared to take the oath. Yeah. Please raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I state your name.
Speaker 0: I am Maryland. As the Ashcroft.
Speaker 4: Do solemnly swear.
Speaker 0: Do you solemnly swear.
Speaker 4: That I will support and.
Speaker 0: Defend, that I will support and defend.
Speaker 4: The Constitution of the United States in the Constitution of the state of California.
Speaker 0: The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 4: Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Speaker 0: Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Speaker 4: That I will bear true faith and allegiance.
Speaker 0: That I will bear to faith and allegiance.
Speaker 4: The Constitution of the United States, in the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 0: To the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.
Speaker 4: That I take this obligation freely.
Speaker 0: That I take this obligation.
Speaker 4: Without any mental reservation.
Speaker 0: Without any mental reservation.
Speaker 4: Or purpose of evasion.
Speaker 0: Or purpose of evasion.
Speaker 4: And that I will.
Speaker 0: And that I will.
Speaker 4: Well and faithfully discharge.
Speaker 0: Well and faithfully discharge.
Speaker 4: The duties upon which I'm about to enter.
Speaker 0: The duties upon which I am about to enter.
Speaker 4: Congratulations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Really gets us right. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Next is Treasurer Kevin Kennedy.
Speaker 4: I am very well. Please raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I state your name. I Kevin Kennedy. Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. That I will support and defend. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of State, California. The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance. That I will bear true faith in allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. To the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. That I take this obliga obligation freely. That I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation. Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion or purposefully. And that I will. And that I will well and faithfully discharge. Well and faithfully discharge. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. Congratulations. Thank. To.
Speaker 1: And we have city auditor Kevin Crane.
Speaker 4: And are you prepared to take the oath? Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name. I, Kevin Ralph Kearney. Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. That I will support and defend. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. Constitution of the United States. Of California against all enemies. Foreign and domestic. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance and I will bear true faith in allegiance to the Constitution in the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the United States. State of California that I take this obligation freely. I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion or purpose of evasion. And that I will and that I will well and faithfully discharge. Well and faithfully. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Well, one see roll call.
Speaker 1: Council member for missing one of the council member as the Ashcraft. Yes, yes.
Speaker 3: Here matter.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 2: Odie. Here.
Speaker 1: Here. Mayor Spencer. Here. Five present.
Speaker 0: Thank you. One day consideration of appointment of vice mayor and a mayor.
Speaker 6: I'd like to. I'd like to nominate Malia Bella as vice mayor.
Speaker 0: I'd like to second.
Speaker 4: I'd like to throw it.
Speaker 0: All those in favor, I. Motion here, motion carries unanimously. One a comments by new council.
Speaker 1: And this includes the auditor and treasurer, too, by the way.
Speaker 0: Yes. And we start with the new council members and then speaker slips. So if you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. And we're going to go ahead and start with the comments from council members. Council.
Speaker 3: However you want to go ahead and let. Council member ASHCROFT.
Speaker 0: Oh, member. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you all for coming out tonight. It is lovely to see so many of you here. And I want to thank my friend, the Honorable Delbert G. Fred Minister administering our oath and his wife Doris for being here. I want to thank all the voters who reelected me to the city council. I am grateful for your vote of confidence and it is truly an honor to continue to serve this wonderful city. And I'd also like to give a shout out to the citizens of Alameda, because do you know that in the entire county of Alameda , we had the highest voter turnout of any.
Speaker 8: City in the county. What was the number?
Speaker 0: 80, 85%? I want to say 85%. Is that awesome? Anyway, I want to also give a shout out to my hardworking, wonderful campaign volunteers. A lot of you are in this room tonight. And my wonderful saintly husband, Howard, over there against the wall, my best friend and right hand man. Thanks, honey. Tonight is a night to celebrate the new city council. We welcome Malia Vella, our new vice mayor to the council. And this is Democracy in action. We always need a succession plan. We need that new and in this case, young talent to help keep us fresh. And but we also have acknowledged the many years of service and dedication of Tony Desai, who also faithfully served this council for many years. And then we need to quickly roll up our sleeves and get down to business, because Alameda, like many cities, has some big issues to address. And what I would like to see as we move forward in this coming New Year and the next years, is that we focus on finding solutions to the issues before us and not looking for scapegoats. We need to work together. We need to be able to see all sides of issues, perspectives of an issue if we're going to craft those important solutions. My list of important items that need to be addressed is topped by housing. Housing supply, affordability and quality in the aftermath of the tragic ghost ship fire in Oakland. I want to see a robust building inspection program in Alameda for both commercial and residential buildings to make sure that our buildings are safe and habitable. And this is something that I talked about all along when we were discussing the rent ordinance that the council passed and the voters affirmed this last November that it's not enough to just provide housing. Of course we need more and we need more affordable housing. We're working on that. But our housing stock has to be safe and habitable. And I know staff is every bit as concerned and we're going to work together on this. And speaking of the rent ordinance last month, I was thrilled that the voters in large numbers affirmed the ordinance that the city council enacted almost a year ago. Now we have the opportunity to review the data that has been collected, learn what is working and where improvements need to be made, and move forward from there. Traffic, transportation and protecting the environment. We need to keep working to provide alternatives to single occupancy vehicles, to both reduce the traffic congestion that besets our island and the entire region, and also to improve air quality. I think I mentioned earlier in the meeting, you may have heard me say that Howard and I just came back from almost two and a half weeks in Egypt where our daughter works, and we got to visit her and take a nice now cruise by the city of Cairo. 19 million people has an air quality problem. That is unbelievable. And I mean, we're not we're not Cairo, but there's so much we can do that's within our power. So let's let's keep moving toward that. We all need to be a part of the solution. And then I'm going to borrow a slogan from our Alameda Unified School District, which is, Everyone belongs here. I love that. I have that. Yeah, I have that great poster up in my my city council office. So how we as a city respond to the implications of the national election? There are some outcomes that remain to be seen. I know a lot of us are concerned on a number of levels, but we can demonstrate as a city the principles that we value, that we hold dear and that we will stand up for. But whatever we do in whatever endeavors we pursue and all the issues we tackle. My slogan is, Let's be civil. There is no need or value in emulating the contentious tone of the past election. Important and often controversial topics are addressed here, but there's nothing that can't be discussed with civility. An argument or your request that the Council take some action is not strengthened by the amount of sarcasm that you can put into it. I think we are all persuaded by good factual argument. You can be passionate and still be civil. And as elected leaders, thank you. As elected leaders of our community, we should set that example of lively but civil discourse. And I know we're all capable of doing that. So this is a time of new beginnings we have. Have a new city council. A new year is about to begin. I wish you all happy holidays and look forward to getting some important things done in the coming years. Working with all of you together. Thank you. Member Vela.
Speaker 3: So thank you all for being here tonight. It really is an honor to be able to serve the people of Alameda. And so many of you have been with me along the way from the beginning. Many of my friends, old and new, are here as well as family. And so I thank all of you, really, for your support, for standing with me, for walking with me, for speaking truth to power and for really standing up for the values that we all hold dear. I want to thank really the broad coalition who got me here, because it was a truly it was a coalition of people with diverse interests who came together to make sure that the Almeida that we have, that we love, really is a place for everybody. We have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to enact policies that will be inclusive and holistic, to ensure the common welfare of the people, and that make sure that we enforce the value that everybody truly belongs here. Alameda holds a special place in my heart. I have many fond memories here growing up, going to parks with my grandparents, walking to the beach with my dad. Many of you don't know this, but Crown Beach is actually my beach. Or at least that's what I thought when I was a little kid. And I want to make sure that those are the things that we preserve those those opportunities for memory building with our families and with our friends. And I know that we can do that through hard work, through thoughtfulness and dialog and being positive and productive, working towards those shared values. I want to especially thank a few people. Amy, Natasha, Wendy, Kat, Gray, Cynthia You walked with me and kept me going. Even when it was hot and even when it was raining, you kept me honest and kept me out there. Lisa Tucker for your sage words and guidance. You are my rock. Thank you. Peter Tresch. Mike. Jeff. Thank you for our shared values. For holding me honest, for making sure that I worked hard. I will continue to work hard. To my family, especially Justin, Krystal, Chelsea and my sister Maggie. You are my biggest cheerleaders. And my best spokespeople. To my partner, John. Who probably spoke to as many voters as I did. Thank you so much. For standing by me. For walking with me. You are a partner in every sense of the word. Cathy. Cathy, Catherine, Gabby, Becca, Mark and Eric. You are also invaluable. You are pillars of our community. You hold us up. You push us to be better. Without you, this wouldn't be possible. Thank you. And finally to my parents and my grandma Oubre. I wouldn't be here without you, without your love, your support, your encouragement. You taught me everything. And for that I am truly grateful. So I just want to say, we really are all in this together. And I know that the Alameda that we love is the same Alameda and that there's really a place here for everybody and that whatever we do, we need to do it with that in mind . And when we do that, we will move forward together. So thank you for this great opportunity.
Speaker 0: Do we have speakers?
Speaker 1: We have no speakers, plus the Kevin. But I'm sure that Kevin's want to comment.
Speaker 0: Evan Oh, yes.
Speaker 4: In the interest of time will. We'll speak together. Be the first time that's ever happened. So I think most of you know, we've we've served this city and the people of Alameda a combined over 40 years. And this year this election was a little different for us because for the first time we had to run a campaign . So normally we wouldn't come up here and and say much, but definitely want to share that experience and thank the people that were involved with it. It was a new thing for us. It was, I think for both of us, very rewarding personally. And it was a lot of fun and I think we ran a good, positive campaign based on our track record and and it was really wonderful. So I really want to thank our election committee, our campaign committee, many of whom are here tonight. We had no idea what we were doing. And you guys showed us how to do that stuff and really did a lot of great work for us. So it was really wonderful. I want to thank little I think he's still hanging around. Where did he go? Oh, Little and his hand-crafted sign, which I don't have the heart to take down, it's still hanging in the window of my office. It was so awesome. And all the people that invite us into their homes or let us speak to their groups, it was really rewarding for both of us. You know, doing this for 40 years, being the numbers guys, being in the background most of the time, it was really nice to get out in the community and meet a lot of people and learn that a lot of people are paying attention, that a lot of people are hearing the message and and appreciate it and capturing 80% of the vote. It was just wonderful. It was far exceeded our expectations going into it. So I think everybody who was involved with that and supported us and we really are proud to serve the people again for another four years. Thanks. I wanted to echo Kevin's sentiments. I wanted to thank all the people that helped us, all the people that voted for us. I wanted to thank my mom. I wanted to thank my wife, Shelly, my daughter Caitlin, who helps with the campaign. And, you know, I've been the auditor since 1991. Never had to run a campaign. I appreciate what you all have to go through every four years. It's not easy. I mean, you have the campaign part and now you have the governing part. And I'm really looking forward to working with everybody and making Alameda, you know, the best place it can be. It is a, you know, a fabulous place to grow up and go to school in. And I'm looking forward to just really pressing on and, you know, continue to keep Alameda, you know, at that Mayberry RFD by the sea. It's just it's it's awesome. We live in the I think in my mind, the greatest place in the world. And I'm very excited and I thank everybody for their support. And I look forward to working with all you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council me comments I'd like to actually commend I'd like to take this time to commend member Ashcroft, member Vella, our Treasurer Kennedy and our auditor Kearney. Congratulations to each and every one of you. I want to commend our city for stepping up one more time. And as member Ashcroft had shared, we do turn out, we vote. And I look forward to continuing. I'm going to say the good work of our council working with staff, and I'm confident we're going to continue to serve our community at the highest level. Welcome. Welcome. Member Vella. And actually I want to say let's give it up to member of year five.
Speaker 8: Okay. Excuse me.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Let's try one more time. Let's give it up for Vice Mayor Vella. All right. So now we are on agenda changes of our regular council meeting and there's hardly any agenda. Yes. So you knew we had pulled some items from the consent calendar in the previous meeting. | Regular Agenda Item | Adoption of Resolution Commending Tony Daysog for Fourteen Years of Service to the City of Alameda as Councilmember. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3660 | Speaker 1: Recommendation to amend the contract with clean lakes to increase the contract amount by 99,000, including contingencies for vegetation management.
Speaker 6: Is just a question. So if you answer it, then I guess we can move on. These are the lagoons that back in the summer there was a lot of unpleasant aromas that came out of these lagoons and we received a lot of complaints. There were signs during the 4th of July parade and so on and so forth. So I wonder if you can just address what, if anything, we can do about that and if this contract is something that will help impact.
Speaker 4: Shore for that particular by the way, I've Liam Garland with the Public Works Department for that particular question, I'm going to turn to our odor expert, Aaron. Aaron Smith, our public works coordinator.
Speaker 2: That's not a title I've had for years. I'll take it. So the aroma that we're speaking of is in the park, Otis kind of South Shore area. A little more pronounced this year than I think in past. Couple things at the edge of Park City, at the shoreline. I think a lot of you might have noticed large excavators there. So there's a separate project that's going on that's being administered by the East Bay Regional Park District called the Groin Extension. So the groin is that cement structure that goes out into the water. It's a it's a. Crown Memorial Beach is a human made beach. And so it requires structures to keep the sand in place, so it prevents the migration of sand downward there, extending that growing project, which requires the deep digging and the exposure of decomposing matter, and that causes the aroma that kind of mucky base smell so that this mucky, mucky, yeah. That this year is a little bit different than in prior years. And that commenced in mid-summer in regards to lagoon three. So we have five lagoons that run from. West to East Lagoon three is the one that has the end at the Park Goodison intersection. That one in and of itself has had its own challenges and. The design of it. Each lagoon flows from one to the other and the outtake pipes for lagoon three that has a an area that we call the armpit because it's past the outtake pipes. And so the water normally would flow through and you have moving water that covers up underneath lagoons they don't smell. So there's this area that's called the armpit that the contract that you guys are speaking of has been doing additional cleaning efforts, as well as our maintenance staff to address the accumulation of the debris. Our engineers are also looking at additional dredging of that material. There was some attempt to do that in the past and the Regional Water Board had put a stop to that due to some chemicals that were found in there. But we are pushing forward on trying to re dredge that material out. Typically when the lagoons are high and the material is covered, the smell is not there. It's when the lagoons are lowered. So also adding to it, we had some atypical construction projects this summer that we needed conducive groundwater conditions, so we lowered the lagoons in the summer again, causing the aroma that was noticed by citizens.
Speaker 6: Okay, so can we tell our constituents that next summer will be better or worse or the same?
Speaker 2: I hopefully our maintenance efforts will decrease the smell. We don't have intentions to lower the lagoons in the summertime unless some unforeseen conditions allow for it. I don't have a tentative date on the dredging. I think there always will be aroma. We live in a salt marsh bay environment. We're always going to have some level of smell, but I think we're giving it our best efforts from a maintenance perspective to reduce it.
Speaker 6: But. Thank you.
Speaker 3: QUESTION Well.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: If if if your intention changes with regards to lowering it next summer, will there be a process for notifying the nearby neighbors because it was a chief concern for many of the people living nearby?
Speaker 2: Yep. And we heard the citizens concerns. We actually established a website on the Public Works page just dedicated to the South Shore Lagoons, where we post any upcoming lowering dates. We also have an email distribution list that we're able to send out any notification for lowering schedules.
Speaker 4: Move upriver.
Speaker 0: A second. Did any of the council members have comments? I wanted to share that. During that time, myself and staff members met with many of the concerned citizens. We held at least one meeting and they I think you were there and we came up with an email list as well as some ideas to work with the community . So there was progress made. So I want to thank staff for participating in that. Thank you. All right. All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you to EFF member.
Speaker 6: I pulled F and G kind of together. So it was just more of a kind of another update about the same area because that's Park and Otis. And if you could give a brief status update on where we are on the sewer replacement because during periods of heavy rain it was last week, we still see a lot | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Clean Lakes, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $99,123.90, Including Contingencies, for Vegetation Management, Debris Management, and Water Quality Monitoring for the Southshore Lagoons, for a Total Contract Amount of $499,719.20. (Public Works 351) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3661 | Speaker 6: I pulled F and G kind of together. So it was just more of a kind of another update about the same area because that's Park and Otis. And if you could give a brief status update on where we are on the sewer replacement because during periods of heavy rain it was last week, we still see a lot of flooding along shoreline. So maybe kind of a brief update and maybe some anticipated date when we might be able to see relief, you know, from these these big pools of standing water.
Speaker 2: Sure. Two separate issues. We have separate sanitary and storm system. So the sanitary system, which was the construction work that we were doing, has nothing to do with the flooding that we're seeing. That's our storm system. The items on the agenda tonight are the acceptance of work from Ranger Pipeline's Who is our sewer construction contractor. That job replaced a pressurized sewer pipe that goes from the South Shore Shopping Center down to Chrissy Park. That pipe failed. This work replaced it. It was successfully done under budget. We have a brand new pipe in the ground, so that works, done really well. We are seeing the benefits of it now as we speak. Well, if.
Speaker 6: It's really not related, then maybe we could have, you know, staff come back after the beginning of the year with an update.
Speaker 2: On.
Speaker 6: The weather, not hold up this item.
Speaker 2: For sure. Yeah. And we do have key staff that would be able to speak to the storm flooding issues in that area.
Speaker 6: Well, that would be helpful after the first of the year, right.
Speaker 0: Any other member, Ashcraft, as long as staff is coming back to talk about key flooding issues, you're probably aware that the Main Street Ferry parking lot was pretty severely flooded, more than the usual area, but pretty much all.
Speaker 3: Over.
Speaker 0: Whatever day that was last week that we had such heavy rain.
Speaker 2: So, yes, heavy rains combined with king tides. So the water really has nowhere to go. So if there are flooding issues, we definitely saw them this past storm.
Speaker 6: We love the water, though.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: I'm of approval of the two items, two F and two G.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks. And I wanted to give our city manager an opportunity to share. So if community members find something in the area that they want repaired, they go to.
Speaker 2: So they go to see Click Fix actually is a program that the public works department manages. And it's very you take a picture of it, you put a little description of it, and there's a response from staff. It gets routed to the appropriate staff and you can track the progress of that request. So we encourage citizens to use that.
Speaker 0: So that includes the flooding areas. So that being said, all of us in favor I bushwhackers unanimously think so that's items to EF and to G. And now we move on to. Hey, Ben Brody. Yeah, I think it's Jay.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 0: Actually, I did. Remember Ashcroft. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I wasn't here last time for the first reading of this ordinance, but I did go back and read the agenda item, the staff report. And I also emailed, but only very recently, to staff my concern. All right. I'm just pulling this up. Yes. Hi, Mr. Garland. Thank you. So. We we have before us this ordinance that establishes a residential permit, a residential parking permit system for neighborhoods in our city. And homeowners associations, procedures and whatnot. The precipitating factors seemed to be the overflow parking from the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal. And my concern and why I pulled this is that. We have, as is often the case, more than one competing interests that we need to resolve. And I want to make sure that we are. Addressing everything we're juggling, but we're keeping all the balls up in the air. And just judging from communication I've had from fairy riders, and maybe they weren't as informed as they should have been, or maybe the process wasn't quite as informative as it could have been. But my concern is that if we are going to allow for homeowners associations to have permit parking only on their neighborhood streets, and these are there's a couple of particular developments in proximity to the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal. But at the same time, we haven't provided sufficient alternatives to folks who do need to drive cars and or maybe we've provided alternatives, but we haven't done as robust a job of marketing them. And so people aren't aware of them, which is almost the same as not having them there. I always think it's better to get the public information out ahead of time, even a month in advance. I know. Well, I won't go into it. I'm I'm really pleased. I've because I've been a very squeaky wheel. You all know, I've been nipping at your heels on the the parking and you did. We've gotten the no parking signs down on north off of North Loop Road there in the vicinity of the child care centers, which is helping. And I'm hearing from these parents of young children who can park dropped their children off, walked into the end of the road and take the shuttle that the Harbor Bay Business Park is allowing people to use to get to the ferry terminal. But as far as the line, is it 19 or 21, 21, 21, which is apparently a free shuttle and now it's on time. When did that start? How was it noticed? And what's the ridership so far in the time, however long it's been since since it's been started?
Speaker 4: Sure. I keep on standing up just to sit down, but I'm actually going to ask Jennifer. I get better at the AC Transit.
Speaker 0: He didn't have a description for you like the air.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers. Welcome, Councilmember Bella. So we have we did actually do some marketing for the line of them. But let me step back a little bit because probably about over the last six months we've been working with AC Transit to really improve that line. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger Pipeline Inc. for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 12, No. P.W. 01-15-01. (Public Works 602) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3690 | Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers. Welcome, Councilmember Bella. So we have we did actually do some marketing for the line of them. But let me step back a little bit because probably about over the last six months we've been working with AC Transit to really improve that line. 21, they were running busses, but they weren't meeting all the departures and arrivals and cents over the last several months. We they've actually at AC Transit has really stepped up. And now they meet all of the departures and all of the arrivals with the line 21.
Speaker 0: How long how long has it been?
Speaker 7: I believe it's probably about last three months. Yeah. And also we did check and we did a lot of research with them because wanting to confirm what we've we hear different things anecdotally about the timing of the busses. We were able to confirm with data from AC Transit that even if their busses were late on that for the time that they were supposed to arrive at the ferry terminal, there was they were never late for the actual departure of the ferry terminal in the morning so that there was sufficient cushion so that even if they were a couple of minutes late, there was enough cushion for someone still to get on the ferry. And then they even increased that cushion a little bit more to just make sure to build in. Because once someone takes the bus and misses the ferry, once, you know, they're unlikely to do that again. And so we were really pretty strong and adamant about that.
Speaker 0: Because Harbor Bay Ferry and like Main Street only leaves once an hour and just has a couple of runs in the morning. So you're at Main Street, at least you have about every 30 minutes for the commute hours. Yeah.
Speaker 7: And we worked and for that very reason, we were pretty adamant about wanting to understand the data, making sure they went back and looked at the data. And so that's great. We did actually create a flier that was all the different potential transportation alternatives, right? If that actually passed out, we had a staff person actually pass it out at all of the departures in the morning. So stand out there and hand it to riders. We also had we to email that to all the riders that are on the listserv for Harbor Bay. We can always do more and I think it's something we can look at, especially if the ordinance gets approved tonight and we move towards implementing additional parking charges and other things to do more of that. And we intend to. But we did put a flier together and do some marketing to to ferry riders to make sure that they were aware of options. We didn't talk about the neighborhood permit program yet because we didn't want to raise that issue if it weren't going to if it's not going to be approved. But we do plan on doing more of that.
Speaker 0: I'll just throw out that you you might not have raised it in the marketing materials, but the local press covered it. And those were the emails I got what they're you know, they're restricting our parking abilities. And so and what about some. Like doing a sandwich board sign that could be on the pavement. So people, I mean, I, I think there's a lot of ways you need to reach people.
Speaker 7: So and we can look at that. We've already. Mr. Garland I've already talked about really making sure that we're careful about before we implement any changes, really making sure there's a really robust community outreach process, especially to the ferry riders, but also to also to the neighborhoods and working with the highways. So we will be putting that together and making sure that we continue to present options. And that same that same sheet shows where there are satellite parking options that are along that bus line. So we really try to we show the bikeways that are in the community. We actually have a little scale. So you can tell how far it is. It's not very far on a bike from most of that most of Harbor Bay to the ferry terminal. So we really try to provide some useful information for people to evaluate their different choices, you know, an alternative to driving.
Speaker 0: And and obviously, there will always still be people who will need to drive, because I hear from the parents who have to drop off at two different schools and still get to the ferry. But then the other one other leg of this triangle is the at the top of island drive is the park and ride lot and so this free to ferry riders 21 line shuttle will stop there is stopping there now.
Speaker 7: I think it stops on the other side of the street so the line 21 stops on either side street so you could go in there and then crossover.
Speaker 0: Okay. And and that is also being that's on the marketing and.
Speaker 7: Then yes, that location and then the actual line 21, you know, route is on that marketing sheet. And we tried we worked with a professional, you know, graphic designer that actually knows how to, you know, it was.
Speaker 0: Great, you know, and then do we do we have any numbers about ridership so far?
Speaker 7: Well, we because it just started, but we have already asked AC Transit to look at their data. So we are asking them because we do want to try to see, especially after we we passed out the fliers, we wanted to see if there's any uptick. I think as we go into some of the community outreach, we're going to continue to ask AC Transit for that data to try to evaluate the benefits.
Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate that because again, I think we have dual objectives here. Of course, we want to be responsive to the concerns of neighbors who didn't want to have people. I think it was more the rushing in, maybe driving a little bit fast and but, you know, taking up parking spaces on their residential streets. But at the same time, we talk so much about trying to emphasize public transit and getting people to use public transit. So I want to make sure we're as user user friendly as possible, because that's that's a very.
Speaker 3: Important goal.
Speaker 0: For all of us. All right. Thank you. Any other council comments or questions?
Speaker 3: I'd like to make a motion that can.
Speaker 0: All those in favor, I suppose I say go along with it because I think the process is underway to address the needs of the riders. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The next item I have that was pulled to k member. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 12-17 (Preferential Parking Zones) of Article III (Permit Parking) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Modify the Procedures relating to the Designation of Preferential Parking Zones. (Public Works 224) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3691 | Speaker 0: All those in favor, I suppose I say go along with it because I think the process is underway to address the needs of the riders. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The next item I have that was pulled to k member.
Speaker 6: I think you meant I pulled this one, but my question was answered by staff so I withdraw my pulling.
Speaker 0: Would you.
Speaker 3: Like to make.
Speaker 4: And move.
Speaker 6: Approval of the item?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Questions. Comments. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Those two. Okay. That concludes our consent calendar of the regular agenda item three a we already dispensed with counsel referral referrals for a vice mayor or I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Member. Okay.
Speaker 0: Matter us. Did you want to. So at this point so he's going to step in and member de SACS.
Speaker 3: Place and.
Speaker 0: Proceed with the.
Speaker 3: Referral. My understanding.
Speaker 5: Yes, and I think it's important to ask the question of this council because there are actually two things that I think are worth looking at. One is that we've got a. To look at the process to make sure that running for elected office is open to anybody in the city, regardless of means and. As some people know, and I know there's provisions to take care of some of these things. But if there's a small field near the build that you get at the very end, after all the all the hype of winning and all the feelings of of losing a subside, the city presents you with a bill for principle. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Division IV (Annexation of Territory) of Section 3-70 (Special Tax Financing Improvement Code), of Division I (General Provisions), of Article IV (Special Tax Financing), of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation). (Base Reuse 858) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3641 | Speaker 5: As some people know, and I know there's provisions to take care of some of these things. But if there's a small field near the build that you get at the very end, after all the all the hype of winning and all the feelings of of losing a subside, the city presents you with a bill for principle.
Speaker 3: On.
Speaker 5: The ballot. So I think. That's a significant cost. I think, again, it's worth looking at. And that's why I think this should go for. And I think it's also worth looking at the effect of of large contributions into campaigns, regardless of where they come from. And I'd like us to have a a maybe even have a subcommittee of the city council do this work. Because some of this work was done back in, I believe was 2012 by the Sunshine Committee. And I think it's, again, worth asking the question and then having I would recommend that the referral be slightly changed to have a subcommittee of the city council do this work and bring a recommendation to council.
Speaker 0: And I'd like to add that we include having staff look at an estimate of the costs. That be included.
Speaker 5: I think with any recommendation staff would it would go without saying that staff would have their usual impact to the general fund or wherever this money would come from to execute whatever the council decides to to consider.
Speaker 0: A member.
Speaker 6: I have a couple of quick comments and I appreciate my colleagues remarks on this. And for, you know, stepping in the shoes of our former council member and bringing this this referral, I have two issues. One, I am concerned about violations of the Sunshine Ordinance. If we give direction to staff on something that wasn't notice. And overhauling our campaign finance rules, I think is something that, you know, if we were going to do that folks in the community may be interested in commenting on rather than us doing it by amending a referral without public notice. So I would be against that at this point. And secondly, you know, I do have a little bit of an issue. You know, basically we're asking the city and the taxpayers to pay money. So us, we politicians, because that's what we are run for office. So instead of that 25,000 going to, you know, pay part of a salary for somebody who could help with landlord tenant issues or paying for a park person part time, we're basically asking them to pay for us to run for office. And, you know, I just have a philosophical disagreement with having the taxpayers pay for me to have the right to run for office. Because I think if if you're going to run, you know, and if you can't raise $3,000 to pay for your ballot statement, then, you know, maybe you don't have a lot of support in the community and.
Speaker 0: Member. Ashcroft, I would actually like to see a more independent body look into these questions. Perhaps the League of Women Voters that doesn't have a dog in the fight, so to speak. And I you know, I agree with my counsel, my colleague Jim Odey, that when you run for office, you do need to take into account that there are expenses. But hopefully you have supporters in the community who are willing to help defray that. But if we need to look at doing things a different way, I would like the the more, you know, arm's length independent view of an organization like the League of Women Voters if they are willing to take it on. And I actually think they've had some forums on campaign finance report reform in the past. So I, I suspect not wanting to speak on their behalf, although I am a member, but I think this might be something they'd be willing to take up. But I'm interested to hear what the rest of the council thinks.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor What's one thing that that I, you know, have a little pause on is the fact that we did we did a review of this not so long ago. And, you know, we you know, my question would be, are we looking to override the work that was already performed and the the you know, the work of the Sunshine Committee actually looking at this matter, or are we trying to look at a new direction? You know, I was a campaign finance attorney before. And one of the things that that I do caution people on is the more rules and regulations we have, you know, campaign expenditures are considered a form of First Amendment protected speech . And so while you can you can limit contributions to candidates or or ballot measure committees, essentially the Supreme Court has held you can't cap what goes to independent expenditures. And so one of the things that I think has has really clouded the issues for many voters here in Alameda is not knowing where the money's from because there have been independent expenditures and that sort of thing. So I think getting a little more direction in terms of what we're trying to achieve and if it's something different from what we've looked at before. I also agree that having or at least starting out with an independent body and having them look at it would be my preference just because then it's really coming from the community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I support during this referral. I support leaving it though as the referral is noticed. And I think that that's a real clean question in regards to whether or not and after we find out what the expense would be, we should and I would say reduce the financial barrier to running for office. I think $3,000 is in fact quite a bit for some candidates. And when I at least when I was on the school board, the school board did pay that. We did not have to pay that fee. And so I see it as a financial barrier for some candidates, and I would at least be supportive of hearing this referral and getting staff's feedback on what they think the cost to the city would be. Um. Member matter. I see what you like to.
Speaker 5: I don't see that there's a majority that's willing to go farther than this. And I think it is correct in not adding additional items that weren't noticed. But I think the discussion needs to happen and perhaps in a different venue.
Speaker 0: And I don't it's my recollection, I don't recall the prior council looking at reducing the cost for Canada, so I don't think that issue has been discussed. I think that that is a new issue.
Speaker 3: I think the issue is that we looked at campaign finance reform earlier, not this particular.
Speaker 0: Issue, this issue. So I am. So did you want to make it personal? I don't know. I wasn't sure that everyone opposed going forward with this issue. So I. I will make a motion to proceed with the referral that had been member de SACS and limit it to. But the ask was here. Of finding. Exploring the city funding to pay the administrative election costs. To reduce financial barriers of.
Speaker 3: Running for office.
Speaker 0: They're a second. Doing, then that fails. And then I will proceed with five A, which is the Historical Advisory Board nomination and I will be nominating. First of all, I want to share that we had four candidates, three of whom I, along with staff, interviewed. | Council Referral | Consider Directing the City Clerk to Work with the City Attorney in Crafting an Ordinance to Provide City Funding to Pay Administrative Election Costs to Reduce Financial Barriers of Running for Office. (Councilmember Daysog) [Not heard on December 6, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3633 | Speaker 0: And I brought this referral ticket to get an update because it's my understanding from the comments from Fox in the past was that they may not have funding to continue the service this past March. And so I would like to know when staff is planning to come back to give us an update so that we will. I'd like us council to be able to make a decision in regards to the status and how we're going to proceed as soon as possible, as opposed to reaching the unfortunate position, I would say, of us running out of money and then hearing.
Speaker 3: You know, March 1st.
Speaker 0: Or March. I'm not sure exactly what date that would be, but I think it's important that it come back to council so that we can make a determination. May I come in? Yes. So I actually was out at the animal shelter today because I I'm back now and I wanted to have an opportunity. They invited me to come and sit down with them, the director and their consultant and another board member and I and actually the FAS people wanted me to know, I didn't ask them, but they said, please, no, we didn't request this council referral and they actually let me know that they've met with the city manager, with James Addison, who is our consultant who's doing the analysis. They provided me with a stack of. Data and documentation that they provided him to. I think he got even more. So I anyway, it just was puzzling when I was reading the council referral because I think the, the, the process is in motion. And we do, I think, have some update coming to us in the new year, if I recall correctly. The manager.
Speaker 2: A So that is true. And based on the council direction at the last time there was a referral to to deal with this. And so since then we have been in negotiations. We have hired James Edison who has been working directly with FAS. He also has a sub consultant who has expertize in the field of animal care and shelter care and we have heard from the council to bring updates. And so I think we can meet this week regardless of, you know, as soon as possible. He is still working on trying to get information from FAS, the last details as the audited financials which they are working on and we are waiting for that information and I think both sides are trying to provide the information so we can move forward. And there's a big team on both sides that are working on this, including Assistant City Manager Warmington, the police chief, our finance director. And we are. You know, we have good intentions to move forward and to protect the animals. The other thing that we talked about today is there is an interest on both sides to make sure that when March comes, if there is a lack of funds, that our first goal is to make sure that those animals are cared for and not, you know, quote, put out on the street or any other thing. So both sides are trying to figure out a way to protect the animals in the shelter.
Speaker 0: So my preference is that we hear back from staff and I appreciate that. FOSTER Not requests. I think that this is the job of council to hear hear this and make a determination. I think it's our decision and I think it's important that we be provided the information so that, in fact, this is decided by council prior to March 1st. I am concerned that. This may actually, unfortunately, just this time may pass. And I actually see this also as a very important issue for our community. So I think it's very important that staff report back to council and I would say no later than the I would actually say first meeting in February with an update so that we can decide, so the council can decide how we want to proceed with the matter.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor, do we have dates for bargaining scheduled or that are do have a plan for meeting with them between now and then?
Speaker 2: Are. What we are trying to do right now is collect the information, the complete picture of the financial situation, and that includes the audited financials. I spoke to Forbes this morning and asked that question. They are attempting to get that information from their auditor. And as soon as we have all the information, then our consultant has said it's a matter of about, you know, weeks to a month turnaround time. And then after that, it is where we can meet and agree. So we're all waiting for the information right now, the complete picture. So it's hard to actually predict. Well, exactly. You know, where we when we can return back to council, but we want to do it as soon as possible. And that was their direction at the last time this was discussed as referral, I think in October. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor, of before I do my comments, I do want to welcome my colleague back and welcome our new vice mayor and get to do that earlier. You know, I'm satisfied with the update that you provided today. I'm a little concerned that, you know, we conduct these negotiations in public when, you know, we trust the staff to go forward and do their due diligence and, you know, do what's best for the city and do what's best for all of our residents. Knowing that this is a priority that not only our residents, but this council has expressed to you. So, you know, I'm satisfied with the update. You know, I'm not comfortable with, you know, putting finite dates on when you need to report back. But trust that you're going to be doing this job. Has you have been doing for the past few months since we first gave you direction.
Speaker 0: Any other comments? All right. So. I appreciate the comments from staff. I am concerned, as I've said, that this I think it's critical that we hear back from staff sooner rather than later. And I do want to commend all the volunteers in our community that have really tirelessly given to support this shelter. You do an amazing job, and I do support your efforts, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to make some sort of long term arrangement. So thank you. That's 99 be.
Speaker 1: Considered directing staff to return to council with an analysis declaring Sanctuary City a policy refusing to honor mandates regarding massive restaurant tournaments policy, refusing to register individuals based on their religious beliefs, and a resolution reaffirming the city's commitment to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Religious freedoms and social and economic justice. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on the Negotiations Between the City and the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) as Soon as Possible. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on December 6, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_12062016_2016-3632 | Speaker 3: Consider authorizing the City Council to direct staff to submit a complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding November eight, 2016 election mailers. We do have speakers on this item.
Speaker 1: All right. And I had this is a referral I brought. And unfortunately, there were two election mailers that were sent out during this last campaign season that did not include any identifiable information as required by the state of California. And I contacted the FEC in regards to making a complaint, and I was informed that there are the mayors have made complaints in the past that council members have made complaints in the past. And and given our form of leadership here, it's I can't make a complaint as mayor without council voting to prove that. And the complaint is simply and it's actually very simple on their website. It's a dropdown menu and identifiable mailers. You send them copies of it and then they look into it. So it doesn't require any staff time in regards to doing any independent investigation at all. But I, I would like to be able to submit the complaint as mayor. And I think it's actually very important because many of you may or may not know there are many rules regarding finances in any campaign that require us to report all donations, $100 or greater, and all expenditures and in a timely manner. And unfortunately, when mailers are sent out with with stamps is what happened here and not identifying who is sending them out, that circumvents all of the purpose behind having these campaign requirements of how to run a campaign. So that's why I brought this referral. And also I know in the past and I've attended some of the meetings that the League of Women Voters has put on in regards to campaign finance in our city. Other cities have adopted some measures for that. And unfortunately, if we have people that are sending out mailers with only stamps, nothing identifying them, then there's really no
Speaker 2: . It.
Speaker 1: Would circumvent any effort on our behalf to do any campaign finance reform. So I think it's very important that we as a council send that message that we do expect everyone to comply with the California state law and report expenditures that occurred during a campaign. That's why I brought this. And, um, we do have speakers, so I will call on our speakers. Brock, Dale Lott, Elliot and then Jim Sweeney.
Speaker 7: As we've seen in the recent election, the American public is losing confidence in their elected officials. In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission, ruling that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in that case have been extended for profit corporations, labor unions and associations. This ruling has had an extremely detrimental impact on participatory democracy in the United States. A recent study by Princeton and Northwestern University's has concluded that the U.S. is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. To quote from the study, multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass based interest groups have little or no independent influence. A recent survey by Bloomberg shows that 78% of the American public believes that Citizens United should be overturned. Our own island community has recently suffered a similar fate of unscrupulous campaign spending by a group fascist, facetiously named Alameda in the United. The funding for this PAC comes predominantly from off island unions and developers. During the past election, Elements United sent out a massive number of mailers which were filled with false and misleading statements about Councilman Tony De Saag and in support of Melia, Vela and Marilyn Ashcraft, who I am sorry, is not here tonight. In just a few days prior to the election, the worst of these mailers was sent out with the heading pay to play with a picture of our councilman, Tony de Saag. There was no required attribution as to who produced this mailer, and it was sent using a first class stamp to hide its source. This is clearly a violation of California law. I have filed a formal complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission. I would urge the city council and all concerned Alameda to do the same. Then the irony of this dirty trick is that Tony de Saag is the sole candidate who refused to take contributions from special PACs, and thus he lost his reelection to two candidates promoted by these slick fliers. As a resident and a voter in Alameda, I would like to know whether council members Vela and Ashcraft will publicly denounce such dirty politics. More important, will they recuse themselves from future council votes in matters which directly benefit those who perpetrated this distasteful and harmful tactic? As a body. The Alameda City Council should likewise sanction those found guilty of this lawless activity. In closing, I would like to thank Councilman Dave Sorg for his service to our city. His integrity and truthfulness will be a severe loss to our city government. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jim Sweeney.
Speaker 0: That's me. And I'm happy to finally get to address you tonight. I think that the previous speaker. Did a wonderful job of state, putting us in tune with the state of the election process. I think that and I. I think that it's up to us. And our at our level to do our own thing. To take care of this critical thing. We have an avenue of redress. And I think that it's critical that we take this necessary step to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. There's a fair election required by law. And that time is of the essence in order to ensure that timely examination imposition of penalties for any transgressions are implemented. And I think and I think that you as a body, not staff and with all due respect for staff. I think that you should do this complaint as a body. And speak for on behalf of all our citizens. And Tony was mentioned very well by the previous speaker. I just like to mention that Jennifer Rohloff. Was also a victim of this type of of. Action. So. This is a critical thing. It's it's not unimportant. They're chipping away at our freedoms. And we can't let them do that. It's money. But we can fight money and we've got to keep fighting money. So I humbly request that you do the complaint. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Patricia Gannon.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Spencer, your council and staff. I'm Patricia Gannon. And first of all, I would like to thank Bear Spencer for putting this item on the agenda and giving us the opportunity to speak to it. I and I would hope that Council would follow her lead and support her and unanimously vote to file an official complaint with the federal SPCA and take some action. This kind of behavior has no place in our election process, and we in the media need to make a strong stand to.
Speaker 4: Put it to an end.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Susan Sperry.
Speaker 2: I'm here, frankly, because.
Speaker 4: Frank sent me.
Speaker 2: An email or through Facebook or whatever about the agenda. And I was I have been terribly upset with the election. I know agency about what? Who said what? And I got the fliers and I was just furious. And so I expressed my anger to Frank and I talked to Jim and Tony. And I just think that it was not only an insult to Tony, it was an insult to all of us. And I was very glad that you let me know about what was going to go on. And that's why I'm here. And I would support any action that would investigate and complain or whatever. And about the individuals who sponsored those terrible fliers and who were those individuals that were funded with the money that I feel? Was terrible. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Noel Folsom. And he's our last speaker on this item. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip.
Speaker 7: I'm here to commend the mayor for bringing this item up, and I hope you'll take a positive action. I'm 84 years old, and I think Tony Danza made a good decision when he when he voted against that senior housing. I would not want to live under the landing path of aircraft at the Oakland airport. I think that was excellent and well explained. And the people that sent those fliers out, I don't think Marilyn wanted to face the music tonight. But she should be chastised in the new councilman elect Villa. I don't know what. What rock she crawled out from under. But. But her. Her flier was scurrilous. It was absolutely filled with lies, and it was villainous. So I'm hoping that she does hard time. I've never seen her at any council meeting. I've never seen her serve on any board or commission of the city. So I don't know what she thinks she's going to achieve on the council. But I don't think it's very much and I tell you this, I will work very hard to see that she serves only one term . But thank you again, Bear Spencer, for bringing this up.
Speaker 1: You're welcome. Thank you all for speaking this evening. Comments from council members. Remember De.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. Thank you very much for the residents who took the time to come out and share their thoughts on this item. I do want to thank Mayor Spencer for bringing this matter forward, because I do think it is important for the city council to air this out on behalf of the residents, not because, you know , my name or my face was on these fliers, but as Steve Crystal, a West End friend of mine, said, that in this past election, what you saw was a certain level of odious news, the likes of which we had never seen. For many years. I think maybe the last time anything like this came close would probably be in 1982. But I don't even think 1982 in that mayor's race. I think it was Amy Stone and and Rich Garrett. I don't even think that level that that 1982 mayor's race, you know, had this level of negativity. And so I do think that it's important for the city council to make a statement that says that, you know, that kind of politics might be fine for the bigger cities like LA of the world or the San Francisco's of the world. But here in the city of Alameda, amidst a city of 75,000, you know, we we have certain values when it comes to civic engagement and that we're going to affirmatively support those values. And that's why I think it's important to join Mayor Spencer in sending us a statement to say to complain about this level of negative mailers that came out, particularly about the ones that didn't follow the noticing, require rules.
Speaker 1: Member, Odie.
Speaker 0: Thank you, madam. I just have a question. The city attorney. So. I'm not sure what we're being asked to do here.
Speaker 2: Well, if I can try to explain just a little bit. First of all, the city and the city attorney's office does not have any jurisdiction on this issue. This is the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is the state body that administers the Political Reform Act and administers election issues like this one. And I think as one of the speakers, Mr. Gallup said, he has filed a complaint with the FPC. Others have, too. And in fact, in the package of materials that he provided, the Fair Political Practices Commission has notified him as of November 30th that they are going to be investigating. So the way the FEC works is you can go to their Web site, anyone can, to make a complaint about what they believe could be an improper election activity. The FEC has two different kinds of ways you can play. One is anonymous and one is a sworn complaint. If you do a sworn complaint, which apparently Mr. Dunlap did, then the FEC lets you know within 14 days whether or not they're going to investigate and then they investigate. I actually contacted the NPC myself when this referral was put on the agenda and they advised that they had received complaints and they had received sworn complaints. So as far as what this body may be doing, I mean, it would be just kind of adding your voice, I guess, to a complaint that's already being investigated by the FEC. And they will investigate what the procedures are and we will or won't hear what the result of that was. They have ability, if they find there were violations, to assess fines to if something is really egregious, to go to the district attorney and ask them to consider doing some criminal actions, ending on what it's all about . But really, the city doesn't have any authority to do anything. We don't have any local election. Policies, if you will, that some cities have adopted that, you know, we might be able to take action, but in this case, we have none. And so it's properly before the NPC.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, we could do nothing today and it's still going to be investigated and there's still going to be a resolution and a response and an investigation and all those other things you said. So then logistically or how is this going to happen if we approved it? I mean, is someone going to go log into the site and say, I mean, how's that going to happen? I mean, is is are you going to do that?
Speaker 2: Well, it's whatever council would decide tonight, if they want us to take some action and if they want the mayor to just do it, if they want the attorney to do it, if they want the council.
Speaker 0: To hold it there. Anyone any one of us could do it now, right? I mean. So I guess I'm a little curious on why.
Speaker 1: So I tried to explain that and I'm happy to.
Speaker 0: I'm trying. Can I finish my.
Speaker 1: And it's my referral. Thus I'd appreciate it, but I do.
Speaker 0: Want to make my comment. Okay. So I want to make my comment. So. So. I guess listening to the city attorney, you know, I understand there's a lot of anger over the election. You know, I'm still not over the presidential election. Probably never will be, but. You know, if I think maybe a more constructive use of our time would be to do some type of resolution that condemns this type of negative campaigning, because, you know, this is not the first time we've seen this, you know, council member matter. You know, I thought it was bad when it happened to you two years ago. And, you know, I was a campaign manager in 2010. And, you know, with all due respect to my my colleagues comments, I think that was probably one of the ugliest elections I ever I ever saw. And you were the victim of a lot of that negative campaigning. So you being. Vice Mayor matter SC when you were running for mayor and you know, that was. 5060. I don't remember the amount $70,000 poured in by sun cow. You know, there was stuff said about Malia Vela on the Internet, you know, that people were going after her job and you know how long she lived here. There were people attacking Maryland, Ashcroft's family on the Internet. There are people attacking my children on the Internet. So there was negative campaigning. There was charter money that came in from out of the city to attack Measure B one and do negative mailers on B one. I mean, that's something I want to condemn. There was money that came in from Virginia and from Internet companies to attack Measure K one. And then here we have this, which I condemn just as strongly. So I think, you know, it sounds to me like we want to just pick the messages and pick the people that were targeted and complain about those without, you know, looking at the big picture. There was a lot of negative campaigning that went on in this election. It was really unfortunate, and I'd like to see us do more as far as making a statement against that instead of picking out just one thing. And it's happened before, you know, Frank's been the victim of it twice. So, I mean, I think this is kind of, you know, it's kind of. And I want to say silly, but it's really not going to matter what we do. So it's going to be there's going to be investigation. And if people have done things wrong, we'll find out about it and justice will prevail. So it just seems a little bit odd that we're just picking one aspect of negative campaigning to go after when there's there's so much other stuff out there.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to speak to that because this is actually I've brought this from a specific requirement under the. They require that mailers be identified. It's not just negative campaigning. In fact, that is not the issue. So I want to make sure that that's clear. This is a violation of the PPC.
Speaker 0: And I know that because you're the eff PPC.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 1: I would appreciate if.
Speaker 2: You could just.
Speaker 1: Finish my comments. Thank you. I would appreciate if you allow me to finish my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Became the FPP.
Speaker 1: Sorry, this is my referral and I'd like the opportunity to explain it. I think that that is appropriate.
Speaker 0: Allowing actions when you're done.
Speaker 1: So we have other council members that will be I will be calling on first. So let me finish my comments. I am bringing this specifically and it's unfortunate that the title didn't specifically say this. It's consider authorizing the City Council to direct staff to submit a complaint to the FEC regarding November eight, 26 unidentifiable election mailers. And it is the and an identifiable part that rises to something that you can make a complaint to the PPC and that specifically circumvents all of the rules regarding campaign finance, keeping track of all the donations, who's sending out what, what the costs are. This is not a content based. This is actually because they use stamps and they didn't identify themselves. And all of us that are candidates, we file regular reports in compliance with the FEC monies we raise and how we spend them. And to me, it is very important. I appreciate the speakers and actually all the emails we received on this issue that do understand we are speaking specifically about a violation of this unidentifiable mailer. And that's why I think it's important that we speak. And I would prefer unanimously that we send a very clear message that we do require in our town that all mailers satisfy the FEC. And I cannot send that. I can do an individual report, which is. But we have members of our community doing. However, I am mayor and I think it's important that council and that I as mayor speak in this capacity that that we make a strong statement that the Council does not support an identifiable election. Mailers, which is why I brought this vice mayor.
Speaker 6: And I think this. We refer to is about negative campaigning and illegal campaign in our apparent what appears to be illegal campaign on. Material being mailed out. Having been on the receiving end of it. I know it's no fun and. I like the idea of the council taking a stand on negative campaigning and should you know, I think we have to speak out on it. I think we've all spoken out at some point individually on it, including and I just don't know how or what we can do about the the personalization of comments on the Internet, which in this campaign I think of were were pretty bad and they were bad in 2014 and they were worse in 2007. And so we have a building trend here. I do think it's important for the city council, not the mayor, not council member, Frank matter or any individual to to tell the state that we have a problem here, because if we don't do anything, shame on us. So I'm in agreement with filing a complaint and doing the follow up. So the it we don't just throw it out there and then go on our way and wait till 2018 because having whatever the fact is, whoever the candidate here really kind of doesn't matter. It's that somebody went around the law. Is the way this appears to me, and I think the rest of the standard is on us, as council member already said, is to talk about, oh, what is it that we what kind of conversation, what kind of resolution can we say when we talk about campaign reform is what do we say to help? I'm not going to say enforce civility, but remind people that we need to be civil and we remind people that we stop. You know, put this little heart logo. Here is. Stop. Personal characterization. Stick to issue. So I would support filing the city council, not the mayor, but the city council filing a complaint. I don't know how how that can be executed, but I would support voting for that and. Following up on it. And we can assign, if we don't want to take staff time, assign a council member to follow up with the SPC to say where is the complaint, what is your investigation, say and and have it a report out at some point. So I think this is we have to start chipping away at what has become an ugly environment or people who volunteer to do this. People who. Enjoy the fact that they can talk to their members of counselor, the members of the school board. And if things start getting so personal, it's it's going to change the dynamic in in in the way that Alameda acts as a city and in a very bad way. So I think we have to make a stand here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Before 1030, I need to have a motion to consider the remaining items. Nine B force referral, nine C Campaign finance reform. And that requires four votes. We have no speakers on either of those. Is there a motion to hear those?
Speaker 6: I move.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: All those in favor.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Motion fails. All right, so then we'll just finish up this item. Any other speakers will remember, Audie?
Speaker 0: Just one quick comment. I mean, I know you sound very firm in your determination that it was against the law, but. I mean, if you look at the political advertising, disclaimers, mass mailings, it has to be more than 200. So I guess we'll find out if there were more than 200 sent. So, I mean, I'm not FBC, I don't know. I guess we'll find out. I'm going to abstain on this. I think it's kind of a waste of our time, but I'm not going to vote no on it because I believe we do have to send some message against negative campaigning.
Speaker 6: I'll move that the city council of a complaint and follows up to see what the results of the investigation are.
Speaker 1: I'll second that. All those in favor.
Speaker 2: I. Epstein or.
Speaker 1: Abstain. The motion carries 3 to 1. One abstention. Thank you. And the other? Yes. Would you like to approach the mike and you Oti?
Speaker 7: Wouldn't you want to know who.
Speaker 2: Broke the law? I'm sorry. Not out.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Actually, it's okay.
Speaker 2: Well, look.
Speaker 0: We're gonna find out.
Speaker 1: So you.
Speaker 7: But wouldn't the council want to know? So wouldn't this affect the way.
Speaker 1: He has been? I'm sorry. He has already weighed in. That's his vote. And I need to continue. I'm sorry. We can. You can follow up with him separately on your own. I appreciate that. Next, any council member communications on any matter, not on the agenda. All right. And we will be a moment of silence. We're going to adjourn. We're going to adjourn in memory of the victims of the fire warehouse in Oakland. So if we could have a moment of silence. And and Arnie Fong. Thank you. A moment of silence, please. Thank you very much, everyone, and good evening. Meeting adjourned. | Council Referral | Consider Authorizing the City Council to Direct Staff to Submit a Complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding November 8, 2016 Election Mailers. (Mayor Spencer) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11152016_2016-3507 | Speaker 0: In an amount not to exceed 135,000 for review and analysis of property tax revenues. Nebraska.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I just wanted a little more information about this. What? So this is a steady hello, Ms.. Adair, who's our finance director? Um, uh, this is a study looking into. Well, you can probably tell us that we're capturing all of the property tax. We should, because it's the largest source of the general fund. Is that that correct?
Speaker 1: So, hello, council members. Madame Mayor Allen, our dear finance director. This particular contract actually provides us with so hd all corn and corn. And what they provide is they assist us with projections of the property taxes. They review the taxes that are assessed by the county in making sure that the city receives its fair share, whether it's for specific properties or things such as equipment and things like that, that is not necessarily secured by, let's say, a single family home. So they look into those and make sure it does come to the city if it's within the city. City limits, if you wish. They also provide us with on the annual basis with a report that breaks down things like general fund related properties and revenues, as well as what used to be a redevelopment agency, currently a successor agency, do still provide us all the information that relates to it. It assists us to also figure out how much money is going to come in in order to pay successor agency obligations. They provide updates. They also provide us with things like This is what we expect next year's assessments will be or what they expect. The CPI increase would be, so they assist cities with that information as well. So it's a variety of services. One of the things that they do is they do sometimes audits. And actually, I guess I would say fortunately for Alameda, within the prior period that they were under the contract, we only had twice that they actually had to go in and do certain corrections. So usually it happens at extra charge outside of regular agreements, but we've only got it twice and the dollar amounts were very minimal.
Speaker 2: So when you say corrections, does that mean that we. And too much tax.
Speaker 1: Usually that we didn't get enough or somebody was paying it to another entity, let's say outside of city of Alameda. Let's say it would have may have been Oakland. So they would make sure and recapture those to make sure that she'll comes to the city.
Speaker 2: So I'm a couple questions. So we've used this firm to do this kind of work in the past.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 2: And is the compensation structure always the same? Because what caught my eye is that this is a five year contract.
Speaker 0: Five year.
Speaker 2: Five years, and we're paying $18,250 per year, plus 25% of the net revenues recovered by the consultant. Is that.
Speaker 1: That's correct. As and as I mentioned, we only had a twice where they actually had to come in and recover certain property taxes on our behalf within the last five years prior to that. So in I believe the amount was all we received about like $800. So it was very.
Speaker 2: So it's not likely.
Speaker 1: It's yes, I mean.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: It's possible. But and that's why we have them, because we cannot look at every single property and that's kind of their job. They actually get County Assessor's maps and everything like that and they look whether it's actually paid correctly, whether the appropriate addresses are applied correctly.
Speaker 2: And then my one request is, can we get an update, say, on an annual basis of what the results of their their review were?
Speaker 1: I'm sure you.
Speaker 2: Do. And I think it can probably just be a consent calendar item even. But I would just like to have that.
Speaker 1: In my city manager just mentioned, we do do it as a part of a budget update. In general, we can incorporate that. But generally when we look at the property taxes for the budget, that's one of the sources that we'll. Rely on other than what we know internally as well within our own, I would say, economy.
Speaker 9: And so a lot of the information they provide ends up in the budget, in projections and assessing us. And we can do more in the budget about what the long term strategy is from the consultants point of view.
Speaker 2: I was just more interested in on a year yearly basis, what is it that they were able to uncover?
Speaker 9: Oh, okay. Like the recovery part? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Can you confirm that there's a cap? I understand there's a cap not to exceed 135,000 overall. That's correct.
Speaker 1: So the expectation is, as you've mentioned, it's about over a little over $18,000 per year and plus any recoveries. So what we were trying to do is figure out $18,000, how much would that be and give a little bit of buffer in case would you have recoveries that we have to make a payment? So I don't necessarily expect it to be that high and it's obviously limited to a five year period. In addition to that, they do have in year three and four and five a CPI increase for their fees. Actually, $18,000 stayed pretty much consistent with the prior.
Speaker 0: Five year contract.
Speaker 1: It actually has increased. So this would be, I think, reasonable that it's, you know, increased and it's increased by California CPI, not even Bay Area CPI, which normally is lower.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions.
Speaker 2: Dear?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 2: I move that we accept the recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a five year agreement with HDR. Corrine and Cohn.
Speaker 0: Remember De Sock seconded all this in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The next item that was pulled is five F and I pulled that because I wanted to give Alameda point an opportunity actually to share with the public. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with HdL Coren & Cone in an Amount Not to Exceed $135,000 for Review and Analysis of Property Tax Revenues. (Finance 2410) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11152016_2016-3512 | Speaker 5: As you're well aware, spaces that are premium. My initial thought on this project was it's right next to the Hornet feel. It made a lot of sense. There were weeds growing there. It hadn't been used in 20 years. I thought it was a no brainer at that point. And so I started looking at not just how do we make why would this make sense for the community, but how do we make it work? And when I started when I started looking around, what I found was a little bit to my surprise, it wasn't so much of is there other clubs that are doing this, but there is lots of clubs doing this. I think there's more people converting tennis courts to football, one of the fastest growing sports in the country. Then there's not. So I reached out to several organizations around the country. One, the mayor of Kansas City, which I was able to procure a testimonial where they've done 12 of these projects in seven different locations, the city of Elk Grove, Los Angeles, Dallas. I don't know the procedures here, so I have those in hand if you'd like to see those pictures and testimonials. But the idea is that the soccer club, because it's adjacent to us, it seemed to make natural sense. We do have a budget for this. We think we can. We think that we can generate sponsorship in addition. Because we think that we're. We're dealing in good faith in the fact that we have a we have two years remaining on our lease. We've already allocated out of our budget $30,000. We think that based on our conversations with sponsors, we think that we can generate probably upwards of 100, $150,000 if we needed to. And we also have the support based on a recent meeting that I had with the San Jose earthquakes. They're excited to be able to help us with this project now. They're willing to give us financial support, but even more importantly, they're willing to give us their marketing support. Bringing players out here, doing clinics. I'm going to let Pierre Bola from Alameda Football Club talk a little bit more about the benefits of football and really the genesis of this, which is if anybody is aware of their kids play in Alameda, which is called Friday Night Football. So I'll let her talk a little bit more on that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm here, Bhola, and I'm here representing Alameda Football Club. I'm the co-president. I've actually also been involved with the soccer club for about five years now. And I have three children that have gone through the U.S. school system. And actually currently I'm coaching the JV Women's High School team at Almeida High School.
Speaker 9: So I just came from practice.
Speaker 1: So one of the things that football provides right now is so the women's football club is based out of Alameda Point Gym. And as you know, space is a premium. This is even more so for gym space than field space. There are many opportunities for the outdoor game. Very few. I mean, we've got Alameda Point Gym and that's it. And over the past few years, our gym time is slowly, you know, decreasing as more and more groups try to use the space. One of the things that we bring, that Alameda Soccer Club is very excited about and the earthquakes are very excited about is this program we call Football Fridays. And that is a place for kids to drop in. There's no coaching, there's some supervision. But really, the kids have to organize themselves. They get to play. It's roughly by skill level. So sometimes there are six year olds playing with 12 year olds actually often. And so part of what they learn is how to self-manage, how to play fairly against opponents of multiple sizes. And this is a really important skill and it's a great freedom for the kids. We would love to expand this program, and we can't do it right now. A lot of kids can't make Friday night. In addition, we'd like to serve the grown up population. I personally would love to play. We cannot play year round the grown ups because we don't have gym time. We get to play when we do our winter league. So, you know, I really ask you to please support this, you know, granting the least element to soccer club and we've Alameda Football Club is going to work very closely with them to, you know, maintain the facilities and to provide opportunities for the youth and the community.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, John Paxson.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Madam Mayor and Council members during the approval of this with the Parks Rec Commission. When I gave the presentation and some of the rebuttals, two key issues came up. One was the issue of using chrome rubber, which is the much known as a toxic material. So we are now committed to making sure that we will not use any toxic material and nontoxic acrylic or rubber surface. The other issue that came up was the issue of the whole Triangle Park being open space, green spaces. So we want to let you know that it will remain open space, green space. It will be preserved and open for anyone to use. The other issue is youth organizations that want to use Ornette or the repurposed tennis courts. Those are always going to be available. So we work with any of our PD to let any element of youth organizations use it. It has to be approved by our PD, but also any other organization that comes into Alameda may want to use it. Ornette and this other new field will be available. An example would be when we had the America's Cup here sailing team. Artemus was here. They came to us and asked, Can we use Hornet Field for downtime for Frisbee? We said, sure. Let us clear with the LAPD and you could use it. So any organization as part of a community effort has availabilities these fields. So I'm hoping that you'll support this and provide this available to all community bound.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. David. And Scott. Those are our last speakers on the final.
Speaker 5: My name is David Lee Cashman. I'm a volunteer for the Alameda Soccer Club. I coach a few teams. I recognize that name. There might have a one of my favorite players that you might be related to. And I also am on the board of directors and I'm a I've been a construction engineer for 30 years and a contractor for 20 years. And basically I'm this and make it quick. I'm here to assure the council that I get volunteer for stuff like that to make sure this project is run safely and it'll be environmentally, you know, compatible with the area and you know, well, it'll be done safely as well, you know, and. There's not it's not a very complicated project. So I just want to and I volunteer for stuff like this for the club in the past and I want to give the council my reassurances as someone who knows the construction business is on board.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you, Scott.
Speaker 5: Even better, Mayor. The council members. I see you all. I know a lot of faces here. I represent the soccer club in many ways, not only as a board member, but as the field coordinator. What my job is to really do is to interact with Amy and her staff to make sure the fields are available safe for play for all of our youth. In regards to both fall and spring seasons of soccer. That includes practice times and play in field times for games and everything else. But one of the biggest roles that I really have is incorporating and managing the interaction with other youth groups in the city. Because soccer does maintain a huge amount of the field space during the especially in the fall months. And I have to interact with a lot of other groups to allow them to be able to play on some of the fields that we're permitted for them. The cooperation interaction is really critical there, and I just wanted to ensure everybody in the city council that that is one, we're going to continue to do that to make sure those fields are open and available, especially the new space that we're looking to develop. So when I'm working with Amy's group and those requests that come through, they all come through me. I feel like the king of the land sometimes, but I have to. Someone's got to manage the whole thing. And I do my very best to cooperate to make sure that all of our youth groups can play time on all of our fields. And we would add this one additional dimension to one of the fields that we have available. I think it would make a huge difference for our community and will help us open up some new sports for us as well. And I feel like this and I do my very best to help make sure that the continued commitment to making sure equal play for all and get everybody out there is maintained. So I would really encourage you all to pass this for us and allow us the opportunity to redo this field for a couple of years, not to our release. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'm really glad I pulled this item so that you all came out and shared the good work that you're doing. And I think that it is important to share this. And I wanted to make sure and I want to thank staff, Ms. Wooldridge for all of your work to make this happen as well as our community members that are stepping up. And I wanted to make sure that this is being shared with our parents group so that they're aware. I know, you know, the Little League team was shared with them and I was able to participate in some of their games. But I do think it's very important that this be broadcast so that other people in our community, everyone knows what's going on. And you might think about sharing it on social media and maybe some photo ops for our local papers to make sure we're getting the word out. That being said, any council comments? Amber Ashcraft I move approval second. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Last item I pulled five H. Recommendation to authorize the city manager to issue a notice to proceed with Max Creek Inc DBA Mach five for construction management services for the Cross Alameda.
Speaker 1: Trail through Jean Sweeney.
Speaker 0: Open Space Park and to appropriate 160,000 to the Cross Alameda Trail Project budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance. Right. And I pulled the him in because it's 160,000 from the general fund. And I wanted to give staff an opportunity to share why it's important to to fund this at this point instead of having it go | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend the Hornet Field License Agreement with the Alameda Soccer Club to Include Operation and Maintenance of the Adjacent Tennis Courts for Additional Soccer Field Space. (Recreation and Parks 5191) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11152016_2016-3513 | Speaker 0: Open Space Park and to appropriate 160,000 to the Cross Alameda Trail Project budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance. Right. And I pulled the him in because it's 160,000 from the general fund. And I wanted to give staff an opportunity to share why it's important to to fund this at this point instead of having it go through our budget process.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. So what this is what these services are for is for construction management services, for the cross Alameda Trail, the portion through Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park. As you know, that project is grant funding from that active transportation program, which is managed by Caltrans and Metropolitan Transit Commission Transportation Commission. So because it's grant funded, we need to keep it on a strict schedule and timeline. So we need these construction management services, which really are critical for a project of this size so that we have someone out in the field who really is helping us manage the field conditions that come up and change orders and things like that. These types of soft costs are not often included in grants and are not included in this particular grant, so we need to find funding sources for it outside of the grant sources. The other part, funding sources that we currently normally would use like development impact fees are currently not available and so thus we brought it forward for to use general fund moneys.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel, do you have any other questions?
Speaker 2: Just for clarification, Miss Voltage, this is just for the cross Alameda Trail. Within the park itself, it's not covering what we call the gap between a couple of segments of the park. Thank you. Of the trail, rather.
Speaker 1: Right. Thank you for that clarification. It is. It's for both to a certain extent, a portion of this grant does include that gap coverage. And there's also we're putting additional public works is putting additional dollars to make sure that gap is is done even above and beyond what was proposed for this grant. So we're melding those two together.
Speaker 2: Okay. Remind us what's being done for that gap that is more than just green paint on a road or.
Speaker 1: It is it's it's intended to be more than green paint on the road. The proposal that's gone before the Transportation Commission is is to take the lane the most terrible directions with the lane closest to the Starbucks in those businesses and make it into a protected two way bike lane. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Found if.
Speaker 7: I was like I just want to Jennifer base for use transportation planning director. But we are we're looking at health care. If we had a design that he was talking about that went to the Transportation Commission in January of this year, and it did contemplate taking it and we're trying to avoid taking that. LANE There were issues with AC transit and needing a bus stop. We're looking at taking actually the center median out and there's kind of an unused landscaped strip in the sidewalk that we're looking at so that we might be able to keep the lane. And so we're looking at some options are our intent is to have a two way cycle track that would connect with the ramp project, the ramp up opposite of Memorial Parkway and Jean Sweeney's you'd have a two way protected bikeway all through that corridor, but it's very tight and it's between two intersections. It's going to take a little work, but we're shooting to try to take the the most recent design to the Transportation Commission January, but definitely a two way protected bikeway.
Speaker 2: Okay, that sounds good. And as long as they've got chipper and that's the area across from the housing authority offices and come with independence the Housing Independence Plaza, is anything being done? I know it's not anything being done about it. Crossing is a part of this. Is that easy looking at that the transportation commission.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we're looking at it. The it what I think you're referring to is whether or not there's a lot of people that kind of cross. There's not we're looking at a Mid-Block crosswalk there and whether or not we can accommodate it. And the housing authority has actually gone after some grants. And then we are going to be coming through with some of the money from Measure B for dedicated transit lanes. And we're going to some other opportunities if we can't afford to do it as part of this project, because it it's very constrained with those two intersections. And we would be looking to do it as part of a subsequent phase that once the Housing Authority gets a grant or as part of the larger BRT project, we're looking to see if we can try to accommodate it. But it's a very tricky stretch in trying to figure out all the different pieces of it between those two intersections. It's complicated. And so with a bus stop there, as well as the two way bike lane and then maintaining the lanes and making sure we don't create any issues at the intersections. So. We're trying, but I'm not going to tell you for sure that we're going to accommodate as part of this initial phase. But it is something we want to try to accommodate as part of a later phase.
Speaker 2: Okay. I appreciate those updates. Thank you both.
Speaker 0: I want to add, I did meet with staff out there from both the housing authority and our public works. And they are trying to figure out and for those of you that don't aren't following, what we're talking about is directly across from the Starbucks. We have housing there at Independence Plaza. And unfortunately, you know, we have a lot of elderly people and it's really hard for them to walk all the way down to the crosswalk. It's a long ways around. And so, unfortunately, they go halfway across to the center median and then go across. And they also. So so we are looking. So I know housing authority as well as our staff is trying to figure out how to solve the problem. And it's very important because unfortunately, the walk all the way around is just very, very challenging for a lot of our seniors that live there. And everybody, I think you want to.
Speaker 4: You know, I just wanted to make a brief comment. Not to lose sight of the fact that this does keep the big chunk of the cross Alameda Trail through the park on schedule and it keeps the park on schedule. So those are important things to me and I'd like to move approval of the item.
Speaker 5: I'll second that. I just want to make. I just made a comment that, you know, this is another exciting project that's coming before us tonight. So I'm very elated to see this and the previous soccer field project. And I look forward also to the discussion regarding the ease about which I had some communication with staff. So I certainly support this Cross Alameda Park project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All those in favor of my motion carries unanimously six a introduction of ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a lease with Pacific Pinball Museum for three years.
Speaker 1: With.
Speaker 0: No extension options and an early termination right for both the city and tenant in Building 169 Suite 121 located at 1685 King Street at Alameda Point. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I believe at the last council meeting you guys consider.
Speaker 0: That and sent staff back.
Speaker 1: To make some edits to the lease. Those edits were made, the tenant agreed upon them and for the public.
Speaker 0: The edit that you requested was.
Speaker 1: A mutual termination. The lease currently.
Speaker 0: Is a three year term and it's in our enterprise district.
Speaker 1: And the council.
Speaker 0: Thought that because.
Speaker 1: We are getting.
Speaker 0: Some very serious inquiries.
Speaker 1: In the enterprise district, it was important for us to preserve some flexibility in the lease. And so we we.
Speaker 0: Negotiated and provided for that and the lease before you tonight. I really appreciate that. And that rates mutual was the change, correct? Thank you. That being said.
Speaker 5: But just to clear clarify, either party can early termination, correct?
Speaker 2: It's actual party.
Speaker 0: It's it's it's it's not mutual. It's not mutual either party. That's right. I think that both parties have a benefit now, whereas in the past there's only one side.
Speaker 5: Yes. Okay. That was the correct move. The introduction of this first reading of the ordinance.
Speaker 2: A second.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments? I'm ready. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Six B public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master fee resolution number 121912. Add and revise recreation and park fees. Who's presenting this? This voltage was earlier, but with the wreck and park fees. There she is. See, we are moving right along this evening.
Speaker 2: We always miss you when you're not here.
Speaker 0: They are going to beat my 9 p.m. estimate.
Speaker 5: Hmm.
Speaker 0: We're going to be sorry.
Speaker 1: Talking rotary in the hallway. Thank you again, Mayor and council. So I'm here tonight to talk about the 2017 recreation and park user fee schedule. We always bring this to you in advance. Normally the rest of the user fee. Thank you. Citywide occurred during the budget process. LAPD, Alameda Recreation Park Department's a little bit different because of our summer programing for a July one start date of of our users are user fees would be difficult in the middle of our big summer program. So what we do is we bring it to you annually around this time and then the start date becomes for all of these fees, we become January 1st and then it gets incorporated into our citywide user fee schedule. So what we do annually is we put this feast schedule together very intentionally. We compare it to other neighboring and comparable recreation and parks departments in nearby cities. We also take into account similar services offered here in Alameda. And we also just take into account the unique aspects of Alameda Recreation and parks and then also balance it with our budget needs and affordability for the community. Some of the challenges that have impacted field rentals and registration fees. As you probably know, the state passed a minimum wage that is now increasing annually. And so given that we have about. 150 to 200 part time employees. That certainly impacts our budget. And those part time employees are the ones that are the bulk of our staffing costs, not the bulk necessarily, but they are a significant amount of staffing costs because they're the ones that are out in the field with the kids and running our programs around Alameda. What we also try and do. What we do with this is we include both direct costs, which are arts and craft supplies and the balls and everything we do out there for the kids. The facility costs utilities, the lights. We also include indirect costs such as the administrative staff. And we have our front desk staff that handle all the registrations. We have our account tag that manages all the deposits and all of the invoices. So all of that gets rolled into these fees. So since I've been here, I've always managed our budget on a cost recovery model. And what I do is I use this pyramid. And to me, this is very important in how we look at our programing and our fees for our programing. And really the approach is that on the bottom of the pyramid, you have the most high community benefit. Those programs that affect the most people, the most at risk people, whether it's seniors that are on a very limited income, whether it's children in different areas. So those for us are programs like those at Mastic Senior Center, like our Free Parks and playgrounds programs. Now we have our Free Park Baseball League as well that we brought back the old T-shirt league. And I'm particularly proud of those because those are completely free. And in this day and age, that's extremely, extremely rare in the recreation world, to see a program where kids can literally just swing by their local park and play in a supervised activity for absolutely no charge. So those have the most community benefit and those are ones that there's no cost, there's little to no cost recovery. In the middle, we have the general individual benefit. Those are, you know, I want to take a yoga class or summer camp classes. Those are programs that people can choose to take if they can afford it. Those things generally pay for themselves. On the top, we have the very individual benefit, like choosing to play adult softball or to rent a club for an event. Those are things that actually make money and we use that additional money so they make more than it cost for us to put those things on. But we use those to offset the high community benefit down at the bottom of the pyramid. So with the goal of getting as close to full cost recovery as is feasible. So the fees that we made changes to for 2017. You see here before you. They're also in the staff report. The main changes are the field use fee for Alameda resident Alameda organizations, which is 75% more of their roster being Alameda residents. It's going from $2 an hour to $3 an hour. That is already significantly farm in a way below our any neighboring city. Most of them are 10 to $15, some $25 an hour for their residential use. Our non Alameda League fee is going from $4 an hour to $30 an hour. And while that does seem like a big leap, we actually in reality, first of all, we wanted to create a significant spread. So that's really prioritized in addition to how we allocate our fields by our allocation policy. We also just wanted to make sure it's focused for Alameda residents and the only organization that was using it was not paying quite the right fee structure. So they're fine with it because they were already paying close to this amount. All of our youth program fees are going up 3% to 5%. That includes things like our summer camps or after school programs. And the the driver of that we debt. We historically increase it 3 to 5% every year or two. And this year the drivers, certainly the minimum wage increase behind that. We also this year now have our brand new, wonderful and still high school swim center. And so with that, we have told the swim teams for a very ample water polo. All of the aquatics teams since even before this began, that as soon as we had a new facility, the fees would go up. The just our fees are extremely low for aquatics in comparison to other comparable cities where $15 an hour for al meter organizations and our neighboring cities generally are about 45 to $50 an hour. Our justification was always that our facilities were so aging and so deteriorated and were not competitive level size. So now that we have an Arsenal swim center, which is its competition level size for water polo, for diving, for swimming, it's a beautiful new facility. That fee is going up. It's still significantly less. The neighboring cities, as you could see, about half and the swim teams are all aquatics teams have said they're fine with this and they they know they've been preparing for it.
Speaker 0: We share that with the school district.
Speaker 1: The school district is aware of the fee increase as well in the.
Speaker 0: But where does the money go? Oh, do we share the money? I'm sorry. I did somehow with the school district.
Speaker 1: No. In the which you'll see coming before you soon are the joint use agreement with Alameda Unified School District. The City of Alameda schedules all of the use for both facilities and in return we also keep all of the fees. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Issue a Notice to Proceed with Macks Craic Inc. (dba Mack5) for Construction Management Services for the Cross Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and to Appropriate $160,000 to the Cross Alameda Trail Project Budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance. (Recreation and Parks 5191) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11012016_2016-3480 | Speaker 0: Hearing none. Now I'm going to proceed with the proclamations. Three A Proclamation.
Speaker 1: Declaring November 2nd, 2016 as Alameda Collaborative.
Speaker 0: For Children, Youth and Their Families. And to this evening to accept this proclamation. Supervisor Wilma Chan and Jim France, Community Development and Resilient Resiliency Coordinator and Staff of the Collaborative. Any and all of you, you could please come to the podium, and I will read this proclamation. I think Supervisor Wilma Chan might be joining us later then. All right. Proclamation. Whereas in the mid 1990s, through a series of meetings between the city of Alameda, Alameda County, Alameda Unified School District and representatives of various youth serving organizations in the city, it was determined that a mechanism for ongoing collaboration and sharing of ideas and information would enhance services in the community. And. Whereas, in 1996, the Alameda City Council, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Alameda Unified School District Board of Trustees committed funding and staff resources to advance the formation and operations of the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families. The collaborative and has since then met on a monthly basis to plan and implement many activities to benefit children, youth and their families. And. WHEREAS, these activities initially included a report card on the status of Children, Youth and Families. A leadership role in the building of the skateboard park at Alameda Point out loud Teen Magazine Youth Yellow Pages in the Mix A forum for mixed race, youth and their families and Alameda walks a program formed to emphasize health and exercise, which continues today. And. Whereas, in 2001, the collaborative began coordinating the season for nonviolence programs and activities in our schools in an effort to ensure that our young people live in a safe, hate and violence free community. And. Whereas, these efforts have continued to grow to include the coordination and co-sponsorship of year round nonviolence activities such as bullying, education and prevention programs. Annual Harvey Milk Day events and the screening of Bully. Milk and facing fear in the Alameda Theater chain Dating Violence Awareness Month Activities in our schools. The 2015 Everyone Belongs Here campaign led by a Eustis LGBTQ roundtable and this year's Juneteenth celebration led by a Ucsd's Black Achiever Alliance. And. Whereas, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, the collaborative was recognized by America's Promise Alliance as one of the nation's 100 best communities for young people. And. WHEREAS, the collaborative co-sponsors annual Equip for success, school supply drives and holiday toy programs benefitting Alameda low income children and youth. And Let's Move Alameda, which encourages healthy nutrition and physical activity among all children and youth in the community. And. Whereas, in 2014, the collaborative adopted the all in Alameda County New War on Poverty campaign is a long term initiative and formed subcommittees to help develop and implement strategies to strengthen early education, employment for youth and food security in the city of Alameda. And where, as a result of the efforts of these all in subcommittees, the collaborative co-sponsored Career Path Ways, job fairs and Snow High School in 2015 and 16 and this year has launched an early care assessment survey to gain a better understanding of the early childhood education resources available in our community. And. Whereas, the community looks forward to the collaborative, continued important work with the youth and families of Alameda. And. Whereas, on November 2nd, 2016, the Collaborative will be hosting a 20th year anniversary reception to celebrate its achievements and partnerships with community organizations now therefore be resolved by Treasurer Spencer, Mayor of the City of Alameda. Hereby proclaim November 2nd, 2016 as Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families, 20th anniversary day in the City of Alameda and encourage all citizens to support and participate in its observance. Thank you. Mr. Franz.
Speaker 3: It's amazing that over the last 20 years, all of this has been done with a part time staff and an incredible community, the folks here that support the youth and the children in Alameda. I had the opportunity of taking this position on eight years ago and I've followed. Audrey Lord Houseman, who had done it for the prior eight years. And it was just sort of getting into a well-maintained vehicle that was just doing extraordinary things. I was amazed when I first joined the collaborative to see the things that they have done and with the support of. Yourself and the mayors before you and Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Alice Edgar and the extraordinary school board representatives. Again, you were. You were one of them over the years that gave the support to the organization. They've been able to do extraordinary things. You folks have heard the list. I invite you to stay afterwards and take a look at all of this amazing memorabilia on the walls. The season for nonviolence. The bullying work, trying to instill civility in the community and starting with our youth, where it's the most important, probably the most memorable event we had was when we were first recognized as one of the 100 best communities for young people. And we had 1700 folks join us on The Hornet for a family celebration. These were great years. These are great years. And they're going to be even greater years as they move forward because the. Members of the community support us to such an extent. The school board and the school district is always with us and with the help of you folks and the nonprofit to support youth. We're in good hands to move forward. Thank you so much for all you've done and all of the folks in the community have done to support our youth. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jim. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Thank you for that. Those nice remarks, Mr. Fans, and all your good work. Is there an event tomorrow that you might like to tell us about?
Speaker 3: Well, thank you for that. Yes. For those of you that aren't going to be able to rush down right now and come and look at what we have on display here in the chambers. From 430 to 6 tomorrow afternoon, we will be having an event that would include some presentations, a keynote speech by Supervisor Chan. Supervisor Chen was our first our first supervisor co-chair and she's come back to do it again. She's got an incredible history and incredible support and it will be going from 430 to 6 in the evening right here in right here in the chambers. And I'd like to I'd like to thank. Liz Varella from Building Futures and Mark Morales and some of the other folks that have come in, the organizations that support us day in and day out and make the collaborative what it is. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other council member comments? I want to share. First of all, I want to thank Mr. France for all of the efforts he's put into this. We are very unique to have such an organization that meets monthly. I personally have been part of these meetings for at least ten years as PTA council president on the school board and now as mayor. And we have representatives from 30 to 40, I guess 30 to 40 organizations that come once a month and we all get together. And it is amazing because that is actually how we unite all of our nonprofits and social service organizations from the school district, the county, because we have a supervisor here and then the city. And that's how when we're all talking and meeting once a month that we can make it work, we really connect through that meeting. It's, you know, please take time to look around, join us tomorrow. And then if you are an organization that does service in our town, you'll think about joining us. You can come on down and see. That's really when you can help coordinate your services with other organizations, other people that are just like you trying to, you know , step up and serve our community. So huge thanks to everyone that participates in the collaborative. Mr. Franz Our supervisors and I really look forward to continuing the work with the collaborative and seeing more of our service organizations participate. Thank you. They? Next Proclamation three be proclamation declaring November 1st, 2016, as extra mile day. All right to receive this proclamation, Jennifer Williams, president of our Social Service Human Relations Board. And then we also have some of the recipients. | Proclamation/Special Order | Proclamation Declaring November 2, 2016 as Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families Day. (City Manager 2110) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11012016_2016-3337 | Speaker 0: And I hear constituents telling me that all the time. Thank you. All right. Now, nine C instead of directing.
Speaker 1: City manager to immediately hold a council workshop on the final phase.
Speaker 0: Of the bay for.
Speaker 1: Alameda Landing Disposition Development Agreement development.
Speaker 0: And this is member de SACS referral. Did you want to speak to.
Speaker 2: The quick comment that I have to make is that, you know, the reason why I raised this is that I saw it tell us kind of moving down the pike, along with the planning board in terms of coming up with visions and programs that were, in my opinion, not aligned with what we had contractual contractually agreed to . So I it was my feeling that we have to have a conversation as to whether or not we're going to stick to the contract first. This is our land and could tell us, quite frankly has excited from several projects several agreements with regard to Alameda landing and a I mean I'm okay with the Alameda landing shopping center but the reality is we had a different vision. Um, and now. My opinion, they're back on the final phase. So if they're going to do that, then they need to come to council first. It's a civil.
Speaker 0: Case. Okay. So that is going to make a motion. All right.
Speaker 6: An amendment? Yes, sir. If we take the word immediately out.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 6: That is scheduled practically. But I agree.
Speaker 1: Second, and.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: If I can also make a final amendment to kind of maybe adopt the staff's proposed next steps. Maybe, maybe not January, but January or February, depending on the timing of all the other things. I'd have it separately. I think we decided in our conversations that we wanted to have this separately. The other one. Right.
Speaker 0: Yeah, but without a date. But soon.
Speaker 1: Like early February.
Speaker 0: I'm doing everything in June. We're not doing date specific right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, it's link to tell.
Speaker 1: Us we can.
Speaker 2: Have it.
Speaker 0: Soon. Right. But we also haven't seen our agenda items. I'm just saying we're not doing date specific or taken out immediately. We're not doing date. Correct. All right. City manager, do you want to comment at all at this point and city attorney to maybe. And your point. That's clear. All right. So we had a motion, a couple of friendly amendments, all those in favor. A motion carried unanimously is what I heard there. All right. Thank you. And now we are on nine.
Speaker 1: D and this is a.
Speaker 0: Vice.
Speaker 1: Mayor's referral.
Speaker 0: Considered directing the city manager to have the Social Service, Human Relations Board, review city policies and procedures for any homeless in order to make recommendations to the City Council for Policy revisions. | Council Referral | Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council Workshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) [Not heard on July 5 or 19, September 6 or 20, or October 4 or 18, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_11012016_2016-3338 | Speaker 0: Considered directing the city manager to have the Social Service, Human Relations Board, review city policies and procedures for any homeless in order to make recommendations to the City Council for Policy revisions.
Speaker 1: In addition, if you want to make a motion.
Speaker 6: Yes, I'd like to move that as written. And I understand that the SSA, H.R. B is working on a specific plan for Gene Swinney park, but I want to make sure that this goes beyond it. And we actually have all of our policies that are related, including police procedures and their recommendations coming to us.
Speaker 5: And that won't be in December, but that will be the start, the kick off.
Speaker 6: That'll be. I understand that because we'll get a specific project, specific update in December. But this is this is broader. And I think this situation is not going to go away any time soon. And I would like this ongoing review of city policies and procedures and actual recommendations from the S.S. H r b to come to council
Speaker 3: . So the second that one.
Speaker 6: Your motion, that's my motion.
Speaker 0: And secondly, as a discussion member, Ashcraft. So I actually think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. I know you weren't able to attend the workshop that was presented, but we did hear a lot about police policy. I would be willing to wait to hear what Shrub tells us with the outreach work of of Operation Dignity, because they've I think they've started going around in the mobile outreach unit and collecting this data. And as I recall that night, we didn't just talk about the Jean Sweeney Park. I know there's some folks who would like to declare it a park already, so certain ordinance would apply, but that's maybe glossing over some of the underlying problems. But we also talked about the properties Union Pacific property and the railroad right away over by the Fruitvale Bridge and that area. And and there are more areas of Alameda. I mean, it was a pretty comprehensive.
Speaker 5: And this is they are collecting data on citywide.
Speaker 0: On so what I would actually recommend is that we wait and hear what comes out of that and then make the recommendations. I mean, I think when they come to us, we'll be making recommendations. Isn't that part of the. So this is vice mayor's referral. We've got a motion and a second to.
Speaker 6: I'm also just I just I just want to be clear on what I'm asking because I'm asking for an organized this was this was a staff driven and rightfully so because it's an immediate problem. But I'm asking for, for the ss h.r b to help us in systematically looking at all of our policies and procedures and coming back with recommendations. And it could be from the body of knowledge that they're gathering now. But if if we just wait and see, this could get preempted and it just keeps going and going and going. And the problem is with us, and, you know, we talked about the Alameda Point Collaborative and and their function and. How do we mesh that with what we have in north housing and how do we mesh that with the people who are actually on the street? I'd like that to be dealt with in an official way. So we're not just passively waiting, but we're we're giving them direction and they're going to come back to us with a report. Well, that's all I'm asking.
Speaker 0: Mayor, I. I'm not disagreeing with the principle of what you're trying to do. I'm saying that first step is already taking place. Could we just folded into when they come to us, then we'll make our recommendations. You want to we're.
Speaker 6: Not making we're going to receive recommendations. We're going to then look at policy. The way I look at it.
Speaker 0: City manager, would you like to respond to clarify? What are you thinking at this point?
Speaker 5: I actually think we can meet both of your interests of when we come back in December with Operation Dignity. We will talk about the immediate plan and then council will provide an agenda. Is it as part of that discussion, council input for policy level stuff that we learn from Operation Dignity and Shrub. And Shrub already knows about this referral. It's been talked about and so they're already starting to think about it. But they do want. Direction from the council to say, go ahead and look at these policies. So I think we can do that as a same agenda item in December.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you actually accelerate it by doing that. I think you feel comfortable that vice maybe you feel comfortable going forward with your motion at this.
Speaker 1: Point.
Speaker 6: As long as it follows what I've written.
Speaker 0: So, okay, so we have the motion. Second, all those in favor. I oppose an abstain. I, I would if two abstentions. Three in favor. Motion carries. Thank you. Now we're going to nine. It'll still come to us in December. Right. And it's vice mayor. Mattress is referral. 90.
Speaker 1: Oh, I should consider directing the city manager to.
Speaker 0: Initiate revisions to the ordinances and code sections for mixed use zoning in. | Council Referral | Consider Directing the City Manager to Have the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Review City Policies and Procedures for Aiding Alameda’s Homeless in Order to Make Recommendations to the City Council for Policy Revisions and Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) [Not heard on July 19, September 6 and 20, or October 4 or 18, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_10182016_2016-3492 | Speaker 3: And the supplemental staff report addresses the fact that the city on Tuesday received a $150,000 payment from the developer at 2100 Clement, who paid a fee in lieu of providing art on site. So we did want to capture that additional payment and therefore are revising our recommendation regarding the appropriation of funds so that the current and the updated recommendation is that an appropriation of $100,000 for the design and installation of public art at Jean Sweeney Park, an appropriation of $162,500 for public art citywide, and an appropriation of $87,500 for the cultural arts and arts programing. That $87,500 reflects the 25% cap on art funding going for cultural arts and arts programing. Staff did not revise any other aspect of the original staff report because this item was continued from October 4th. All we did was supplement with revised recommendations regarding the appropriation pursuant to the payment of $150,000. So that concludes the staff report.
Speaker 0: Can you clarify? It's my understanding that there's really or there could be two separate votes on what is being asked of council with the break. The first one introduction of the ordinance amending the aluminum is a code by amending that. And then the second part in regards to the amend the fiscal year budget by. That 350,000?
Speaker 3: That is correct. Those are two separate and distinct recommendations and items.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I would suggest that we address those to.
Speaker 4: Two different votes, right?
Speaker 0: Right. That's what I would suggest, based on even though they're written here together. Mm hmm. Council's agreeable to that. Makes it cleaner for us, then. All right.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And we had had public comment. You're welcome. Thank you. We'd had public comment at the prior meeting, but people can still speak. New people could speak today. And we do some. We didn't do any.
Speaker 1: No, we didn't.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: We continued this item. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So I guess that's where we're picking up now is the public comment. So thank you. And do you know how many speakers actually have? We have about 15 speakers lips and you will each get 3 minutes and I'll call out about five names. And if you could line up on this side and then I'll call you one at a time. And the first one is Greg Mezvinsky. Then Marcel Stengel and Lolly Hata. Then a no name. In favor. And then Janet. So those people know who they are. They could line up. And we'll start with Greg.
Speaker 2: My complaint.
Speaker 0: OC And I don't even know where Tina sleep.
Speaker 1: Is.
Speaker 0: Then the next person is Elaine Fong. So who's the first? So I'm sorry. Were you Greg? Are you Greg? Okay, so Greg is eating his time. Marcel, did you want to speak first then? Come on up. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Members of the council. But Madame Mayor Marcel single and a striving small local developer. As a person who may someday option to deposit into the actual public art fund. I would like to make a just a short statement about where my possible art budget actually ends up. My expectation would be that my contributed funds in lieu of our provided would go into a common account and then allocated to projects via direction from the Public Art Commission. One of the one of the major directives of this fund is to allow members of the community a chance to have a say in how this money is spent. If I personally have a say in how my possible donation in the future would be shared. I would prefer to see a fair process where all interested parties in obtaining funds are required to go through the same exact procedure. Although I am in support of art projects in public spaces, I would not appreciate the park simply reaching into the fun without standing in line. I wouldn't be posed if money from the art fund was used to create art parks in the future. As long as the Public Art Commission has a chance to review and approve the amount like any other applicant. Let's just keep things fair. So I urge City Council to vote against the current proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, Lolly.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor Trish Spencer. City Council Members and city staff. My name is Layla. Go here toge and I'm an artist, the managing director of Mixed Cultural Works and the coordinator of the Powell program, which is what I'd like to tell you about. Powell stands for Performance, Arts and Learning, and it's a collaboration with the Alameda Unified School District to provide free world music and dance assemblies to schoolchildren in Alameda, Oakland. And now.
Speaker 3: We've expanded to San.
Speaker 1: Lorenzo. To date, all Alameda Elementary schools have come to at least one palace employee. Two weeks ago, we expanded to serve the entire seventh grade at one middle school. And by the end of this semester, which actually ends this week, we have one more performance. On Thursday, we will have served 7182 school students absolutely free of charge to the schools with no financial support from the city. Through our relationships with the teachers, we receive really touching feedback who say from teachers who talk about the impact of our program on their students and their whole education. One fifth grade teacher wrote to me saying, What resonated most with the kids was that the performers had moved from other countries, not unlike their own stories. We had a wonderful conversation about geography, culture, heritage, race, democracy, and how the United States is a melting pot for people wanting a better life. Thank you for the mix, for entertaining and educating our children. You left us wanting more. I wanted to broaden the reach of the Powell program to include families of all ages and kids whose classes aren't able to attend field trips. So with a small grant and volunteers like the Alameda Education Foundation and lots of donations, we created the first rhythmic round the World Festival earlier this month, which featured artists from the power program performing and demonstrating Aztec, Balinese and Zimbabwean music and dance, as well as capoeira workshops and mass making all free of charge to our community . Throughout the day, families of all ages came together to learn, dance and celebrate world cultures. The new proposed amendment to the Public Arts Ordinance would restrict only 25% of the fund to be spent on arts programing. That means that worthy projects like Powell are all competing for a small portion of the fund. I want to strongly encourage you to remove that restriction and develop a fair and transparent process for all organizations to apply for funding. Thank you. And I just want to leave these town cards and talk about our program and invite any of you to come on Thursday. We have 300 kids coming to learn about Aztec drum and dance.
Speaker 0: Now I have a slip. A slip that has no name on it. It's someone submitted that you don't have to give your name to speak, but someone did submit the slip. Do you want to come up and speak now of your time? All right, Janet.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer, members of the council and very hard working city staff. I'm here speaking as an artist, the founder of Remix Community Arts Center on behalf of Public Art. It's well-documented that art is important to the health of a community, and I'm really very, very glad to see the public art funds coming to the forefront and that we're having a community conversation about them. I do advocate for a fair and transparent system to distribute the funds so the community can experience the benefits of public art. But mostly tonight. I just wanted a minute to share with you my experiences with public art. One is the program that Lily just told you about. Another would be the power box art visual public art installation that Donna Leyburn will be speaking about later. And that island city waterways, which happened earlier in May this month. And the reason I want to say this is I know that there are things to vote on, issues to decide. But I feel like. Alameda. This is a point for Alameda to actually see themselves as a city that embraces the arts and utilizes them to share their pride in who they are, to share their experience of their with other people in the Bay Area. And it's it's it's a very powerful tool. And Island City Waterways did that. We we had multiple programs other than just the performances that engaged 1500 people. Our goal, our main goal was to establish an arts event in Alameda as a vehicle to celebrate and share the city's history and cultural heritage as a unique art event in the Bay Area. We had a gallery exhibition that included a kiosk that recorded the story origin stories of people coming to Alameda. There was intergenerational parents. Kids. Couples came and spoke about their experiences. These were edited into How Did You Get Here? Video. So they participated in the arts without even realizing that we had a wonderful history talk. Created by Costin Dennis and ask me to develop expand the history of people coming to settle in Alameda how how they got here why they came what they did when they got here . It definitely opened up our eyes to the great diversity that created Alameda. We had a wonderful lecture demonstration that was done at point of Vista Unit Unified Methodist Church and involved the Asian Islander Asian Pacific Islander with disabilities. It was at my time. I'm done. Okay. All right. So let me just say really quickly, then, all these things. We, you know, 42 volunteers, 30 artists, 30 paddleboat, drag and paddleboat paddle boaters came. It was a way that we developed community beyond just having, you know, having a get together. People were engaged. They were so proud. We had comments like, I feel pretty darned. It'd be a pretty out.
Speaker 0: You could wind up your comments. Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. People were proud to be an element. And if programing like this can do that, then let's just have a lot more of it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Elaine Fong and then Jim Sweeney.
Speaker 5: Mayor, city council members and staff. My name is Elaine Fong. I'm an artist and I am a resident of Alameda. I really commend the City Council and Alameda for developing a public arts ordinance. And so I'll have some brief remarks because I wanted to point to three of your fair neighbors who have had public arts ordinances with a fair and transparent process. You have only to look to the city of Berkeley. And by the way, theirs is a 1.5% allocation. I think Berkeley is doing pretty good. Also Oakland one point. So in Berkeley, they started that in 1985. So they've got 30 plus years of experience with how vibrant public arts can be for its city. Oakland's. In 1989 established a public arts ordinance, and their allocation was 1.5%. And finally, the grand dame of all San Francisco by charter in 1932. Can you imagine? 1932 established a public arts ordinance. I just want to.
Speaker 1: Read a little bit.
Speaker 5: This is all on their website. RFP is how you can apply, how artists can apply, how organizations can apply. So in San Francisco, this is what they say from children exploring visual, literal and performing arts through its arts or education programs to neighborhoods being transformed through our street activation.
Speaker 3: Initiatives to pedestrians.
Speaker 5: Discovering artwork in public.
Speaker 1: Spaces.
Speaker 5: To art grant sponsored programs, funding performances for hundreds of thousands to enjoy. The San Francisco Art Commission programs are a catalyst for life changing experiences. So I truly hope that the Public Arts Ordinance, if it's made to be fair and transparent, can also be transforming and a catalyst for the lovely city of Alameda that I'm so happy to be a resident of.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jim Sweeney and then Katrina. True. Houston. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council and staff.
Speaker 6: My name is Jim Sweeney.
Speaker 2: I'm delighted to be here tonight because of the proposal of staff for $100,000 from the public art funds to go over to the Jean Sweeney Park. I know Jean would be delighted to this. These much needed funds will help the park. Will emphasize enhance the feeling for. The history and the rich legacy of acquiring the park. And I think that this will be a very important thing in the long run for all public art in Alameda. We we want to have reliable and sustainable funding for the parks and for all public art. So thank thank you for your consideration on this. I recommend you approve the 100,000. We'd be delighted to have it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Katrina. And then Dorothy Freeman.
Speaker 5: Hi. And I'm Katrina Houston. I am the I was the founding chair of the Alameda Public Art Advisory Commission, and I served for five years. And I wanted to just note that how terrifying it is that you guys like these things where the public comes out, there's this great burbling up and we arrive and it's all like . And I wanted to say that I wanted to acknowledge advancement from the last meeting to this one, which was that at the last meeting there was discussion of two concerns. And one of them is, how can we move this money forward so that it actually comes to art? And I, I actually don't object to the money going to the Jean Sweeney Park. And the reason for that is I was here when the funds were out. There were no funds for art in the library. And so funds had to be generated. But because the park is a commons than it is, we have the same challenge of finding out what like how do we fund art for the commons? I'm going to presume that the park will have to fulfill the requirements of the statute and that they will put in a proposal and the Commission will service to the best of their ability and select art that is appropriate and fulfills the obligations. Am I correct in that.
Speaker 0: We can't answer questions?
Speaker 5: You can't answer a question. I'm at this.
Speaker 0: Point. At this point.
Speaker 5: I'm going to presume that that's so and I'm going to trust them to do so. I also wanted to note and here was another issue, which was that from the very beginning, the people who conceived of this ordinance had intended that funds go to cultural arts, that they wanted local arts organizations and local artists to benefit from these funds. And so I think the 25% is is a wise allocation. And I wish you all well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Dorothy Freeman and then Julie Barron. And Donna Lemire.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council Member. Staff. Audience I'm Dorothy Freeman. History has proven that endure the endurance of art and the enjoyment it brings to people people's everyday life. Art is responsible for teaching us about.
Speaker 3: The past, the present.
Speaker 4: And allowing us to dream new ideas about the future. Having art displayed in our parks makes it available for everyone to enjoy.
Speaker 3: At almost.
Speaker 4: Any time. You don't have to wait for a building to be opened up. You don't need a ticket. You can be any age and you don't even have to be. From Alameda. The Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund would like to thank the staff and the City Council for considering the $100,000 appropriation for public art within the Jane Sweeney Park. This park will be a place for people of all ages.
Speaker 3: And backgrounds to.
Speaker 4: Come together to enjoy being.
Speaker 3: Outdoors.
Speaker 4: Excuse me. As Alameda moves to become a city of more with more apartment buildings, condos and townhomes. Enjoyable, open spaces become.
Speaker 3: Much more important.
Speaker 4: To have a place where people can enjoy public art, along with the relaxation of this open space, will be an added treasure. I sincerely request that you approve the appropriation for Sweeney Park.
Speaker 3: Along with the 50,000.
Speaker 4: For art installation and 50,000 for.
Speaker 3: Cultural arts and art programing.
Speaker 4: In all of Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Julie. And then Donna Laban. And Audrey Lord Housman.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Julie Baron, Julie's Coffee and Tea Garden Mayor Trish Spencer, City Council and City Staff as a member of the Alameda Business Community and an avid supporter of the arts in Alameda. I've been I've seen firsthand the major role art plays in the vitality, strength and cohesion of a community. The arts enrich our business community in many ways. I've seen this time and time again as my business is asked to participate in art events through sponsorship, sharing of products, or simply helping to spread the word or participate as a volunteer. I've seen the business community circle around the arts with the joy and camaraderie. A thriving, art focused community has numerous positive outcomes. I could go on and on. I don't think we disagree about that point. I'm thrilled that the distribution of the public art fund money is on the city council agenda. I look forward to the potential of potential growth. Alameda As art scene can achieve when supported by the numerous development projects and by the city itself. For the past 11 years or more, the city has been asking the public and the arts organizations for their opinion and advice on administering the public art fund. The main points of public concern and what I asked you to consider today have been. To remove the cap on developers input into the fund and to create a fair, transparent and sustainable RFP process to create a conduit for funds to move out to proposed art projects. I ask that the city does not bypass the public process for the public art fund requests. It has been a long time coming and a formal RFP process can be created. Oh, I have a typo process for dispersing of these funds and I believe it will be detrimental to this process if the city appropriates funds to their hand-picked projects without outside of this process. For me, it's not about whether Jeanne Sweeney Park deserves the funds for their public art project. They most certainly deserve the chance to apply for funds just like every other artist, art organization or community member does. Rhythmic. Alameda Ballet Academy. Island City Opera. Altadena Theater. Second Friday. Artwalk Studio 23. Summer Art Fair. Frankfurt Plain Art. Pan out. The list goes on. Of the arts organizations in Alameda. One thing I know is that we all love this city and we have different opinions as to what will make it even better. I believe that the only way to make sure that we consider all the opinions is to have a functional and fair public RFP process for everyone in our diverse art community to be considered. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. On a labor.
Speaker 5: Good evening, everyone. This is a perfect night for discussing Alamitos Art Fund, because tonight the city of San Leandro.
Speaker 0: Just south of us in.
Speaker 3: The next few hours.
Speaker 0: Will be unveiling the.
Speaker 5: Spectacular six story high statue called Truth is Beauty, with 2500 LED lights. This is spectacular. Sculpture is in scripted with what would the.
Speaker 0: World be like if.
Speaker 3: Women were safe?
Speaker 5: So this is not just art, but it's art as an important cultural message. San Leandro is a city much like the.
Speaker 0: Same as Alameda with a population of 88,000.
Speaker 5: Their art fund was $500,000, with 1.5.
Speaker 0: Million in private funds.
Speaker 5: They spent the money on public art for utility boxes and murals. One of the murals is 24 by 180 feet, and it's called the Great Migration of Monarch Butterflies. Another hand-painted 60 by 350.
Speaker 3: Foot entitled.
Speaker 5: The Pulse of Nature. So why is this important to us in Alameda and why is this conversation for this evening? Because I want us to be even better than San Leandro. But this is important conversation tonight because our art fund is currently at, what, 350,000 is still a small arts budget. It's a small budget. I had the pleasure, as Janet mentioned, with working with her and others on being a part of the Power Box art project in our downtown.
Speaker 0: That project.
Speaker 5: 410 transformers cost $35,000.
Speaker 0: But it's a great introductory statement of.
Speaker 5: Public art through a thoughtful and planned joint effort. Let's be innovators. Let's remove the cap altogether. As many other cities around the bay have done. Grow this fund to.
Speaker 0: Solidify our.
Speaker 5: Place in the Bay Area with public art. This can do nothing but help all of those developers be even more successful in their projects.
Speaker 0: By projecting such dynamic visual excitement throughout our city. So that little city to the south states that their.
Speaker 5: Fund is for development, promotion and.
Speaker 0: Placement of visual.
Speaker 5: And performing arts.
Speaker 0: That is of the highest quality, visually stimulating and of enduring value.
Speaker 3: That will.
Speaker 5: Culturally enrich their communities. Isn't that what we want all of you to have and deserve? Alameda needs one vision, one.
Speaker 0: Process for everyone.
Speaker 5: To use to accomplish all of this. If this fund.
Speaker 0: Is diluted and earmarked for special projects in this very.
Speaker 5: First stage of developing our.
Speaker 0: Public art statements, instead of keeping whole the whole one vision, one set of guidelines, one process, one body, then what kind of art will we be getting? Who will make.
Speaker 5: Those decisions and who will carry out the same visions to just different groups and two different visions? This won't get us what we need and want and deserve in a citywide art and cultural message.
Speaker 0: Don't divide us.
Speaker 5: Tonight. Unite us by keeping the fund intact and having all of the groups all over town. The two downtowns, the bass and all the parks united in this common goal of quality public art. Alameda is a gem of a city that deserves us to elevate our thinking regarding public art and how it can contribute to our culture , our story, and our place in the world.
Speaker 3: So please make.
Speaker 5: The decision tonight to build the fund, build the.
Speaker 0: Cooperation.
Speaker 5: Between the groups, and give us the framework for a strong, productive, united, innovative and committed arts community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Audrey. Lord has. And then take the blame.
Speaker 5: Anything. Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Council members and staff. I am a strong proponent of public art and want to see it throughout all of almeida's parks and certainly Jane Sweeney Park, as well as the business districts and the development, various developments. Public art inspires.
Speaker 3: It, educates, it entertains us.
Speaker 5: It tells a story. And particularly it can tell the history of our community. But to have a robust public arts program, we have to have a very transparent funding process. Think about it. It's no different than a student applying for a college scholarship.
Speaker 0: There are clear steps to go through to apply.
Speaker 5: Everybody's on a level playing field. The public arts applications. All of them must go through the Public Arts Commission, whether on public or private property. Therefore, the city must have a well-articulated process that it can stand behind with pride. Let's really show that Alameda is special in this regard.
Speaker 0: And that's what this is all about. There should be links that lead to user.
Speaker 5: Friendly documents, process explanations of policies and application. Of course, a process for the selection of artists, their artwork and the installation. Everybody, again, competing on an equal basis. Arbitrarily setting aside a certain amount of funds without going through the public arts. The mission is just not right. And looking at a number of websites and other cities and San Leandro being one that Donna just mentioned, they're very inviting, encouraging people to take an active part in the process of creating, selecting, purchasing and installing public art. They seem to want to share the process and make it easy for individuals and civic groups to take part in a fair and transparent way. Alamy. His website is not adequate. Needs a.
Speaker 0: Lot of work to meet, in.
Speaker 5: My opinion. What these other cities inviting saying public art means something to us. So. The city needs to take a hard look at where we are and make the commitment to support the arts as an integral part of who we are and do it in a fair and equitable way for all organizations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Tina Blain. And you had one speaker cede time to you. So you get 6 minutes up to 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Luckily for you, I won't need it all. Honorable Mayor. City Council and City Staff. I am here today as a local artist, taking off my executive director hat who's been trying to help move this process along for a long time. More than a decade. And with me today, I bring more than 150 petitions which have been signed by people who would also like to see a fair and equitable process for the distribution of funds in the Public Art Fund. We printed these out this afternoon and there are now over 183 signatures we just checked.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: I wanted to say that by show of hands, how many are here for the Fair and Open Arts Fund process? So I just want you to know there's a lot of support for having an equitable approach to to the way that we distribute this. As has been mentioned before. 13 years is a long time to wait. And. While other cities in the Bay Area championed the arts as a way to bring new vibrancy to their communities, the city of Alameda has taken a rather circuitous approach to dispersing its public art fund. To date, $64,000 of the fund has been used for consultants and city administration costs to oversee public art only as it relates to private development. Not one penny has been expended for public art projects initiated or proposed by local artists or local arts organizations over the past decade. Numerous community meetings were held. Staff reports prepared. Previous art commissioners were seated with the best of intentions, and many of them left in frustration. And we don't want that to happen again. Even the recommendations made in the synergy report by the consultant that was commissioned five years ago in 2011 to make recommendations about the public art program are now outdated. This includes a suggestion to increase the developer cap to $500,000 when exhibit four summary shows, there really shouldn't be any cap at all to be in alignment with other Bay Area neighboring cities. City Council is now considering sweeping changes and amendments to the Public Arts Ordinance, and I am here today to ask that City Council consider that you represent all of Alameda and to reject any appropriation of public art funding. Some of you may or may not be aware that in 2014 that the previous Economic Director of Economic Development approached rhythmic cultural works to suggest making a recommendation to City Council to appropriate almost all of the money that was in that fund at the time two years ago, in 2014. As tempting as that offer was, we declined because we firmly believe that a fully transparent, equitable public process must be put in place so the funds can be dispersed in a way that is fair for everyone. Eliminating also the arbitrary allocation of the 75% towards physical hour and 25% towards arts programing is something that I would personally like to see. So to earmark public art funds for any project or organization bypasses this open process for distributing funds that city staff is supposed to be administrating and should be open to proposals from everyone that is eligible to apply with the same RFP process. The question before us today is whether the Public Art Fund will be administered in a way that is fair and consistent for all applicants. This is my hope that you will vote to further amend the current staff record. The current staff recommendations and agenda item six be by calling for an unbiased process to distribute our city's art fund that supports public art and public arts programing in Alameda. And since I have a little bit of extra time, I just wanted to mention a bit more of what Janet was unable to say about Island City Waterways , because that project was really, I think, an epitome of what public art could be. It stemmed from a very outrageously creative, bold, ambitious mind in Janet's head, and it blossomed into just one of the most amazing public art projects that I've ever been able to say that I was a part of. But one of the things that it did was that it allowed us to engage a lot of of not only local artists, but also local businesses. And there were partners partnerships with more than 15 local businesses as sponsors of these projects, who also saw huge benefit by being associated with this project. We engaged public art by local artist Mark Wagner to create a huge giant sale with pineapple sales. All of the businesses at the Bridge Side Shopping Center were involved and gave permission for this project. We work with the Dragon Boat Rowers and some of the other comments that we just thought we would share with you were something here. A woman said, I attended with my nine year old daughter. We absolutely loved it. My daughter said, I will remember this for the rest of my life. Thank you for bringing history to life and art to Alameda in such an exciting and unexpected way. I have a whole new relationship to the channel now. It was great to learn about the waterfront path. We thought it was great. I love being able to view the beauty of the water while enjoying dance and music. We also like seeing the Falcons, learning about them from the naturalist. This was a partnership also with East Bay Parks and Rec. On the Friday I attended, most of the participants were middle school students. Their enthusiasm and participation added another layer of excitement for non Alameda and it was very enlightening. So thank you. Thank you for your support.
Speaker 0: I have four speaker tips at this point. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip at this time. Our next speaker is Carolyn West and then Cory Hill.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And council members all yield my time to others who are in opposition in favor of a fair and open process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cory Hill. Ingrid Dayton. Yep. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Mayor, city council members, city staff. I am an Alameda resident, parent, art lover, part time bon vivant. And I am here because we have heard a lot about a shared vision for our immediate future, which I don't think there is much disagreement in the room about the potential for public art and what it will allow to this to become in this city. What I do feel there needs to be some clarification on is how we get from where we are now to what we see as a shared vision. If we don't have a process that allows for. Open applications that has an RFP process. That's clear that some of the other speakers have alluded to mentions of other cities and how that process looks. Having looked on the website myself for what that looks like here, I can second to the need for improvement in that arena and seeing the head nods. I know that's not a controversial issue. So I think that here and in other forums where I have seen this issue discussed, the real matter at hand has gotten a little bit muddied as to whether the, you know, the park deserves the funds or not deserves the funds. I, I think that, you know, as has been mentioned previously, the main the main issue is process. We keep hearing the same words over and over again. Fair, transparent, equitable. And what it really boils down to for me is having a real democratic opportunity here to move this forward in a way that we as comedians can all feel good about. And unless we start off on that footing, unless we start off on a process that allows equal input from interested parties, I think that we're really setting a bad precedent for how we disburse these funds moving forward and for how we actually feel about a process that is supposed to be public. So with that in mind, I would urge that we reject this proposal and we move forward with steps to create a process that allows open input and is equitable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Amos White and then Janet Gibson. Those are our last two speakers on this item. If you want to speak, please submit your slip.
Speaker 2: Mayor Spencer. Council members. Good evening. City staff and. Everyone who came tonight. My name is Amos White. I'm a Alameda resident. I'm an artist. I'm an author. I'm a published poet. I sit as president of a literary organization here out of Berkeley City Club called the Bay Area Generation's. I support public art. I'm just reflecting back on what Coria just said in regards to the process and coming together. You have a lot on your plate. We respect the responsibility you have and listening what everybody has to say. But what I'm here tonight is to to bring to use, to speak specifically in regards to the recommendations that I emailed, those five points that support a fair and open process. I do believe to, as Corey mentioned, that it is a way to achieve, if you will, a unity and a level playing field for us to have an open conversation that is better directed and includes the community's concerns for. What can constitute public art and how we can best support it here in Alameda. Those are the Public Art Commission should create an open RFP process for the Public Arts Fund. Second is that it should direct. We ask council to direct all requests of the public arts funding to the Public Art Commission that we ask for you to respect and call for the Public Arts Commission to commence its review process. Also to protect the ordinance language of public art requirement for the on site cultural programs, which I notice have been removed but not been cited in its summary. And that's that's problematic in regard to which funds can be qualified as public art. Last two would be to eliminate the developer cap. And I want to speak a little bit more on that. And then finally, not to withdraw any city administration fees from the fund in order to administer the fund, eliminating the developer cap is really critical, I think, to the success of the fund in having a source of of of revenues to fund public art. The city of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Oakland, Walnut Creek, Dublin, none of which have a developer cap. All of whom have a higher contribution in percentage to their public arts fund. Not that we need to meet that, but it would behoove us perhaps to not emulate, but to better align ourselves with them in a policy, if you will, in a policy format. To eliminate that fine. It would really help with the development of art in Alameda. I want to thank you for your time and and hope that you do consider pursuing a path and directing staff to have a fair and open process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Anna Gibson. And then she's our last speaker. Last call for more slips.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. I am speaking as as a individual. As an individual. But I am on the board of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, and I want to address particularly one item that is in the B part that I read that I think is B and then five. That deals with the suggestion from the planning board that you remove the requirement for public art to focus on Alameda as historic and maritime traditions. And I would urge you not to do that. The recommendation here is that you take out historic and just keep maritime. And, you know, when I think of what we went through Park Street with the Container Project, for example, many views on what would look good and so on. But we discovered that there was a lot of work that had been done in the city, much money spent and time on thinking about a gateway to Alameda, a historic to the historic district that many people consider our historic aspects as being one of the great reasons why they enjoy being in Alameda, buying homes here, coming and visiting. So I think that when we're asking for transparency and and a broad view of art and a comprehensive the history excuse me of Alameda, the historic part is very essential for someone to have some knowledge of that, what has been done, what has been looked at and what fits and is appropriate in certain places. So I would urge you to keep both those words in as part and not. I'll take that recommendation. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So she's our last speaker council. Do you have clarifying questions at this point or vice mayor?
Speaker 2: Not a question.
Speaker 0: Okay. You just want to jump right in.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Because I think myself and Councilmember De Saag were there in 2003 when this was voted in. And the intention was that this would be a community driven process and represent the forum for the community to to move the process was the Public Arts Commission. And maybe naively, at least in my memory, I thought it was a pretty simple process, is that money would be contributed from development into this fund and then the funds would be totaled up and presented to the Public Arts Commission, and they'd hear proposals to spend those funds on public art as defined in the current ordinance. I think one of the speakers mentioned that not a penny has been spent on public art from that original fund, and I can't remember as a council member, my memory is a little fuzzy, but the two years that I've been on council now, no recommendation has come from the Public Art Commission on spending, the funds that have been in the end and the Public Art Fund to date. So I think that's a problem. And that problem, I think the original intent of the ordinance kind of got derailed and. Kind of got subsumed by the downturn or whatever for whatever reason, because I notice in our attachments here we have a planning board staff report, but we don't have a Public Arts Commission staff report on the changes to the ordinance there alluded to in the staff report. But I would have thought the Public Arts Commission would have driven the changes to the ordinance to match what people have talked about, the compatibility with the with the standards that have been set by our, our neighboring cities, the question about performing arts versus visual arts, etc.. And then lastly, the expectation I would have had as a as a voted on the ordinance would was that the recommendation to apportion. The existing funds. Would have come from the Public Arts Commission, not from the staff. And that is the split between the very worthy installation of public artists in Sweeney Park and as recently as the money that just came in. There was another staff recommendation, not a Public Arts Commission recommendation, on what to do with that additional money that pushed the balance up to $375,000, more or less. So I think that needs work. I think. I want to hear from the Public Arts Commission on what to do with the money. And I'd also like the Public Arts Commission. That's first, because the money is there. Each day that goes by, it buys goes by, the money buys less art. And as far as the the recommendations for the changes in in the ordinance, I think they need to be talked about. But I'd like to hear from the Public Arts Commission as well on that. So that's that's my thought.
Speaker 0: Member, Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mary Spencer. And thank you to all the folks who came out who spoke and didn't speak on this. You know, I agree with the vice mayor's remarks, but I also want to say that is often the case. The public really said it more eloquently than I could. So I just want to share some of my concerns. And first of all, my over arching concern was with the staff bypassing the Public Art Commission. I happen to know that the Public Art Commission is meeting a week from tomorrow night. I see no reason that this has to be rushed through without hearing from the Public Arts Commission. And I actually ran into one of their members recently and talked to that person who said they're ready, willing and able. They just were not asked to weigh in. And there's there's something wrong with that. So speaking first to the staff's recommendation, when it came before us last week, the $100,000 allocation to the Jean Sweeney Park was just about 50% of the entire public art fund. And it doesn't really matter to me that it's a little less than 50% because we got another developer contribution in. It is just wrong. It is not transparent. It's not good government policy for us to have staff and we have a wonderful staff, but that is not their role. To reach in and decide $100,000 is going to go to this park. And one of the other speakers said that's not to say that the Gene's really open space park isn't a worthy recipient of some public art fund money. But for goodness sakes, they didn't even apply. And I asked the question of Miss Potter last week. How did you decide on $100,000? Well, there's four sites earmarked in the park for for public art. So I'm a bit surprised. But the inference seemed to be that we would take that $100,000 and divide it by four. But it isn't staff's decision to make, and it's not the council's decision to make. Without input from our very capable Public Arts Commission. So let's let's let them hear from that. And as was said in one of the letters, the genes freely park. Again, we're not trying to pit one project, one location against the other, but we have an entire city that is worthy of the placement of public art. Let the commission that has been seated, that has been appointed by mayors, this mayor and previous mayors, to do just this work, let them have the first shot at it. They're the ones who are tasked with with doing the study. And I know they'll do a capable job. And then I also believe that the Public Arts Commission should be the ones to craft an RFP process, should look at what a fair process is, the criteria. And again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We can look to some of our neighboring communities to see what they have so capably done. So it shouldn't take a whole lot of time, but I think the public expects no less of us than transparency when it comes to spending this kind of money on the the ordinance itself. I am perfectly fine with staff's recommendation that we remove the quiet requirement that public art must be maritime or historically themed. Maybe it will be, and maybe it won't be. But again, that's for the artists to decide, and that's for whoever is doing the selection criteria to decide whether it fits in. Let's not foreclose options. And I'm I don't have a lot of artistic talent, maybe none, but I appreciate art. And I wouldn't want to be limiting limiting our artists before they even have a chance to create. And then I think we also need to have a clear idea about the allowable amount of administrative fees that can be paid for by the public arts funds. I think it was Janet Cauchi who made the reference in her letter to having applied for grants for the National Endowment from for the Arts, from the James Irvine Foundation and others. And in those entities who do this all the time, they don't allow a higher cap of I think it's 12 to 15%. So I would expect whatever our percentage is to be in line with those institutions who do excuse me, who do this professionally, think my voice is going to maybe it's time to pass the microphone on to others.
Speaker 0: Early or we'd like to go next.
Speaker 6: Well, I'll just quickly comment that, you know, when you look at neighborhoods across the East Bay that have revitalized artists, clearly played a role, whether it's in Berkeley, around Fourth Street or whether, as we all know, parts of downtown Oakland or West Oakland. So when you have a gathering of talent, as we do this evening, coming out tonight, or when you have the number of people signing on, many of them artists, I think it behooves us to listen. I think the challenge, though, is that in the Jean Sweeney Park, we certainly do have an incredible, monumental project in front of us. So I do think that we need to weigh some amount. Now, let me be clear, but we need to weigh some amount. And I'm speaking about as criteria doesn't necessarily mean $100,000 or or. $75,000 is just when we go through the selection process. We need to give some consideration to major projects like like the Jean Sweeney project. So I think the most important thing, though, is that. We need the public to be involved. It doesn't sound like many of the artists here were had the opportunity to give their input to the Public Arts Commission. Nor does it also sound like the Public Arts Commission was is as involved as as they might have been, as we might want them to be. So we need to, I think, be the right thing to do is to make sure they involve them in crafting this process to get their input on how we might weigh items . I don't think we want to preclude items altogether. For example, I don't think we want to say no, we we don't need to have maritime or no, we don't need to have our historic we don't need to recognize our history. On the other hand, I think we what we need to do is we need to identify all those elements that we want to celebrate, whether it's Maritime or Alameda as history. And then going back to my point, make sure that the Public Arts Commission working with the public weighs them accordingly. So that's my my I think it sounds like we need to go back and refine this more member body.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just a quick question of the chair. So we're. I'm going to have to vote one on the budget allocation and the other on possibly on the ordinance that.
Speaker 0: Well, that's what we were speaking about. But at this point, that might not be appropriate. Well, what I'm hearing from counsel. Okay. Well, I haven't heard from all council members.
Speaker 8: They all kind of tailor my comments kind of that way. So.
Speaker 0: Lemon Real quick. Is there a way for staff to encourage the people in the hallway to be quieter because we can't hear you when you open the door. Disruptive. Thank you.
Speaker 8: So I. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate. Where's Miss Potter? Is there somewhere? Right. I appreciate there. You are not just trying to find you so I can make eye contact. I appreciate all the hard work you've done on this. I think there's been a lot of loaded words tossed around today. Arbitrary, fixed, transparent, open. And I mean, to be honest with you, I can't think of a more open process than a city council meeting with hundreds of people here in the audience, reviewing a staff report that first came out a couple of months ago. It's been modified and then it was continued and then we had a second meeting on it. So it's a little disconcerting that that people are throwing on those. Throwing out those loaded words because, you know, ultimately the council is the final arbiter of of policy. Now, what I have liked the Public Arts Commission to have reviewed the ordinance. Yes, probably. And if that's the consensus of this body, you know, I'm not going to stand in the way of that, but I will kind of make my opinion known on it because it will come back. So just a couple of quick points on the, you know, the nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. You know, I think that's a good idea to expand that. You know, originally I think I was a little skeptical of that. And a few weeks back and the vice mayor was there with me, we went to the International Film Festival in Alameda. And I think things like that, we need to find a way that the city can fund those and promote those and encourage those. I mean, we heard about, you know, the Island City Waterways Project. You know, my only concern about spending money on culture is that hopefully we find a way to preserve that. So if we're spending money for something that's a one day event, that we have a way to preserve it so others can enjoy it in the future . As far as a lower cap on administrative cost, I mean, that's kind of a no brainer to me. I agree with that one. I mean, the maintenance and repair, I'm not so sure about that. And I'm not so sure that we should be spending money that could go to artists to develop beautiful projects and beautiful artwork on maintenance and repair. And there was something brought up to me that supposedly is is fixed in this ordinance, but that there was a berm over at the bridge side shopping center that was paid for by by public art because it was supposed to be an amphitheater. So I'm not quite convinced that spending public art money on landscaping esthetics is the way to go. So I'm a little bit concerned about spending it on maintenance and repair. I think we should be diverting as much as we can to. To artists. The reporter requirements. I'm fine with that. I'm in the cap. I'm perfectly happy to increase it. And if my colleagues want to give direction on removing it, I think that's a great idea too. I hope that that doesn't disincentivize developers to just go ahead and do their own art and instead not give to the fund . Because I think we need to encourage the fund, but I am perfectly amenable to removing the cap. Now, Janet Gibson brought up, I think, an important item on the historic maritime. The planning board basically wanted to keep it the same, and I very sympathetic to that idea. The San Leandro statue, I think it's a 60 foot tall statue, you know, from Burning Man. Okay. I mean, everyone has their opinion on, you know, what art is good or bad. But I think that we do have an obligation to preserve our history, our maritime history, through our art. And this is this is the public. I mean, if if some developer or private person wants to come in and and build a Picasso or build a Burning Man statue, I mean, I guess, you know, we'll have that debate. But those those are controversial. And I think I'd be I'd feel better if we just stuck to the historic and maritime. You know, as Janet mentioned. And lastly, so I guess I'll talk about Jean Sweeney separately. But so lastly, you know, if if this is the will of the council to send this back to the Public Arts Commission, I'm okay with that. But those are my thoughts and things that I would be looking for in a revised ordinance if we're not prepared to go forward today. Now, on the Jean Sweeney part, I think it's it's a little unfortunate that, you know, we kind of pit groups together. And, you know, those who don't know, I work in the legislature during the day. And, you know, we started my started my job in 2012 and we were on the uptick. And I sometimes wonder if the job is easier when you have to cut funds, because then you go down to the bare bones and the necessities that when you have money to give away, because at times people kind of go at each other. And I think it's kind of sad. But I do think that the Gene Sweeney Park is an iconic park. It's going to be an iconic landmark in the center of Alameda. And we made a commitment to that park. And I think one of the ways we honor that commitment is to fund the public art. We passed a general plan for the park for for spaces of public art. And I think we should put our money where our mouth is and fund the 100,000 for the Jean Sweeney Park . Now, I that's a policy decision I think the council can make. And we've had, like I said, a public hearing about it, but the whole process of identifying the art that will go there now, I'm not picking it. The vice mayor is not picking it. The mayor's picking it. There is an RFP process in the public art ordinance and any artist that wants to put money or put something in Jean Sweeney Park will have to go through that process. So I think it will be open and it will be transparent, but I really think it's an important thing that we have to fund. So that's kind of where where I stand on these items.
Speaker 0: So, um, and I appreciate actually, you know, the comments from all council members. And my preference would be to make a decision tonight because that money has been sitting there for years and we sooner the better. And so I'm happy to give direction tonight. I wish I had gone through the Public Arts Commission. To me, that's where it should have gone. I don't. This is we're talking about. Ah, I don't understand why it didn't even go through them, but did you want to speak to that?
Speaker 3: Yes, I actually did go through the Public Art Commission on February. Yes, February 18th of 2015. That's how long I've been working. That's how long we've been working on the ordinance. I do apologize that we did not include the minutes of the Public Art Commission meeting in the packet, but the ordinance was reviewed by the pack on February 18th of 2015. Then it went to the planning board and then it's made its way to the council. So it has reviewed the ordinance, it has not reviewed the RFP process. So I just wanted to clarify that lunchtime.
Speaker 0: So what about the Jane Sweeny Park allocation? Is that something that went through the Public Arts Commission?
Speaker 3: None of the appropriation of funds did not go through any other advisory body. It came directly to the Council on October five.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So to me that my preference would have been to have that go through them. Let me just finish up my comments real quick things. But I but I am I would like council to consider making. Deciding what the audience conditions would be at this point so that the money can actually be expended. My concern would be it go through the Public Arts Commission, then it come back to us at some point because we could see it could come back to us and then we're just delaying the expenditure. And in regards to what I would like to see and I want to ask about this, why aren't we looking at raising the percentage to 1.5%? I personally think we need to increase that. I don't think 1% is sufficient. I mean, to me, part of the reason why we're.
Speaker 2: All.
Speaker 0: Looking at a little bit of money is because our percentage is too low. If we had more in the fund, we wouldn't be so having to pit people against people separate from the process. So I personally would like to look at increasing the percentage to 1.5%. And in regards to the administration costs, I would like to lower the administration costs maybe 10% or something or. But but I think that the current proposal is at 20% that's being proposed is too high. But is the current proposal.
Speaker 3: 2020, right, for for third party administrators. So if the funds are awarded to an arts programing or cultural arts program entity, then it would be capped at 20%.
Speaker 0: So I think 20% is too high. I'd prefer seeing 10% would be the number. I'd at least asked council to consider the use for maintenance and repair and the reports could be decided in the future to come out of the Public Art Fund or general fund. I'd prefer. Well, actually I don't have a problem with it being asked because it'd be a question from staff. My understanding we have this issue of maintenance. How are we going to spend it in the future? The division between the 75%, 25% for performing arts, physical art. I'm okay with that. That's a that is something that I'm agreeable to keeping that part of the recommendation. Removing the cap, I think it's critical that the cap be removed. I actually don't understand why you have a bigger project, bigger development, obviously more money being made. Then why do they give less? So that's corporate, what I call, you know, some kind of corporate subsidy that is counter to what the the whole idea of public you know, we're trying to support public art here. So I would not support the cap. And then in regards to keeping the focus on historic and maritime traditions, my understanding is that that has been loosely interpreted, that it goes in front of the commission, that they can look at that as a value, but that they also approve projects that are not that. And so I'm agreeable to keeping that as something that we value, but still being open minded in regards to what the artists propose. And I personally would like counsel to consider this. You know what I just said and seen if we could do that. Remember.
Speaker 8: I was pretty.
Speaker 0: Close to it. Yes, I know. We're very close. You and I are very close.
Speaker 8: You're a little. I'll let my colleagues.
Speaker 1: But what I could propose is if there are changes that we can agree on. This was scheduled for and an introduction of a a first reading for this ordinance. But there are enough changes that we'd bring it back again. And so if we get more direction from the council, we can both make those changes in draft form, take it to the Public Arts Commission that is meeting and bring it back probably the second meeting in November or December.
Speaker 0: All right. Member de SAC.
Speaker 6: My feeling, actually, it's been a long time since the Public Arts Commission had a chance to look at this. Did I hear it right? February 2015. It's 16 months, perhaps 18 months. And I suspect many of the residents who came out tonight maybe weren't at the Public Arts Commission process at that process. And I suspect many of the issues that they've raised tonight maybe weren't discussed back then. So to me, it seems as though we're better served by involving the artists, making sure that we have all the issues laid out there on how do we treat the Jeanne Sweeney set aside if there is to be one or not? And if there is to be one, is it a prescribed set aside or is it some kind of criteria based? That's loosely and to me, I think these are all questions that are better served by sending it back to the Public Arts Commission and making sure that that they get their input in light of a lot of the concerns that were raised tonight.
Speaker 0: And I I'm sorry I failed to mention in regards to the Jeanne Sweeney Park issue, I as much as I love the Sweeney Park, I cannot support. Pulling that out of the process. And I actually think it's unfortunate that staff made that recommendation. I think that it's critical that we be impartial and. I'm confident that a worthy art proposal for Jane Sweeney Park would, in fact, be embraced. But I think it is critical that it goes through the process.
Speaker 6: And let me be clear as to what I'm saying about Jean Sweeney. What I'm saying is I want to hear what the Public Arts Commission has to say relative to also what the artists have to say relative to what proponents of the open space park have to say, too.
Speaker 0: So I want to make this the member Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Well, are you ready to see if I can?
Speaker 0: I'm hoping that we can make a decision to move forward.
Speaker 4: So what I would suggest is that we direct staff to. Take our input for amendments we want to see to the proposed public art ordinance. So let's be prepared for some of the specifics.
Speaker 0: Can we start with the one and a half percent suggestion and then we see where everyone is?
Speaker 4: We can. And let me get back to that, because I was going to do well, I can or we can.
Speaker 0: I'd like to.
Speaker 4: See if I.
Speaker 0: Can hammer out each.
Speaker 4: Point. So.
Speaker 0: Um.
Speaker 4: So the, um, the developer cap of, um, is that what you're talking about?
Speaker 0: But first I wanted, I would like counsel to give direction to increase the percentage from 1% to one and a half percent.
Speaker 8: There's like two components. I mean, the the cap and the.
Speaker 0: Yes, that's two separate components, isn't there? Other cities have a one and a half percent. We'll bring that up. And I just think the 1% is too low. I'm wondering if other council members would agree to the one and a half percent.
Speaker 4: So I was actually going to see if we could go through the ordinance in in order so we could. I mean.
Speaker 0: I don't think I don't think consideration of the change of percentages even suggested by staff.
Speaker 4: I think there was the the campus at the Capitol.
Speaker 0: Right. But this is a separate issue. I wanted to look at and we've heard other cities have sounded like the majority, one and a half. I still on the.
Speaker 1: Table that is included in the staff report doesn't have it's mostly.
Speaker 0: 1%, etc.. I still want to look at one and a half percent. So I'm wondering if any other council members would consider increasing it from 1% to one and a half percent. So.
Speaker 4: You know, men may or may speak it to that point. And I actually think that if we take away the caps and keep the percentage at 1%, that might be a good thing to do. And the reason I say that is we've had a recent discussion of other things. We might want our developers to help pay for animal shelter funding perhaps. So let's. I and also we we do have developments coming online. So we've got some some fence coming in here. And I.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. The 1% and no cap. I'd like to do one and a half percent and no cap. Other council members.
Speaker 6: See, in my opinion, I think the public is better served rather than us kind of doing this auction style. It's better served by kicking it. There's a lot of valid questions that have been raised, and the public, I think, is better served by having the commission now really cross those T's and dot those eyes.
Speaker 4: And the points that the Public Art Commission and.
Speaker 2: Mayor.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I'd like this ordinance with the input that we've given tonight to go back to the Public Art Commission for a full discussion of each of the points, the cap, the percentage of developer contribution, the administrative fee, the maintenance fees, the RFP process, which would be separate. And then things like making sure that the percentage of what's performing arts and what is visual arts is is discussed and things like making sure that it's clear in here that these are arts that are offered to the general public free of charge, because that was the whole that's actually not in the definition. That's not that clear. So I'd like that to go back to I I'll move that this goes is that goes with these comments goes back to the Public Arts Commission and also that the question of the allocations that are proposed also go back to the public art and presented to the Public Arts Commission for recommendation to their recommendation to the Council.
Speaker 6: And one item that I want to make sure to include is the RFP process so that.
Speaker 4: It's.
Speaker 2: A third. Yes.
Speaker 4: When I just a clarification question. When you said that the allocations go back to the Public Art Commission, so I'm saying let's just hit the reset button. We have a growing public art fund. Let's not make any allocations yet. And again, I am not pitting I don't think any of us are trying to pit one project against the other, but simply saying any project should go through the same fair, open, transparent process. So why don't we just. I my preference would be to ask the the Public Arts Commission to come up with the appropriation process, the RFP process, the process, and then that's step one. And then step two will be RFP are put out and and again, decisions will be made, staff can have their input. Council makes the final decision I guess, but, but let's do the process right from the beginning.
Speaker 2: And I think I think that's fine.
Speaker 0: You accept that friendly and members say.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 6: I like it but let's also recognize that, you know, staff has their expertize as their involvement in the process. So if they have a viewpoint as to why they think there ought to be some treatment for the Jean Sweeney Park, then I think they should, because as Councilmember Otis said, it is it will be an iconic part for the city of Alameda. So I'm not saying that we're going to prescribe things for Jean Sweeney, but I'm saying that have that discussion. And if staff wants to pursue it and come back with a recommendation.
Speaker 0: We have a motion and a friendly amendment that was accepted from member Ashcroft. Did you want to make a friendly amendment? Did you want to propose it? But I actually don't think that that sides with what the motion was that I mean, I think it I don't think it is in alignment with what your motion was. So I think that that would be a friendly amendment.
Speaker 2: I got the amendment from.
Speaker 0: But he's offering he's suggesting that staff.
Speaker 3: If.
Speaker 6: Staff has viewpoints, let them.
Speaker 3: Share their viewpoints.
Speaker 0: But I think that.
Speaker 2: They could present that to the public. Yes. And that's the usual way things work. Yes, I agree.
Speaker 4: They'll write the report second.
Speaker 8: That motion then.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Then we have a motion for a second. Any comments before I call the question? So I would just so I made I stated my position as well. But personally I'm looking for.
Speaker 8: I think I stated mine, but just want to make sure that the position on the historic and maritime that the planning board also agreed with now is something that staff considers. I think they wanted to overrule that.
Speaker 4: I think we can point that one to the Public Art Commission for their input too. And remember.
Speaker 8: I just want to make sure that.
Speaker 4: It comes back to us.
Speaker 8: My thoughts on that were conveyed to the public.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any other comments on council? All those in favor.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now. I will adjourn the continuation of the October 4th, 2016 meeting, and we will take a five minute recess. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Right? Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 6: Okay. So that.
Speaker 0: Everyone. We will now be starting our regular city council meeting at 7:30 p.m..
Speaker 1: Roll Call council members decide yes, as the Ashcroft matter here. Here they are, Spencer.
Speaker 0: Here. Five present. Thank you. Agenda changes.
Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, I have one to request.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: We have a lot of working folks in the audience today who are here for item number six. D I believe the project stabilization agreement is 66 and I because a lot of them have very early work start times. I'm wondering if we can.
Speaker 0: Move that up.
Speaker 4: Moves that to the top of the regular agenda.
Speaker 0: What's the time estimate on that? Well, first of all, how many speakers do we have on that item?
Speaker 1: Quite a few. Only.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm agreeable to that then. Okay. What about counsel?
Speaker 8: I mean, I am with you. I noticed we didn't have the Pledge of Allegiance today.
Speaker 3: Well, here is.
Speaker 0: The pledge. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that thing.
Speaker 0: We're going to go ahead and do the pledge at this point. Thank you. Remember? Okay, all rise. That's not on our agenda. Sorry. I apologize. I pledge allegiance.
Speaker 3: To the United States of.
Speaker 0: America. One nation.
Speaker 1: Under God.
Speaker 0: Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for that. And on the agenda changes also. Did we have. So I want to ask those items to pull from consent. Did anyone have items to pull?
Speaker 1: There are speakers on five F.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I had also on the pull five c. The five C, five F any other items to be pulled? Here in none. Okay. So those two and then in regards to what was it. | Regular Agenda Item | Supplemental Report Regarding the Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Facilitate the City's Ability to Disperse Public Art Funds, and Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Public Art Fund Budget by $350,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. [The Proposed Amendments are Categorically Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.] (Community Development 285) [Continued from October 4, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_10182016_2016-3315 | Speaker 2: So in a nutshell, what it what it says is that we issued 119 building permits in 2015.
Speaker 0: So this is for the calendar year, 2015.
Speaker 2: Calendar year, 2015.
Speaker 0: All right. And does this mean that we are agreeing to building any housing in the future? Does it speak to anything in the future?
Speaker 2: No, it's just telling the state what we built, what we actually not what we approved, but we actually issued building permits in 2015.
Speaker 0: So I wanted to clarify that because I think there's been some misunderstanding in regards to what we're being asked to.
Speaker 2: Prove this is.
Speaker 0: And I wanted to give staff that opportunity.
Speaker 2: Under state law, what essentially we have to prepare this report just documents how many building permits we issued. We and under state law we have to make sure that you have seen the report. You are the main you know you're the. And they just found a body. You are the council. So under state laws, staff gets put in this together. You have to send it to the state. And you need to show it to your to your legislative body. We like to show it to you first before we send it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The other council members, did you have any questions or comments? All right. So just one member, Ashcroft.
Speaker 4: I believe that somewhere in this report, it talks about the fact that a universal design ordinance will be coming back to the council. Do you want to just tell us briefly? Actually, universal design ordinances and more importantly, when we can expect to see that.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's an effort that we've been working on off and on since 2012. It goes back to the 2012 housing element, but we are fully engaged at this point with our disability commission. We have a subcommittee with the planning board, so we have subcommittees from the two boards working together to help us structure an ordinance which will set standards for all new housing in Alameda to ensure that a percentage of that housing is designed in a way that it's either, you know, can be visited by somebody with a disability or can live independently. And those are two different standards. The idea here is that we should be building housing and that our housing stock should accommodate not only people with disabilities, but also people aging in place we all age. And rather than creating a housing stock that forces seniors to move out of their homes when they start to develop mobility issues, it's we hope to have it in. We've been having regular meetings with the planning board. They've looked at it pretty much every two weeks, and I anticipate that we'll be finished with the disability commission and the Planning Board before the end of this calendar year. Probably to the Council agenda has to come to the city council because you're the legislative body in hopefully January early 2017.
Speaker 4: Great. Well, thank you. And if there are no more comments, I would recommend. Yes, I would move that the council direct staff to transmit. The City of Alameda 2015 Housing Element Annual Report to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: All of us in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Five F and it's my understanding there's speakers on this item also. And I pulled this item. There is a presentation that staff has prepared and I would like. The presentation to be presented. We've received many emails on this issue and I think it's very important that we have this as part of our public discussion.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor. Councilman, ever since I was going to ask if you wanted the presentation, I'm happy to provide it.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 9: So I'll go ahead and just get started. I think the here it is. So the main item is about approving a grant list for the upcoming grant application to the Allegheny County Transportation Commission, which has money related to the Measure B Regional transportation sales tax measure, tax measure. And they're looking for projects, discretionary projects to come to them for grants. So we put this list together, we took it to the Transportation Commission. And as part of that process, there were a lot of discussions with a primary transportation stakeholder in the city bike walk Alameda. They're here tonight and I think they're the ones who put speaker slips for this agenda item. We've had numerous conversations, so the discussion came up about the estuary crossing as part of this larger discussion about the grant applications and a bike and pedestrian bridge in the West End. And so. Although the actual items about the grant list, I think the real issue and that's been brought to your attention is about the bike pedestrian bridge. So I'm going to go through this quickly. The actual item is on this grants list and prioritized order. They are the projects. Some of these this this is we're still working through some of the projects. All of these may not get submitted depending on different issues. But these this right now, this is what we are looking at this. This list was approved by the Transportation Commission and recommended. There's also a named project and that an AC Transit lead project that we've participated as a partnership with AC Transit on. So these are the main projects. The question came up as to whether or not we should also be submitting a planning grant application related to a bike | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Direct Staff to Transmit the City of Alameda 2015 Housing Element Annual Report to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. Approval of an annual report is not subject to the review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor is an annual report defined as a “project” under CEQA. No future review is required. (Community Development 481005) [Not heard on October 4, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_10182016_2016-3452 | Speaker 9: This list was approved by the Transportation Commission and recommended. There's also a named project and that an AC Transit lead project that we've participated as a partnership with AC Transit on. So these are the main projects. The question came up as to whether or not we should also be submitting a planning grant application related to a bike pedestrian bridge on the West End staff. Is not recommending that, did not recommend that to the Transportation Commission. And so why don't I go through why that is the larger issue. And I think everyone agrees and I think actually bike walk Alameda and staff now agree on a path forward and so you'll hear from them and from us and but we're in agreement now on how to proceed forward. We've been talking a lot over the last couple of weeks, but in general, we staff absolutely agrees that there's a strong need for better bike and pedestrian access on the West End and that the tubes and the small space that there is there is really not adequate and not inviting and conducive to bike and pedestrian access. And everyone agrees we have a history of studying this issue. There was a 29 asteroid crossing study that was done, hired a very prominent bridge, you know, engineering firm that specializes even in bridges, that looked at a number of different options. We'll talk about that. But it looked at a whole spectrum of different options that could try to improve this x ray crossing issue. The primary obstacle really is the Coast Guard navigational clearances that they need to come through this area. Solution, we believe, is a phased, multifaceted approach. And hopefully I'm not misspeaking, but I think bike walk, Aluminum City, we agree on that solution. Now, the 2009 estuary crossing study looked at 17 different options, including five different bridge options, including tube improvements, bus water shuttles. It was multijurisdictional included Caltrans, Coast Guard, Oakland, Alameda County Transportation Commission. It looked at near mid long term options that were study very comprehensive report in my opinion. The Council accepted that study in September 2009 estuary crossing recommendations that there was a top bridge option, a movable bike pad bridge, $75 million to construct a million and a half to operate annually. But the determination was made that it was practically infeasible. We've looked at this sense. Staff has we've talked with experts. We still believe, given the clearances of the Coast Guard, have determined that it is still practically infeasible, really significant technical challenges because of how tall you'd have to make it, how long you'd have to make it. Ultimately, if we built it to accommodate the clearances, the way that those clearances are defined now by the Coast Guard, it could be one of the longest movable bridges in the world. There'd be it would be very unpredictable. During peak hour, there'd be closure. Times would be unpredictable, causing significant crossing delays during peak hours, making an investment of $75 million and a million and a half to operate annually. Very questionable is whether or not, while we believe not practically and feasible to spend that kind of money and having that unpredictability and that type of engineering and technical bridge, and that was the termination of the study, but it was kind of practically infeasible. So it said only move forward. If you can address this Coast Guard navigational clearance issue city keep working with stakeholders. This discernment determine if we can change these restrictions, that we can adapt them. Can we move them in the short term, improve the posi tube? There have been some minor improvements made. We don't believe we agree with by Quoc Almeida. They are not. We don't see that is going to have much of an impact at all in terms of bike access and pedestrian access. But then some mid-term next steps, really the preferred kind of feasible mid-term option of developing a water shuttle taxi alternative. You'll see that that is one of the planning grants that we are wanting to submit to Ekedc. We have matching funds available from the developers or part of a real discussion to to look at that. And so we really would love to move that forward. We see that as a mid-term option, not not the ultimate solution that's going to solve all these problems and create, but a good mid-term option that has the potential of increasing bike access, not to where we'd ultimately like it to be, but a good next step. Since 2009. We did have an asteroid crossing shuttle that's established. It accommodates ten bicycles. Again, these aren't solutions that are saving the day, but they are incremental access. The Posey two walkway improvements were just finished. We've already talked about that. We have had discussions and the mayor has had discussions with the Coast Guard as well about navigational clearance is what they have told us is all those same criteria from 2009 are still in place. And we want you to know this is what they've said to us, that there is increased traffic. So not only do you have those same clearance issues, but we have more traffic coming through here which would make a bridge design the way, you know, what the the constraints would make it more unpredictable because there would be more closures and it would make it less predictable. So essentially, that issue is gotten worse in some ways. We have sent a letter to Senator Boxer. I know there's folks that have come and spoke to the council about that. We were already working on that letter to Senator Boxer, a draft of that with our lobbyists before that meeting. But we're actively trying to seek our help from the delegation and our congressional delegation to help us, because we believe this Coast Guard issue is beyond we've talked to them a number of times. We do believe we need to bring that larger political involvement to help kind of try to see if there are solutions, creative solutions to this issue. So City's actions near term apply for the grant for funding for the water shuttle feasibility study. Encourage Caltrans to submit a planning grant application to AC DC. We do not believe they're going to do that. They have some detail that they've put together, but they our understanding is that they're not going to be submitting an application for this. They have not. They are still we've talked with staff. They're still committed to being involved and potentially seeking other funding to help move this issue along and explore positive improvements that actually open up the other side of on the other side of the walkway, we have some potential funding that we're looking at for that . Again, it wouldn't be the final solution, but you'd have maybe one way bike access and bike ped access on both sides. So it would double the space. Still certainly not the ultimate solution that we'd like out there, but it would make it better again, taking this kind of phased approach to the solution. Develop informational materials, describing all of these options. This would really be for kind of almost like a marketing piece so that we work with Bike Walk Alameda, developing something similar to what we actually did for at the Harbor Bay. Related to ferry access is starting to create a brochure almost of here are your.
Speaker 2: Options.
Speaker 9: And see if we could start to really educate folks about the options that do exist even if they're not perfect. So we are starting to do more of this informational marketing, part of transportation planning, and then a significant enhancement to the estuary crossing on the West End is going to be one of our long term solutions in the citywide transit. And TVM plan really is part of the team part. How do you get folks out of their car? Will you provide them with really easy ways to do that by allowing them to bike? And we believe you see this some of the data from the citywide tram plan, the number we believe one of the major issues there is that people commute to downtown Oakland by car. It's like 75% in drive alone trips to downtown Oakland. It's the number one and it's right across the estuary. So we believe that that is one of our major issues. If we're going to get people out of the tubes, it's going to be trying to get people out of their cars into other modes of travel to get to downtown Oakland for work or for BART. And so we absolutely agree there's a problem and that we need to try to solve it made it long term establish the water shuttle. We have developers on both sides of the estuary that are interested in doing that, willing to commit funds to working through this. The study that we would be going to act for would help us really plan where would the routes be, how would we phase those routes really work with the city of Oakland and with the developers on the other side to figure out how we would organize that, redesign the posi tube and approaches to better serve people walking, biking on both sides were actively doing this now with the city of Oakland and Ictsi. Once all the constraints are addressed and funding found, build a new put up bike, bicycle and pedestrian bridge. We're absolutely we believe that if it's not in our long term plans, then it's absolutely not going to get done. So we should have it as a vision and part of our plans, even if we don't have all the answers to how that's going to happen, because if we don't have it in our plans, it certainly is never going to happen. Advocate for a miller Sweeney Bridge replacement. We know this is not on the West End where we really want it, but it is. We think we should have dedicated bike lanes on a rebuilt Miller Sweeney Bridge. The county has some funding available for that already. That is more likely to get funded faster. Granted, it doesn't solve the West End and then keep those long term vision with if there is a potential BART station. Are there ways to create dual access between army to Oakland that could potentially also solve this bike pedestrian? So there's a lot of potential actions here. We're looking at all of them. The Transportation Commission recommendations some more this summer, sorry, supported the submittal of the seven grant projects. They asked us to send a letter to Caltrans to prioritize estuary crossing. They actually gave us explicit direction and discouraged us to include a bike ped bridge in the letter due to in feasibility, they felt very strongly and unanimously discouraged us from that. I think stuff we believe there there is this phase solution that we should be working with bike walk Alameda on and with all these other stakeholders and continue to work with Caltrans on that. But I wanted we wanted to be transparent with you about the Transportation Commission recommendation as well. And then send a letter to the county to prioritize the multimodal lifeline Miller Sweeney retrofit. So what are we recommending tonight? Certainly we want to move forward with our grant list that's in there. That's our priority. Those grants are due the end of this month. We want to continue to work with collaborating with Caltrans on them, taking the lead to further evaluate the feasibility of the bike PED Bridge crossing. Potentially. There's some other sources of funds we've identified that we might be able to help support that effort, engage a consultant, either a bridge engineer, probably. I think what bike walk Alameda would like is a maritime engineer that really looks more closely because there were some kind of doors left open in the study about if you could look at the way the clearances get structured and the depth of the estuary that there might be a. Way to interpret some of the clearances that would give us some other options. We are prepared to move if the Council's direction is to do that is to move forward with contracting with a maritime engineer, to review those potential options, and then working with a bridge engineer to evaluate that and see if that would change dramatically or, you know, create a feasible option that we could continue to pursue. We don't think this is a big expenditure. We think we can do this relatively inexpensively without a lot of staff or time or financial time. So we're happy to do that. Continue to engage the Coast Guard on a political level with support from the congressional delegation, and then develop that next step, the next steps document, which is was kind of built off the white paper that was attached to your to your council report and kind of bring that back and parcel this informational item as well. I think Bike Walk Alameda had sent you a letter and an email. We are applying with all of their recommendations. I think you'll see that they're very similar. We're happy to just adopt the bike walk Alameda recommendations. If that's the council's direction. We certainly want to move forward with our grant lists and that's how we're going get the money. But in addition to that, to adopt those recommendations from Bike Walk, we're happy to do that.
Speaker 6: So just to be clear. So if we move forward on some kind of additional study, that would be outside of the money that we're seeking through the grants? That's correct. Basically, general fund money or maybe something.
Speaker 9: I don't think we would recommend general fund money. I think we would I think bike walk. I mean, the sources we've looked at, I mean, given the amount of it, there's some potential sources that we're reviewing. Caltrans might have some other ideas. So our hope is you know, and you'll see in the bike walk Alameda email what they say is we should do all these other kind of smaller things and then only then should we engage the Coast Guard when we have a we have a better proposal to them that we can really instead of just asking them the same question again, which we honestly think is going to get the exact same answer as let's do a little homework, let's hire some engineers, see if we can find a creative solution or some other ideas. Once we have that information, then let's go back. Then let's all approach them with Caltrans support. We think Caltrans honestly should play a more prominent role as the lead. They've demonstrated an interest in doing that because we think as at the state level, they'll have a better chance of working with the federal government than little Alameda will be there kind of behind the scenes, pushing it along. And then we would go back to the Coast Guard with some proposal, a proposal that, hey, look, we actually have experts here have looked at this. We think we can work with your clearances or if you tweak it a little, you know, I don't know what that will say. And to be honest, it could say that there's nothing we can do. I mean, we have to be honest about that, too, that that we might not come up with a solution where our hope is that we will, and then we would approach the Coast Guard. And if they're at that point, we feel like there's a real need and desire and we think it makes sense, then we would we would look for those other funding sources to potentially do a much broader, bigger technical study on those options.
Speaker 6: That's good. Well, thank you. I mean, thank you for taking the time to find that path.
Speaker 9: Yes, we're happy to do it.
Speaker 0: So clarifying questions. Council member Odie.
Speaker 8: I said one question. It's kind of tangentially related in exhibit to one of the input from the community was bike sharing. And I mean, is there going to be an update on that? Because I think we had a discussion on that a few months ago and I didn't see anything.
Speaker 9: Yeah, we we can have an update on that. Yes, we we are there. The bike share. We are doing a loner bike program in Alameda Point. It's not part of the regional bike share. There was a grant recently. We can come back and kind of do a report at some point on that. It was very the amount of grant was like a minimum of $500,000 is a huge program. And one of the real issues is even if we got the capital dollars to do that, there's actually operating expenses related to bike share. And that was really actually where we got tripped up was are we ready for a $500,000 program where we're not sure where the operating dollars are going to come from? We're still looking at it. I'm not say and but we kind of we think that a better a little more a little smaller more incremental approach might be better. But we're still evaluating that and we can come back to you. In fact, we could even do it as part of our TDM plan. When we come back to you later this year as part of that and talk about it a.
Speaker 8: Little bit, that'll be fine then. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Thank you for your report. I missed that. And is there a meeting tomorrow night that some people might be interested in attending?
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Tell us a little bit about it.
Speaker 9: Yes, absolutely. Sure. So we are this is the NEC. We are doing a community holding a community workshop. As for the Trans Citywide Transit and TDM plans, we're calling it transportation options. Makes it sounds a little better than transit and team plans is. Not everyone knows what that means but transportation options plan where we're actually getting into a lot of detailed strategies. So this is really the meet, you know, before we were doing existing conditions, this is our proposed solutions to some of these issues and that is a committee workshop starting at 630.
Speaker 4: Mastic Senior Spastic Senior Center.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Sorry. And so it's a really great opportunity to come and talk about some transportation solutions and what we do. And we've broken them down by problem. So how do we address this downtown Oakland problem? How do we address the commute to San Francisco? How do we address the issues within Alameda and then a whole host of prioritized projects for each of those problems? So I think it's very common sense in my mind. So we'd love to get feedback from folks tomorrow.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So clarifying questions I have. I wanted you to clarify the navigational uses. There has been some discussion in regards to the Coast Guard island where it's located, but it's my understanding that their recommendation is actually in regards to all vessels that use the estuary, not just their vessels. Can you clarify? But the the specs are based on. They are recommending.
Speaker 9: You know, I don't have the I can look at that. I don't have them right in front of me. But my understanding is the primary issue is the Coast Guard vehicles or, you know, fleet, but that they have other specifications for other.
Speaker 5: Boats, but.
Speaker 9: That their main issue is their own Coast Guard vehicles. But I don't have that right in front of me.
Speaker 0: What about crane barges? That was one of the one of the things in there.
Speaker 9: So we can look at that more closely.
Speaker 0: I just want to clarify and I can speak to that later. For the committee to understand but but it's based on a letter to regional leaders. There's a letter to Barbara Boxer. Is there a reason why we're not actually seeking to persuade and get assistance from other regional leaders?
Speaker 9: We will. We will and we can yes, we can talk. I think that's a great idea. And we can talk with Congresswoman Barbara Lee and we could look at Feinstein as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Now I'll call our speakers, Lucy, Julie, Denise Trapani, and then Barbara Bryant McGuire. You guys can go in any order you want.
Speaker 5: Thank you, councilmembers and mayor, for hearing my comments this evening. I want to start by saying thank you to staff for being so open to our input. For those of us advocating for active transportation choices, as you all know, the West End will soon be seeing a significant increase in residents, with the tubes being the only option we have for 24 seven on and off the island. The traffic and congestion issues are only going to get worse. We fully understand that the obstacles, specifically the Coast Guard requirements to building a bicycle pedestrian bridge are very large and that this is not an easy or short term fix. But it's also not something that Alameda Alameda needs to fix on its own. This is a regional transit issue. We appreciate that staff and hopefully council recognize that we have to start doing something now to solve our West End egress. Egress issues, especially for those of us choosing active transportation options. We just don't have anything right now. The white paper presented by staff and the actions recommended in it are an excellent first step towards working through the nitty gritty details of the technical requirements provided by the Coast Guard in the 2009 feasibility study. That study noted and specifically stated that the horizontal clearance constraint essentially is essentially what made the bridge and a bridge infeasible. But the study also noted that further investigation was needed, and I'm quoting here that if the channel were too shallow to navigate across the entire estuary, the Coast Guard would consider reducing the horizontal clearance. And that's on page 69 of the study. So I'm just going to keep it short. I'm here to respectfully ask council to please continue to support staff's work on this critical infrastructure project and to prioritize it to address the not only the traffic but the health and safety and the environment of the West end by addressing the Coast Guard requirements. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Lucy G. I'm with Bike Walk Alameda. 1700 people have signed a petition asking for.
Speaker 3: A West End estuary crossing that's safe and convenient for biking and walking walk.
Speaker 1: Oakland Bike. Oakland Bike.
Speaker 5: East Bay Assembly Member Bond Oakland Council members.
Speaker 3: Those are just a very initial list of supporters.
Speaker 4: So now is the time that.
Speaker 1: We are asking.
Speaker 4: The city to take.
Speaker 1: The next steps.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 4: Have been mentioned in the.
Speaker 0: 2009.
Speaker 4: Estuary crossing feasibility.
Speaker 3: Study.
Speaker 4: We know that it's a regional issue.
Speaker 1: And we know that little Alameda.
Speaker 3: Isn't going to solve it on.
Speaker 4: On.
Speaker 3: Its own.
Speaker 4: So we're.
Speaker 3: Asking.
Speaker 4: The city council because we've been asked to recommit.
Speaker 3: To taking the next steps to.
Speaker 4: Prioritize the asteroid crossing study and recommit.
Speaker 3: To saying that.
Speaker 4: Yes, stakeholders come together with us and.
Speaker 0: Try and solve.
Speaker 3: The problem. And we really.
Speaker 4: Appreciate the diligence of staff and working.
Speaker 0: Through and creating a.
Speaker 3: Next step plan.
Speaker 4: And working with Caltrans and the Transportation Alameda County Transportation.
Speaker 3: Commission.
Speaker 4: To find a leading agency and funding sources to keep taking those.
Speaker 3: Next steps. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'll just kind of follow up and reiterate some of what Denise and Lucy said. We appreciate council members and staff who have been helping us and been working on with us on on moving this forward. We also had a very productive meeting with our Assembly member last week who I think it's safe to say, supportive and ready to help us find the best way forward. We think this is the best option. To address this gap and will have a transformative effect for residents and businesses on both sides of the estuary. We know there are significant hurdles to achieving this, which is why we're not asking you to spend $50 million tonight on a bike and pad bridge. But we do want to pick up where the 2009 estuary crossing study left off. It identified four areas that might make a bridge infeasible. And I know Ms.. Spoke about this. But the bottom line, not surprisingly, is it comes down to horizontal clearance. Horizontal clearance, if we can make progress on that, would greatly mitigate the other three issues listed as problems vertical clearance. If you have a drawbridge as opposed to a lift, vertical clearance goes to infinity or a swing bridge, etc. Costs come down and I forget what the other item was. But anyway, so the horizontal clearance is the big one there. The 2008 study didn't 29 study did not evaluate any bridge options with a span of less than 600 feet, a movable span. So when Ms.. Art speaks about the weaknesses in the, quote, top bridge option, she's not really referring to what we think. And what, you know, practically speaking, is the bridge that we would have in mind if and when we get to that point. We agree with staff that we need political support to make headway if we keep working on the issue, building political support and making the small investments needed to flesh out what the bridge would look like and cost if we succeeded in reducing those horizontal clearances. I think we can, you know, build that political pressure to hopefully make progress with the Coast Guard. And I think it's easier when we have a a more developed project to sort of aim at as opposed to just sort of knocking on the door with very little detail . So, you know, we'd like the city to pass a resolution renewing that this is almeida's preference for resolution, regardless of the fact that we know there's hurdles. This is the best solution, and we want Alameda to show commitment for that. And we also think you should give clear direction to staff to continue working with us and other stakeholders to fund and find a lead agency to conduct the engineering feasibility study proposed by Caltrans. And just one other kind of side note. No offense to the Transportation Commission, but I think they were focusing on this on the, you know, call for projects list and this kind of got put in front of them and they weren't necessarily all the way up to speed, I would say, on on some of this stuff. And I think they got a little out over their skis when they were given some of their direction that night. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Counsel, comments. Questions. I wanted to ask real quick about the prioritized order, but that means on this draft grants list on page two does. And where I see estuary water shuttle feasibility study is number two. But in regards to where is the what we're speaking about, trying to figure out how to ride a bike across the estuary. At all hours. When will that happen? But that's not on the priority list at all. Right. So will that be worked on independently? Yes. But it is being worked on. It's not as though we have to get through all these other items before we start focusing on that. So I want to clarify that.
Speaker 9: And I think I defer to the city attorney. But, you know, we don't obviously have a resolution attached, but it seems like by motion, in addition to hopefully moving forward with the grant lists, we could, you know, give direction to staff by motion to continue to work with the michoacana meat on the items specified in their email . We're happy to do that. We agree with that and and are supportive of that.
Speaker 0: And what I heard was to work with Bike Walk, Alameda and all stakeholders.
Speaker 9: Absolutely. So that the list of items that they had in their email that they sent to council, we could just essentially adopt that by motion to direct staff.
Speaker 0: And I'd also like to include that we increase the advocacy to all regional leaders. Great number, Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was just going to say that some of us have already been doing that and by bike, Alameda is doing a commendable job and working with staff and this, you know, it's you want things to be done right now this is a big project, this proposal and it's going to take time to get it right into as I told them, sometimes you pick the low hanging fruit first. In this one, we better pick the high hanging fruit because we do need to clear some of those hurdles with the Coast Guard. But it's right. It it's been said this is not just falling on Alameda shoulders. It's a regional issue. And we do have regional partners that we're already talking with. So I would support the idea of also including a resolution of support for the bike walk Alameda email direction. And I really commend staff for for working with this important advocacy group to like a motion so we can kick things.
Speaker 0: Yes, that's what I thought you were going to be make well.
Speaker 4: So I would first move that we.
Speaker 0: Are sorry to interrupt. We had another speaker that apparently had the wrong item listed so we could have that speaker.
Speaker 1: So. Oh.
Speaker 0: It's okay. Come on up. Helen, it's Helen's. US. I'll change this to five.
Speaker 3: The steps that the city is making to address our island mentality is really exciting. Alameda Home Team has been talking for some time about the fact that the developments on either side of the estuary, their drawings end at the water's edge and it doesn't take in what each of us are doing across the channel. So we've developed a. Proposed Cross channel.
Speaker 1: Panel.
Speaker 3: Discussion with the developer between the developers on either side of the estuary, which will be held December 1st. It'll be free. It'll be open to anyone that wishes to attend. I must say Auckland has been rather excited about the idea of talking just informally about how the developers might work together, how they might jointly apply for grants that would benefit both of our projects. And the city has its planning staff, which will participate participate in the panel as well. And so we'll be getting a notice out, inviting everybody to come.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 3: Attend this discussion and the steps that Jennifer and the staff are taking to develop issues that will address our problems. It's just really remarkable. It's delightful to see how far ahead you all are. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Can you clarify real quick the time that it's December? The meeting is December 1st. You know the time and place at this point.
Speaker 3: Oh, we'll get back to it. All right. Thank you. It's going to be in Alameda.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: And it will be where we can see the water.
Speaker 0: Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Right. So she's our last speaker. So remember Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Okay, so I move the recommendation to approve the draft project list for the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Call for projects. As well as direction to staff. To continue to pursue the items. Listed in the backpack Alameda correspondence dated October 13, 2016. And I would say including but not limited to because we don't want to foreclose any options and this is a regional issue communicating with Caltrans. This is a bicycle pedestrian bridge that staff hire a maritime engineer to get more information and to work with a coalition of federal, state, county, local partners, engage the Coast Guard. And again, all that and more toward the goal of a bike walk excuse me, a bicycle pedestrian bridge on the west end of Alameda.
Speaker 0: I have a.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: I have a question in regards to item number three, to hire a maritime engineer. Is that that's something that would come back to us where we would.
Speaker 1: Only if it's over 75,000.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Diane, so.
Speaker 1: Are you over to.
Speaker 0: No, we don't. Okay. So any other questions or comments? I'm ready.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick comment. Thank you to staff and Mike walk alameda for all your hard work on this. As you did say, it is a regional transit issue. And I think it's important that as we asked to spend money on this, that we seek out regional partners to share the cost to this. I mean, I'm all for it. And if we can also make sure that in our motion, as you go forward with this, we try to identify funding sources. I know ARM three is something that they're debating in the next year, and that may be a good funding source, whether there's a baseball stadium at Jack London or whether we do some type of enhanced retail on our waterfront. I mean, just to add, examining potential funding sources and making sure that if it is, say, item three, that we're in on the ground floor and in the beginning to try and pursue those those sources of a friendly amendment.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah. And I think that was that's it's good to identify those. I think that was also subsumed in including but not limited to in the room three. You're referring to Ms. Gerrity, would that be regional measure three, an additional bridge toll? Yes, that might be on the 2018 ballot.
Speaker 3: We're hoping.
Speaker 8: It is.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: I do think it needs to be explicit that the funding needs to be identified because whatever the $45 million price tag and I think given. Bridge construction that we've seen on on the east bay span. It's going to be expensive and there is no way that Alameda and shoulder this. No way. Right. And I think that's the practical side that I want to make sure is explicit in here. And I also don't want it to suck funds away from Central Avenue the Cross. So I think that that has to be clear, because that's the real bottom line. Practical.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Can I.
Speaker 4: Finish.
Speaker 2: The practical impracticality? And it also makes the case better with the Coast Guard is if we've got funding in hand to construct the bridge some commitment, then there's I think there's more room to negotiate. And if we don't.
Speaker 0: We I want to make sure that our clerk is keeping track of this.
Speaker 2: That's not an amendment. That's a comment. That's a.
Speaker 0: Comment.
Speaker 2: Okay. Part of the discussion of a moved and seconded and yours.
Speaker 0: Was also just which is.
Speaker 8: Well, it was to include.
Speaker 0: Right. Yes, include.
Speaker 8: Potential funding sources in pursuing those.
Speaker 0: So he has a friendly amendment and you're accepting that. I need to make sure that we're all seeing the.
Speaker 2: Same position, put in an explanation and underline on it, because.
Speaker 3: However.
Speaker 0: He did have a friendly amendment, so I want to make sure that that's confirmed as part of the motion.
Speaker 4: Councilmember De Soto.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft it's your motion, right?
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 0: So procedurally, he makes a friendly amendment. You need to accept it or not, you need to weigh in.
Speaker 4: And I would just note for the record, cities don't build bridges anyway. That comes from Caltrans, it comes from the feds. It comes from things like arms. Three. I don't think the hang up with the Coast Guard was over us wanting them to pay for it. But gosh, if they have funds, I would take them. But I think it's you know, we've got good direction to staff. And yes, I mean, the more the merrier as far as this goes.
Speaker 2: I just but that wasn't the point. I mean.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry. I mean, the point was to make sure that we we started the ground floor. It was not to ask the Coast Guard to pay for it. But I.
Speaker 2: In my.
Speaker 8: Mind that we make that we, in addition to doing the study that we share with others, the county, Oakland, others, that we also start identifying ways to pay for it. I mean.
Speaker 0: And that's a friendly amendment. What I've heard is that you do accept that.
Speaker 4: MEMBER Well, absolutely. All right, then I'm going to read the email. I think it's I think it's we're.
Speaker 0: Making a motion. You know, there's a way we need to do it. Unfortunately, we've had a problem in the past where we all thought we understood. And I want to make sure we do this correctly at this point. I'm going to circle now to please member de sog. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I think there will be plenty enough time for our inner Scrooge to come out, but I think for tonight, it definitely is time to dream. It's time to dream not just about the ski bike bridge, but also the fact that, you know, we're moving ahead with the citywide transit strategy. And that's why the decision tonight is absolutely critical to move forward. The list that with special thank you to the Transportation Commission that the Transportation Commission had helped put us put together for us. So for that we are definitely thankful and for it to the bike walk Alameda we are also doubly thankful for you know, encouraging us to keep dreaming. You know, there's plenty of times to, you know, put those accountant's hats on, but but not tonight. So let's move forward.
Speaker 0: All right. So we have a motion with two friendly amendments that were accepted. I also want to thank staff our transportation commission bike walk Alameda and I looked for I pulled this item intentionally because this is very important to our community. It's critical that we do come up with a better way to cross the estuary. And actually, I would say it's a bit bicycling and for pedestrians. So I appreciate all of this effort. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Our next item. Is six d.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to enter into a citywide project stabilization agreement on public works or improvement contracts valued at over $1,000,000 awarded by the City of Alameda with the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County.
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 0: If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip.
Speaker 9: Jeremy Mayor, council members. Jennifer Basri is transportation planning director. Okay, I can I'll just start. We're here to start recommending a citywide project stabilization agreement on city. Let projects over $1,000,000. I'm not alone here tonight. We have a lead negotiator to the city attorney's office, Mike Fleming, who specializes in negotiating these agreements that we worked as a team very closely on this. And then we also have members of the Building Trades Council, Carpenters Union, a number of different union representatives here as well that we have worked with over a number of months to bring this to you tonight. There is a lot of history. I actually have, you know, gone back and over a number of times actually to kind of see there's been a lot of history of multiple city council referrals, hearings and direction over the last six years to negotiate a project stabilization agreement starting, I'm sure, probably even before this. But the ones I could find were starting September 2010. There were also efforts in September 2013, September and December 2013, and then more recently, September 2015. So we're here really all of that direction and those hearings and ultimately negotiated an agreement. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Approve the Draft Project List for the Alameda County Transportation Commission Call for Projects. (Transportation 287) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_10042016_2016-3342 | Speaker 6: I don't think that's a value we all share. But, you know, it's something, you know, we should be presented with with what that means, you know, financially, what does that mean? And so I think that the words of the referral, I think are a little bit too prescriptive, and I would like to see it a little more open ended. And, you know, I also want to hear about, you know, what options we have for replacement shelter. I mean, should we consider, you know, floating a bond? Should we consider going to the voters and asking for a parcel tax, you know, things like that? If if this is a value of our community and we all stand behind it, you know, let's hear what those options are. And maybe sooner rather than later, you know, we go to the voters and say, this is important to us, this is important to you. Are you willing to pay for it? I mean, I think those are important things. And, you know, the M1 the M1 is also a potential $4.3 million hit next year. So, I mean, I don't know if we have the money right now for this year and the K one, if that doesn't pass, that's another, you know, for some million dollars. So we're talking at $10 million, you know. Vice mayor made it pretty clear we don't have $10 million.
Speaker 3: Even before.
Speaker 6: Me, even before even before this. So, you know, now we add another 1.3 to that. I mean, there's going to have to be some serious discussions in this community if if we have that big hole in our budget and, you know, we're going to have to prioritize some stuff. So that's kind of where I stand on the referral. I mean, I really want to hear more information. And sooner rather than later, because there is this alleged March, March impending deadline, you know, but to say, renegotiate the contract or to say we need to build a new facility now without that information, you know, I want that information.
Speaker 0: Remember days ago?
Speaker 5: Well, thank you very much. I think the key phrase that was other uttered here was that perhaps the mayors.
Speaker 1: Referral.
Speaker 5: Referral is the key phrase is prescriptive. In my opinion, by necessity, it is prescriptive. While I would not say that Rome is burning, the matches certainly being struck and so now is not the time to be fiddling. So by necessity, I do think that we need a prescriptive referral as as what you see here. I mean, just to be clear, the way that I would pursue this referral to deal with the issues regarding relocating and modernizing the shelter facility, maybe those are higher hanging fruits that we're not yet ready to grab at. But that does not mean that today, on October 4th or tomorrow and October 5th, we can't begin to strategize in terms of generating the revenues needed to preserve the animal shelter in the way that is operating now. Even if that strategizing results in reload, looking at how we relocate or modernize, looking at that as a as a medium to higher hanging fruit. So the way that I would pursue this is I would say, you know, I would take the mayor's referral, add some language. So I would say consider directing staff to renegotiate the terms of the Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter Lease commensurate with the business models and values now in place, including reporting on relocating slash. Modernizing the shelter facility, including addressing funding. Final comma with due diligence, review of expenses and revenues and the final phrases to to address the points raised by Mrs. Rickles. So. I think by by necessity, we need to get jump into negotiating because you don't want to wait until February if you know that something is going to close in March. If you could begin to act in October. It's just like, you know, when I was like it in my first go around and council, you know, way back in December 2003, I said, look at I'm looking at the spreadsheet here for the 80 Alameda Municipal. The AT&T Telecom's revenue projections. And I said, you know what? I don't have to wait around in until 26 or 27 to know that something is going to go wrong. And so because the data is speaking to you clearly back then in December 2003. I'm just referring to that as an example of why we don't have to wait. We all know that things didn't go well with aluminum power and telecom. Likewise, we don't have to wait around until February or March to know that we need to act now.
Speaker 0: Can. I'm going to take that as a friendly amendment, and I would accept that as a friendly amendment to them. That would be my motion. Then I'll circle back. But then would you be sickening that with someone? Then I have a motion and a second. And I want to go to City Manager. Acting city manager is warmer than me.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would just respectfully request the caveat on the friendly amendment about to negotiate to the current standard. And with all due respect, I mean, I think the standard is quite high, and I understand that the community likes that standard. The question is whether or not we can afford that standard. And I'm not saying that we wanted to go.
Speaker 8: Back to the way it was.
Speaker 5: That's my point, though. That's where you start with what you want. And then and that's the negotiating point. And as part of your reporting back to council, your contingency planning will be that, you know, we can only do the standard relative to what our budget is. And so, you know, hopefully things go well in November eight, but you got to go into it with a certain value, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: And then I'm sorry, let me let me let me thank you for shade. It is warmer than that. You want to add anything else?
Speaker 8: So.
Speaker 7: Yes, I am not suggesting that we are going to go back to the standard that we had in 2011 when we operated the shelter. But I think we need as staff, I mean, we feel a responsibility to look at, okay, what is that actually? What are those standards? What is that costing us? And if you set that bar that high, I'm just saying that that ties our hands so personally.
Speaker 0: That was the motion I made the motion that was a friendly amendment. I do want to set the bar high. I think it's critical. That is my position. That is my referral. So I accept the friendly amendment.
Speaker 1: And I think as.
Speaker 0: Our community has stepped up. We've heard you. We've seen your work. So this is my. So I just want to get back to you, okay? This was my referral. I accepted the friendly amendments. There's a motion and a second, and then any other discussion at this time. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call the question. All those in favor. I. All those opposed.
Speaker 3: No, no.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, I'd like to make an alternate motion. I'd like to move that. We direct staff to renegotiate the terms of the lease of the friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, including the city's allocation and support of us. I'd like to include in that motion the requirement to have a third party expert provide the evaluation, as suggested by both FOSS and the city. To review the line items and to identify the target to which we are going to hit. And I'd also like the direction to include an analysis of the relocation and modernization of the animal shelter. And options for alternative. Funding sources including but not limited to the items listed here. Development fee and other user fees.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: And I and and does that also include the idea of expanding the shelter to bring in more revenue?
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: I like that. And could you clarify so in regards to the level of care, what was your language.
Speaker 3: Is to have the independent consultant help us identify the standard to which we are targeting. Because right now.
Speaker 0: So can you tell me what that means is at a low level. I'm sorry. I get to speak right now. Appreciate it. Thank you. So we're going to bring in someone from outside to tell us what our target is.
Speaker 1: Or know.
Speaker 3: To tell us what the standard is, because.
Speaker 0: The standard varies from shelter to shelter.
Speaker 3: Well, then it's not a standard. Those are outputs of standard is what would a target rate for a good shelter is. That's a standard. So we have a measure. Can I finish my statement, please? A standard is a standard. That's a target for people to measure their performance against. Our performance is at 90, 95. I heard then I heard 96 and then there was qualifications. I want to know, is there is there how do we fit with everybody else? And then I want to know and I think Steph wants to know which one of these line items goes to keeping that that level of service where we are, because it's different from the standard and how do we stay above the standard? That's what I'm interested. I'm interested in real measurements so that when so that when we get to the point where we're looking at a $3 million deficit, if that holds true, that we know how to make decisions so that we don't damage. The performance that we've put in place. That's what I want to know. This is a long term. And again, I can't help I can't help but go back to last year's transmittal letter where we had the downward curve, where even if everything passes in the in the fall election and fundraising continues and the city is going to pick up, the city has to pick up the burden from everything that people have said. The city has to pick up the burden. But the pie from which that burden is picked is projected to get smaller and smaller and smaller. That's the projections we were given last year. Am I right in that? That's correct. That's correct. So if we're talking sustainable, sustainable doesn't mean next year, doesn't mean the following year, it means going out. So that's why I'm in. I made the motion the way I did.
Speaker 0: So in regard to second. So in regards to your motion, could you clarify when they come back with the standard of care? If they come back with I'm going to say and I don't know if you mean in regards to comparing to other cities or how they develop, but their standard of care is. But if it's 75% live to kill rate, is that something then that they'll come back and get feedback from us in regards to are we willing to accept that standard or does our community desire a higher standard? I make. And I wanted to. Well, let.
Speaker 3: Me my my answer to that. As we get that standard, we get the cost of it and we get the costs of the high at the high end. If it's above or if it hits the target, we're good to go when we get that information back, then we can have that discussion. Right now we have again, when I look at the annual report, I don't see the word stand. I see what the live release rates are, but I don't see the word standard any anywhere. And I don't have a reference to that standard. I don't have the information. So. We'll have that discussion when staff comes back with their report.
Speaker 0: Remember Africa? Thank you, Mary. I would like to offer a friendly amendment. Actually, I don't want to support anything that would create a kill rate. You know, I would modify what I think was his done an admirable job. I am looking for ways that we can make this budget sustainable, but that's not where I want to want to cut it. I don't want to save money by killing more animals. So I, I would ask I like the I'm giving staff a little more flexibility, directing them to renegotiate the terms of the forest lease the third party expert and how we're going to. Make this budget work. And but I don't I don't want to play around with the budgeting.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's what is right.
Speaker 0: Can I give give you some wording to change it?
Speaker 6: I don't think you were asked yes or no.
Speaker 0: Well, when you when you said you could just make it. So. So. Vice Mayor just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying when you said identify the target we're going to hit. Is that a financial target rather than can we just leave the. I just. There's some things I do want to keep in place in the live release rate I think is is a good one. When I looked at the budget and I don't pretend to be a financial analyst, but, you know, there may be some areas to trim, but not there. But I want staff to go over that. I don't I think the standard has been achieved, which is impressive, this this live release rate. And I, I really feel that the parties on both sides negotiating in good faith can. Keep that where it is and find other ways to make our beds, make this budget work again. Also, you know, knowing and with all due respect to Councilmember SAC, sure we need contingency planning, but the general fund is going to take a huge hit if the UMA doesn't pass in November. And and I just I can't even go into that because I think it's disingenuous to be throwing out this need for more funding while at the same time trying to cut it away. But anyway, did I help you? And probably not with the.
Speaker 1: I think I.
Speaker 0: Actually I want to interrupt you real quick. I'm going to ask our attorney. It's my understanding that we're not allowed to advocate for a position, only educate on a matter that's already been put on the ballot. So I don't think it's appropriate. Oh, I was advocating I was just talking about what the outcome would be. People that it's your opinion. It was actually contrary to what Steph's presentation was. Okay. So I'm done with that position. With that line of reasoning, maybe Councilman Brody will clarify this for us. I'd like to stick to the issue at hand.
Speaker 6: I don't want to speak for the vice mayor, but I think what he's kind of aiming for is, you know, we've and maybe piggybacking on Councilmember De Sykes comments, you know, we have a certain service level here at the animal shelter and we could have a different service level. We could have a the service level we had before. We could have be the standard for this type of model that we have and these numbers. And then what's the delta? I mean, if we want the numbers that we're achieving today, you know, what is that costing us? Is that costing us $50,000? Is that costing us 70 or whatever it turns out to be? And then that way we can make a decision, say that's our value. So we as a city are willing, you know, to pitch in and pay for that extra cost. But we don't we haven't quantified yet. Is that kind of.
Speaker 1: Could we do it?
Speaker 6: Because I don't think you were saying let's lower.
Speaker 3: No, no mind. And maybe my motion was a poor motion because now we have I have to explain how to explain it. And I think that helps. We have if we're going to meet a standard, that's one thing. If we're going to maintain the level of, I think, as you said, maintain the current level of service, I think you put it very well. What is that going to cost? And if it's going to cost $50,000 more, that's a no brainer. If it's going to cost $1,000,000 more and I'm just throwing these numbers as points of reference, then there has to be a hard decision that's made. But I think we're way in front of that. And I think to to give the motion an additional direction, I would add that our starting point is and should be to maintain the level, maintain and improve the level of service we have now. But we have to. Be ready to to face up to the numbers. And that's.
Speaker 0: So I.
Speaker 9: Don't see how that's any different than what I just.
Speaker 8: Said.
Speaker 0: So I think that was the motion we had. That was the most voted down.
Speaker 7: That was the whole my whole.
Speaker 1: Point about.
Speaker 5: You aim high and, you know, let's all hope that, you know.
Speaker 0: November.
Speaker 1: Inflation is the way that we want.
Speaker 5: Like then if there's contingency planning, then you contingency plan, but you aim high. So I got I didn't understand.
Speaker 0: I thought.
Speaker 6: That.
Speaker 0: But I actually I thought that we were trying to give staff a little more latitude to not have to address the. Relocating or modernizing the shelter facility?
Speaker 5: Exactly. I didn't say that. I said including reporting. I didn't say that they were.
Speaker 1: That was that was.
Speaker 0: It was also part of the vice mayor's.
Speaker 1: Motion.
Speaker 8: So let me just let me just.
Speaker 5: Try to summarize what I think the situation.
Speaker 0: Is.
Speaker 5: The situation is that. One, we aim high with the 95% value. The business model that we all like. In the short term. If this is discussion, this isn't the most in the short term. If things don't go the way that we like in November than as part of as part of the negotiations, staff is prepared to just say, what are our follow up steps? So the follow up steps in that short term might be for the 18 months. This is how we're going to deal with it. But beyond 18 months, then we're going to do another thing. We're going to do a sales tax increase or whatever. The point is, you can do a lot of contingency planning. While still maintaining the values that you have. I don't think this is that complicated, in my opinion.
Speaker 3: I think it's.
Speaker 0: So I think with your modifications, it's a motion we already had.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And then what happens? Well, so I want to repeat it because I know. So let's go ahead and see what you're offering. I wrote as.
Speaker 2: Fast as I could.
Speaker 0: And I had.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it's giving staff direction to negotiate the terms of the lease, including the city allocation, requiring that there be a third party expert provided to provide evaluation and review the. Okay I missed that word items and identify a target and in including an analysis of relocation and options for alternate funding sources, including development fees and other user fees.
Speaker 3: And I think the missing word is standard.
Speaker 2: Oh. Review the OC that was.
Speaker 0: And then the written variant. And then is there a friendly amendment to have the level.
Speaker 5: The standard that we're talking about is the standard that that we want. And like I said, it's if we have to continue the plan down the road and we continuously plan on the road, they know that.
Speaker 3: Well as part of the discussion. I believe that we have a performance. We don't have a standard. I haven't seen a standard identified. I just know what our performance is. And I maybe I use the word standard a little bit too precisely, but I'm looking for that. That latitude between what is generally accepted is standard versus what our performance is and what does it cost to maintain our performance if it's above the standard or to bring it up? If it's below the standard, because it works both ways.
Speaker 0: And I think when you clarify it like that, I think that it is.
Speaker 1: I think we.
Speaker 3: Added having a third party as a.
Speaker 7: Step as.
Speaker 0: A friend. I could have been a friendly amendment.
Speaker 6: Well, call the question, please.
Speaker 0: So you have a notion and I'll say.
Speaker 6: Well, I think in secondary.
Speaker 5: I think we definitely want to hammer out the motion because we've had motions in the past which weren't followed up. So for now, we definitely want to hammer out the motions.
Speaker 0: So I do want.
Speaker 3: To just read the motion that was seconded by Council member Odie.
Speaker 6: Him as good.
Speaker 0: So then I thought that there was a friendly amendment to your mind.
Speaker 3: I didn't hear what.
Speaker 6: I think I called the question, isn't that a priority?
Speaker 0: Actually, I think in order to call the question, then we have to now call for a vote, calling the question that correct. So then there would be a motion to call the question.
Speaker 1: That's I think that's what you would make.
Speaker 0: The motion to call the question so we can get people out the same evening. All those in favor I Bush and.
Speaker 5: Kerry's I opposed. I don't think. I don't think it's clear on the 95% threshold.
Speaker 0: That's a motion to call the question, which, as I understand it, is a separate question. And then the motion on the merits of the motion, the motion on question three. And I'm going to oppose them. And all those opposed oppose.
Speaker 1: The call the question Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I oppose it because I think we should still talk about hammer out the language of the motion.
Speaker 0: So that the motion.
Speaker 4: Has the motion to call the question passed.
Speaker 0: Now I will call the question.
Speaker 1: All those and all those in favor.
Speaker 0: I agree with all.
Speaker 6: Those in favor.
Speaker 0: Before that was.
Speaker 6: Called, the question cuts the discussion.
Speaker 0: So. Okay. Well, I would have preferred not calling the question. I think I actually think it was clear about the 95%. I think that is this. We're not allowed to have a conversation. So we did the all I'm not having conversation, I'm clarifying. So I do think that's what staff. That's not allowed. All those in favor. I suppose I oppose motion carries 3 to 2. All right. The motion. My understanding of the motion was that it could be a lower level of care. You know, so.
Speaker 3: Can I ask, do we have the emotion again? They just passed.
Speaker 6: For the.
Speaker 3: Matter.
Speaker 0: Yes, I can. I can ask.
Speaker 3: Her. Yeah. Can I. I'm asking.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: I have repeat. Yes. Actually, we've moved on from that agenda item, but I'm happy to have her then repeat the question. So it was.
Speaker 2: Directions is to staff to negotiate the terms of the lease, including the city's allocation and requiring having a third party expert provide evaluation and review the standard and identify a target with an analysis of relocation options and alternate funding sources, including development fees and other user fees.
Speaker 5: There is operative term as review the standard. There is no standard to review. We know what the standard.
Speaker 0: So that was the difference in the two emotions. One of them had a higher level of care. So moving on, I'm going to check on some of the other misstatement when I go ahead and recess. Thank you. That was the difference between the two emotions. Well, we all have bigger problems to deal.
Speaker 10: Then they get.
Speaker 0: Back to our regular meeting if you all wanted to go out into the hallway or whatever, because we're going to have other items. Thank you very much for coming.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny because.
Speaker 0: She made it. Go ahead. Sorry. Go back on it for me.
Speaker 1: What is the there?
Speaker 0: We're going to resume our meeting. So if everyone could either take your seat or go out into the hallway, I'd appreciate it. Thank you very much. So now because it's approaching 1030, it's like 10:28 p.m.. At 1030, we need a motion to consider the remaining items. And the remaining items.
Speaker 1: Are.
Speaker 0: At six B, which is the art we have. It's my understanding ten speakers on that item. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you. I don't know if they're all still here, though. Okay. At this point, we have ten speaker slips on six B, 66 D. And on the time that I was 60, it says 45 minutes. Is that accurate? 45 minutes on 66. How will the housing element? No, no. But that was staff's estimate. That's the we can change the 45 minute estimate.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, I think the housing element is extremely important, and I don't want to squeeze it into a five minute slot, a quick presentation. One of the issues we've talked about here on this is is how we approach our housing. I think that one deserves more time.
Speaker 0: All right. So that was 60. That is streamlining improvements to existing residential property, things like that, to modify the code. And that staff's estimate is 15 minutes on that one. Is that accurate? 15 minutes for that one. And we don't have any speakers tips on that one. Could I ask staff, is there a reason? Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there a reason that couldn't come back to us on the consent as a consent calendar item? It's just the I'm not exhibit six D, it's just the clean up of the order. It's an ordinance. Sorry. All right, so then those are the remaining items and of course, the referrals. So at this point and I have another question, is there are there any of these that need to be heard tonight by staff? Staff. All right. So then do we have them? And we have ten speakers on six P. Question. Yes. And maybe it's a question to staff as well. What if we we've had a lot of communication from the public on the of this public art fence ordinance. Could we start it, take speakers and then continue it to another time? Or does that make it just more complicated? In city clerk, you can just go to.
Speaker 2: And do it.
Speaker 4: You can do that if you want to continue into a date certain, but you have to.
Speaker 1: Pick.
Speaker 0: A date certain. And then how does the 18th look for a date certain?
Speaker 2: You've got other things you probably won't get to that night.
Speaker 0: They'd have to come back because here here's my feeling just really quickly, is we've got people who have been in this audience. From seven and seven.
Speaker 4: We have a very crowded agenda for the eight here. Very crowded. Very crowded.
Speaker 0: All right. So our issue is that if we go past 11:00 tonight, then we have to have at an additional meeting, one additional meeting. If those meetings isn't more than one hour, what is the Sunshine Act?
Speaker 2: It says meeting the word mediator. It does work by a number.
Speaker 0: Oh, all right. All right. So the issue is trying to be done before 11 so we don't have to add meetings. It's also for the public's benefit because they don't you know, people don't follow us after 11:00 at night. We've heard that a lot that, you know, they'd like us to. I do want to make a motion.
Speaker 3: I'd like to move that. We hear item six D first and then we go to six C and then make the vote at 11:00 whether to continue or proceed.
Speaker 0: But at that time, we can't add more items, could we, at 11:00? No, no, that's correct. Yes. So then your motion would be just to do 60 and.
Speaker 3: 66 D first and then six C and continue 60 if needed.
Speaker 0: So my preference would have been to hear the art because that's why people are here.
Speaker 6: I'll second the vice mayor's motion.
Speaker 0: So there's a motion on his second to hear those items. All those in favor.
Speaker 6: I. I.
Speaker 0: I oppose. All right, so I'd like to make a motion here. Six, three, four.
Speaker 6: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: You've seen.
Speaker 0: No, I just couldn't figure it out. Right. Like you were. You were. I'm voting already called. The question I want to go back to now. You have a time idea, so nothing happens. I'm sorry. I'm trying to recall a question that I'm going to make another motion. That's what happens at this point. The motion did not pass it. I haven't voted yet. I was. That article was in favor. All those opposed. You could take us right to 11:00 doing that. So I'd appreciate it if you vote when I call the question. Well, let's move on on with at this point, I'd like to make a motion that we hear six B, which is the public art fund item. And if it goes over, it goes over. And then we set new meetings, but we have people here to hear it. So I'm fine going. If it goes past 11th Soviet but I move that we adopt that we proceed with 60.
Speaker 1: Their second is their second.
Speaker 0: His second did it. All those in favor. I. All right. So we're going to proceed with a poll where we have three in favor. You need for only four. I'm sorry. You're right. So we had three. So I was just off checking with the city clerk about what the first meeting in November looked like. And I think you said that.
Speaker 2: You have that potentially phase zero Main Street plan and homeless.
Speaker 0: Encampment. I wanted to finish up the motion, so I had all those in favor. We had three. All those opposed?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: I'll vote for it. Love it with you. All right. So then we do have four. All right, so then we will proceed with six B at this time.
Speaker 2: Introduction of ordinance, amending the Indivisible Code by many Chapter 13 Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the City's ability to disburse public art funds and amend the Fiscal Year 20 1617 Public Art Fund budget by 200,000 and Capital Improvement Project Fund budget by 100,000. | Council Referral | Consider Directing Staff to Renegotiate the Terms of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) Lease and Relocate/Modernize the Shelter Facility, including Addressing Funding. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on July 19, 2016 or September 6 or 20, 2016] | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09202016_2016-3277 | Speaker 1: 5G is the recommendation to authorize the city man city manager to amend an agreement with Urban Planning Partners to extend the term until December 2017.
Speaker 5: So I'm happy to give a presentation or.
Speaker 6: If yes, I pulled this matter because in the staff report, it's indicated that the matter will go back. When the specific plan is developed, it'll be it'll go back. The outfit who were funding will go back to the planning board to receive their review. Now, the history of this project was that really the city council had clearly indicated that we want to be part of the planning of the process, not just at the end, but at the beginning. And when you look at the minutes, the minutes clearly state with amendment made by council member Matt, R-S.C., about having us on the front end. And that was on an issue that I had also raised that night. So I want to make sure that the person, the organization that's being funded here will be on call to come to the city council. Who will have the final say and who will have the say before that? Because we're not going to have a Main Street plan where the city council gets it, gets the the outcome at the butt end. So it's going to have to be upfront.
Speaker 0: You speak to that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely. That's we have an item, in fact, tonight on the agenda. One of the major issues of that very night was about the disposition and the units and how it was going to work and the phasing. And that was the direction we heard when that contract was approved. You're having to go. And that's why we're actually here tonight with an item which includes maps. From that we're happy to come. We're just getting the draft plan done that's out for public review probably next week. And then we're happy to come back and get council. Ultimately, it's an ordinance of the council that has to approve this plan. We're happy to get feedback from the council as part of that process.
Speaker 6: And let me just make sure that when we approved the contract, it was in March 2015 and. Looking at the minutes. When we moved it. Councilmember Ashcraft made a motion and I second it. Then Council Vice Mayor Matt, R-S.C., had requested an amendment to include that the council is the body that selects a preferred alternative for moving on to Task three and Task four of the report. And in response to Council Members Inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarese stated that he is also suggesting in the minutes is also suggesting that there be an in-process check. And that the Council approved the preferred alternative before the design goes into task three before. Mm hmm. So and I'm raising this also because I do have some problems with the matter as stated in the and the agenda item. I can't be on the but end of of what their plan is going to be for the or the main street area. There's a lot of issues and concerns that are being raised right now, particularly with regard to moderate income housing, first time homeownership and and all that. And we need to begin to as a council vet that.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Yeah. We look forward to engaging the council tonight and at subsequent meetings on the the plan. It won't get approved until the council's happy with it.
Speaker 0: I wanted to add that was a unanimous vote member Ashcroft.
Speaker 4: So these four tasks for people who might not have the staff report in front of them and the first two have been completed are the when kick off meetings and stakeholder outreach. I know I attended one of those workshops. Maybe some of my colleagues did as well draft an existing conditions profile and the number three is a market assessment and feasibility of varying housing types. I, I would imagine we would want to leave that to the experts in the field who do those sorts of things. That doesn't seem like a council task. Number four is draft said alternatives for public and private spaces described above. And this is probably where you would bring plans and proposals back to us before a final vote. Is that. That's correct.
Speaker 6: Well, no. I mean, certainly we want to get the advice of professionals who know what they're doing. But also the profession has to be guided by a council members who have a sense as to what the pulse of the community is. So I don't agree with your statement that that we have no role whatsoever in the intervening process.
Speaker 5: And I didn't mean to imply that at all. I think we absolutely see the council as instrumental in defining this plan. And so we will be back to you with the draft plan for your feedback and discussing phasing and alternatives. That's what we're here tonight, is that we see it as a process. We didn't want to get release a draft plan until we got feedback from the Council on phasing because we see that was such a big issue and we approve the contract. We'll be back to you with the draft plan. And we will we will not be asking your approval of that plan at that night. We want to get your feedback before finalizing a final plan.
Speaker 7: I'm here and I understand this agenda item is just to extend the contract because this is not correct. Finish within the original envelope and the agenda item that's further down on the agenda I think is where the discussion of where, because that phasing point that's highlighted in tonight's agenda item is really at the core of the concern that I think we all agreed on back in March of the previous year, that we don't want to be too far into that fate, into the project without having seen it and and provided direction before things are locked. So I have no problem with approving the extension. I think we have to do that and I think we should say continue this discussion to the second agenda item on our agenda, dealing with this.
Speaker 2: Issue on the.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 4: And just in discussion for clarification for the public that might be wondering what we are talking about. This is his main street plan, which is added Alameda point. It's an area where right now we have what we call supportive housing. The Alameda Point Collaborative for formerly homeless families, building futures with Women and children, Operation Dignity for former Lee Homeless Veterans. And we're looking in you'll hear this if you're lucky enough to be here a little later. We're looking at a new site and consolidating them. It's going to be lovely, but this is the consultant's contract that we're working with. And yes, so now we're going to vote on whether to extend it.
Speaker 0: So I'd like to add that I appreciate member days of bringing this. I think it's important to clarify that so that we're all on the same page. So thank you very much. All those in favor.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. That's five G. The next item that was pulled.
Speaker 4: That's my final L and this is.
Speaker 0: Our.
Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement between the State of California, Department of Parks, Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways, and the City of Alameda by and through the Army to police department by motion amend the fiscal year 20 1617 revenue estimate by 40,000 and expenditures budget by 44,007 seven. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend an Agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc. to Extend the Term until December 2017. (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09202016_2016-3243 | Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement between the State of California, Department of Parks, Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways, and the City of Alameda by and through the Army to police department by motion amend the fiscal year 20 1617 revenue estimate by 40,000 and expenditures budget by 44,007 seven.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. So I pulled this item because once in a while we need to hear good news. And this is good news. This has to do with a a grant award that the city just received in excess of $40,000 to do some important cleanup work. And I did give Chief Larry a heads up that I was going to pull this. So do you want to just tell us really quickly what great things you're going to be able to do with this money?
Speaker 8: Sure. I hear Spencer councilmembers Paul Larry, chief of police.
Speaker 2: Not officer, chief.
Speaker 4: Offender, covered tonight. Those you can see.
Speaker 2: So in a nutshell, what this grant is going to let us do is it will allow us to abate and remove privately owned. Derelict vessels from the estuary. If they're out there, it will also give some boat owners the opportunity to surrender them before they wind up going into the water, which would be even better. It will cost us a lot less to get rid of the boats. It is not for commercial vessels. So if there is a commercial vessel, this grant money would not apply to that. But typically that hasn't been our problem. Our problem has been privately owned ones at about $10,000 a pop. It's not going to get us very many boats. But I think over the last few years we've been on top of it enough that I think, you know, we should be able to to do it within the within the grant funds. And then also we had $50,000 allocated by the council, and that's a parking lot item last year, which I still have to work that out with the finance director to see if we can use that as a. As a cushion just in case we go over for next year. But at any rate, that's what it is.
Speaker 4: So thank you very much. Then the vote is that we have this grant from the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways to do this cleanup. But I know some of the folks here in the audience are homeowners on the estuary. So you know what I'm talking about, right. Anyway, so with that, ready for the vote. Sure. So I move that we adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement between the state of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways, and the City of Alameda by and through the Alameda Police Department and by motion amend the fiscal year 20 1617 revenue estimate by $40,700 and the expenditures budget by $44,770 because there is a 10% local match that we will make again.
Speaker 0: And I wanted to add, I really appreciate the chief you're of all the officers that have been involved in this. I think this started maybe one or two years ago when I was first mayor there, some community activists, if you will, that really wanted this and they organized some meetings and you all showed up. And to have you apply and go through the process and now have this happen is actually a really good thing. So thank you very, very much. All those in.
Speaker 4: Favor.
Speaker 0: I thank you. Motion carries unanimously.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 4: Moving on in.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Five An adoption resolution supporting the 2016 Alameda County affordable housing bond measure. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda By and Through the Alameda Police Department and By Motion Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Revenue Estimate by $40,700 and Expenditures Budget by $44,770. (Police 3112) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09202016_2016-3286 | Speaker 1: Five An adoption resolution supporting the 2016 Alameda County affordable housing bond measure.
Speaker 4: So I also asked for this item to be pulled and to be placed on our on our agenda tonight. But we did hear from Linda McCarthy, from the director of Alameda County Housing Department. And so what I'm asking of our council is an adoption of a resolution, unanimous resolution supporting this 2016 Alameda County affordable housing bond measure . And we heard a discussion. We saw a presentation, and we have more material in our packet.
Speaker 7: So moved.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: All right. And I want to I think that you make the motion, remember?
Speaker 4: I just said that I pulled the item. That's why you made the motion.
Speaker 7: Oh, yes.
Speaker 5: Yeah. All right.
Speaker 0: Then he made the barrier.
Speaker 3: Yes, I can remember already.
Speaker 0: Second. I had also pulled this item. And I think it's very important to pull it so that we can speak specifically to this item. I wanted to commend our supervisors, our county supervisors, including our Wilma Chan, for all of their efforts to make this happen. And I think it's critical that this actually be a county measure. And that's what this is. It isn't just about our city. This is to address issues across our county, which I think is critical. So and I also appreciate the presentation and then I always do like to share what the cost is, but see out at the end of the day. It's 12 to $14 estimated per 100,000 assessed value, which, depending upon the value of the home, would be anywhere from maybe 50 to or five, 50, 50 to $100.
Speaker 5: A year per.
Speaker 0: Piece of property, which I think is actually money very well spent. Given where we are in this area at this time. That being said.
Speaker 4: I would just add to that, Mayor Spencer, it is a way that, you know, one of our earlier speakers said that in Alameda, we help each other. And this is a way that we we help each other. And we're going to hear an item tonight in just a little while. I'm just 60 about the collaboration and consolidation of the parcels for our Alameda Point Collaborative and others. And I confirmed with staff earlier this project would be eligible to apply for these funds. So as the Vice Mayor and I know from 16 years ago, getting a library 20 years ago, getting a library bond past six years ago , you've you've got to start you've got to get those funds and then you start leveraging them. So this is step one. Everybody, I think my council is going to pass it unanimously. And I'm looking to all you voters in Alameda to do the same.
Speaker 0: I want to reiterate that it takes two thirds to pass, two thirds plus one, which is a very, very high bar. So you can think about it and then hopefully join us and help spread the word.
Speaker 3: Call the question.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. Motion carries unanimous. Good work. That's five. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the 2016 Alameda County Affordable Housing Bond Measure (Anticipated 23 Year Parcel Tax Measure). (Community Development 266) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09202016_2016-3311 | Speaker 0: All those in favor. Motion carries unanimous. Good work. That's five.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I also pulled five. Oh, so you two guys great minds. The transportation and traffic is something we hear about all that time in Alameda, in not just Alameda, but the Bay Area and the inner city. See, the vice mayor and Councilmember de SAC, I think, sit on the liaison with AC Transit. But there is an AC transit parcel tax renewal bond measure on this year's ballot. And so we are very fortunate to have our own representative on the AC Transit Board, Elsa Ortiz. Ms. Ortiz And we. We earlier heard a proclamation recognizing National Hispanic Heritage Month. And if I recall correctly, she hails from Colombia. Yes. Anyway, she has served as well on the AC Transit Board for a number of years and Ms.. Ortiz is going to tell you a little bit about this thing you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Some members of the city council. Thank you for allowing me to come before you to ask support for our parcel tax. As you mention, we're not increasing the current $8 that you pay regardless of the size of your house is only $8 per month. Per month. Yes, yes, yes. And so we only extending it for 20 years. Right. It covers expenditures of operations and maintenance. It expires in 2019. And so this is the last time that we have an opportunity to be before the voters in a presidential election. Back in 2012, we thought about going to the ballot, but then measure B B was on the ballot. So we stepped aside in order for B B to pass. We did the same thing in 2014. We stepped aside so that all the cities, including AC Transit and all the transit agencies that benefited could have. Measure B b approved. What we were concerned about was that the arguments that b b would be making would have been the same arguments that we would have made. So that that's when we thought, you know, we stepped aside. So this is the last chance that we have before it expires. It is immense. This is $30 million a year. It means a lot to AC transit. It funds school trips, 30,000 kids today and people to work 43% of our trips. It helps to keeps fares reasonable. Reasonable. I think we have increased fares in the last five years. It funds critical services for seniors and riders with disability, with discounted fares. We also provide discount affairs for kids. We have it requires we have safeguards. We have. And part of the measure, it creates an an advisory and audit process to make sure that we spend the money as what is intended to spend, you know, as you know, funding from state has degrees and from the feds, it can fluctuate. So we become more and more dependent on local measures. We just begun to make a major expansion in service because of measure be. If we were to lose the 20 the $30 million full measure from the parcel tax, it will put us back to 2010, which was beginning to restore service when we have those serious draconian cuts because of the recession that everybody went through. We have been indoors this our measure has been endorsed by Congress. One woman, woman barbara lee. But alameda and contra costa labor council. We do surf contra part of contra costa to the alameda county democratic central committee. This is a club like league of women voters and many other. So I do humbly request that you support our parcel tax.
Speaker 0: Percentage doesn't need to pass.
Speaker 4: What percentage do you need to pass?
Speaker 0: Is it 50% or two thirds?
Speaker 5: Two thirds.
Speaker 0: This is although two thirds now.
Speaker 5: They think that all that transit. Proposal required to be.
Speaker 4: Because if a specific program.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 3: Expects to have a quick question, thank you for your presentation so that the 19 is coming back to.
Speaker 5: Me in December.
Speaker 3: Can you kind of share the schedule on when that is and the headways and what we can expect?
Speaker 5: It's going to start the difficult difficulty we have been having and. You know, taking creating this service expansion is we have to hire more drivers. And so that has been delayed a little bit. We're going to start and and then 19. We will start in December. And yeah, this December is that's the second stage. I think that 20 minutes is the is the frequency that we're going to have. We're also working with because remember, we had three alternatives when we were using the measure B, we have that whenever Easter, NC now and others, we are working with the city to make sure that we get enough funding to then start the line the inside out to the ferry. We're working with the MTC, with AC, DC, with weather and all of you to make sure that we have that kind of money. We also part of our transit plan is to have eventually the BRT running about.
Speaker 4: What Spirit stand for.
Speaker 5: Bus rapid transit, which is dedicated lanes. So yeah.
Speaker 3: And then if somebody is listening that wants to apply, how can they apply to be a bus driver?
Speaker 5: Go to our website. Yes.
Speaker 3: Good question. W WW dot.
Speaker 5: Is the transit thought okay. Yes.
Speaker 3: And please, let's get this bus to the ferry as soon as we can.
Speaker 5: Yes. Well, yeah, I mean. You know, every city asks for more service, but we are bound by kind of money.
Speaker 4: That where your favorite, right?
Speaker 5: Yes. You know, it is. I work hard at.
Speaker 3: Substantial cuts the last time, so we should have more service restored.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Member de SAC.
Speaker 6: I just want to make sure to say that for the viewing audience for Alameda is watching this, that the AC Transit Board really went out of their way to make sure to take the time to obtain what our suggestion or recommendation was with regard to ultimately what turned out to be funding for the Buena Vista line. They took us special considerations for that. And so I hope Alameda has realize the incredible assistance that Mr. Ortiz had gave him personally, as well as the board generally. And one final note. I mean, I hope the residents also realize that the point that she made about, you know, looking into the busses and improving their their access to the ferries is an incredible another incredible point. So that when people go to the polls in November that Alameda is overwhelmingly support this.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Tony. Yeah, I have to, you know, closing remarks. The city of Alameda and AC Transit works really well together. We meet together once every three months for a committee that we have created between the two agencies. We get together, we hear the concerns and what how we can work together. So it is a wonderful relationship that we have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have emotion.
Speaker 4: I think the vice mayor was fair.
Speaker 7: I'd like to move that. We support this as a city council.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 0: Look, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor.
Speaker 5: Of.
Speaker 0: My motion carries unanimously IFP.
Speaker 4: Okay. And this is my last poll.
Speaker 0: When I read it. Let her read it.
Speaker 4: Oh, sorry, sorry.
Speaker 1: Adopted resolution supporting the Bay Area Rapid Transit General Obligation Bond measure to fund BART Safety, Reliability and Traffic Relief Program. | Consent Calendar Item | Adoption of Resolution Supporting the AC Transit Parcel Tax Renewal Bond Measure (20 Year Measure). (Transportation Planning 9161101) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_09062016_2016-3200 | Speaker 0: Okay, I'll take care of things. A counselor referrals we've said would come back to us. Next item on here, council communications. Any at this time. All right. Chan is going to come back as a consent item. Chen B is mayor's nomination for appointments to the Stability Issues Commission as well as Social Service Human Relations Board. And again, we had many good applicants. My nominations for Commission on Disability Issues. Lisa Hall Nomination for Social Service, Human Relations Board, Hale Jenks, JD and K.S.. Thank you. Um, now I will adjourned during the meeting at 11. Actually, we need to go. We will be going into closed session. For those of you that missed this, we did not finish closed session. So we'll be going into closed session. Thank you. Ready. All right. So it's now 1230 in the morning of September 7th, and we have just come out of closed session that we had continued from the beginning of the meeting. Our revised special meeting at that time and direction was given to staff. Did you want not only Inner.
Speaker 1: Harbor Title Canal, but that.
Speaker 0: So I will now adjourn the meeting at 1232. Okay. Thank you. | Council Communication | Consideration of Mayor’s Nomination for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues and the Social Service Human Relations Board. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_08082016_2016-3184 | Speaker 3: increases applicable. To certain rental units and limitations on evictions and the payment of relocation assistance applicable to all rental units. And amending Section two Dash 23.4 concerning the duties of the Rent Moving Advisory Committee and suspending Article 14 of Chapter six in its entirety and consider authoring direct and possible rebuttal arguments. And I have a presentation if you think that I will be giving just a very brief presentation, because on July 19th, the City Council directed that this matter be brought back. Staff prepared the resolution that would need to be adopted to place the matter on the ballot. The resolution contains the ballot question, which is here before you on this slide, and that's limited to 75 words. And this meets that requirement. The two new provisions which were added as part of the matter being presented to the voters is that future amendment or repeal of the ordinance would be retained by the council. So although it's going to the voters for them to consider, it would still be able to be amended or repealed by the council action. And then there's another provision on conflicting law which states that if this measure and the renters initiative, which has already been placed on the ballot, both pass. If this one receives the higher number of votes, it would prevail and the other would be void. And then the last thing that we need to talk about tonight is if you are interested in authoring an argument and possible rebuttal arguments, because the resolution also allows for rebuttal arguments. And if you do that, the deadline is August 18th, which is ten days away, and then the rebuttals would be August 25th. And then just so you guys know and everybody knows, the city will be doing educational outreach similar to the Utility Modernization Act just to provide information to the public and keep them informed about the facts
Speaker 1: . Of the.
Speaker 3: City.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any comments from the city manager to add to the presentation?
Speaker 1: No. This is a policy question for the council. And what we're. What we did last time was to bring the option of putting it on the ballot before the council. And we didn't have the language back then. And so this is the language that staff has provided.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Council on this?
Speaker 4: Councilmember Desai A question for him is why is. In the ballot? There's possibilities of people putting signatures. Is it is it possible for. Should we also decide is it possible for five council members to be included as the signatures?
Speaker 3: Yes. If the council decides tonight to author the argument, you would want to do the same thing you did with the Utility Modernization Act, where you'd pick to a subcommittee of two to write it, and then all five council members can sign it. It's just only two can write it, or else you would have to write it in open session.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 5: But for clarification, that's. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: For clarification. That's just one possible right permutation there.
Speaker 3: Or you have a mix of council members and other people sign it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: There's four options we'd have to decide among. Get to that point. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Question Council member Odie.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Quick question. I know this is in the staff report and on the agenda, but for the benefit of the public, I mean, can you recap what has changed vis a vis the landlord proposal since last time? Yes.
Speaker 3: So at the July 19th meeting, we were waiting to hear if the signatures would be found valid on the landlord initiative that had been circulated, and that in fact wasn't found sufficient. It was short and several hundred signatures, and therefore that petition did not qualify and will not go on the ballot. So this is the only item before you tonight.
Speaker 0: Mayor Spencer, any questions?
Speaker 1: I had a clarifying question when I looked at the ballot question. I think it's 68 words and I wasn't sure what stuff it counted. And we did receive an email question about modifying it. So I want to know how many words is in the mail now? Question Currently I head count.
Speaker 3: I can do a quick count. I'm sorry I had it. I think it was close to the limit, I believe. But let me do a quick here and I'll get back to that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Now it makes.
Speaker 0: Is that your only question, Madam Mayor?
Speaker 1: Yes. To my understanding, we can only have 75 words in regards to the audience's question of modifying it. We have to see whether within that, if we decide to go that path.
Speaker 0: So that. Clarify the under. I'm understanding the mayor say that there's two parts to her question. One is 75 words. Second is modifying the wording.
Speaker 3: Yes, it is limited to 75 words. And yes, potentially words could be changed.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great.
Speaker 5: And just for clarification, and the connection is a bit fuzzy, but I thought I heard the mayor say in response to the audience's question, it wasn't the audience's question. We got one email from one individual. I'm not sure that that forms the basis of changing a valid argument. But just for clarification, we're not talking there's an audience here, but and perhaps that gentleman is in the audience. But what the council received was one email.
Speaker 0: And there may be questions that come up from the audience as well. And if there are no more questions, I'd like to call the speakers. The first three speakers of I will outline their names Paulus Forman, Dorothy Freeman and Joseph Woodard. The clerk tells me that. Ms.. Freeman and Mr. Woodard are seated there. Time to Mr. Forman, is that correct? So the total time, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 3: We've been doing 6 minutes for anybody who gets time.
Speaker 2: It's not going to take that long. I just want to be under the law.
Speaker 0: Said Mr. Foreman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Vice. Vice Mayor. Maharishi. Council members. City Manager. City Attorney. I came here on the 19th to speak on behalf of Alameda Citizens Task Force, who had written you a letter asking you to endorse putting the city ordinance, rent, rent ordinance on the ballot. At that point, we anticipated it was going to be as an amendment to the bylaws. I was as surprised as anybody to learn from the city manager and just sitting here on the 19th that the game had changed and that you now we're going to consider putting it on the ballot as an Ordinance four to confirm the ordinance. I was thrilled with that result because of the fact that it means that the ordinance can be amended by a simple majority of council. And in my mind, that is probably the very strongest or one of the very strongest arguments for this ordinance as opposed to the HRC initiative. This is a complicated matter. As I stated before, it needs to be constantly monitored and improved. You know how I stand on that, so I'm not going to say any more about it. However, when I got home the next day and slept on it, I began to get this haunting feeling of I've never heard of anything like this before, having an initiative for an ordinance that has already been adopted. And I started to obsess about it and Googled it because I don't have Lexus available to me and couldn't find anything in Google of anything like this ever being done. And then I emailed my friend Bob Seewald and said, Bob, what do you think about it? And he says, Well, I've been thinking the same thing. And of course, last night that little shoe dropped with the piece that he wrote in the in the Merry-Go-Round. When I first read it, I was extremely upset. And for a few minutes, maybe a few hours, I thought, maybe I need to come here today and urge you not to put this matter on the ballot. But then I started to think about the fact that even though Mr. Sewell's points may be very valid. That the there's a risk of litigation. What the the the issue he doesn't address is what is the. How significant a risk are we talking about? And when I started thinking about that and thinking about what he wrote, the most serious problem would be if both the ordnance and a RC one. And the ordinance got more votes than HRC because if that happened, I would expect the NRC people would argue, number one, the ordinance was illegal on the ballot. Or number two, that a a amendment of the bylaw. Trump's, if you'll pardon the word, a an ordinance, even if it gets less votes. Problem. But the next thing you have to consider, though, is what's the possibility of both of these winning? And I think that alamy the voters are very informed. I can't imagine any more than a very few voters would vote yes for both of these initiatives. Therefore, I see almost no risk of both winning. So I kind of discounted that. So the next risk, what if both lose? If both lose, then the plaintiffs, if anybody are going to be the landlords because they're going to argue, hey, they both lost. There's no rent control. Any longer in Alameda. We don't have to put our initiative out there. I think, number one, that's a weak argument because of the fact that the ordinance is already on the books and is not going to be repealed just because it loses this initiative. And so and finally, with regard to that argument, I think the landlords are probably pretty smart people. And if FARC has lost, they have dodged a bullet. Are they now going to jeopardize the less stringent? More amendable city ordinance and litigate the matter? I don't think so. So there again, I think they have a weak case. And I also think they might not even litigate. In fact, I would be surprised if they did. And then the third and by the way, I. Well, I don't have to get to that point. The last point for my final weighing of this is my original point last week. If both of these items are not on the ballot, the voters do not have a fair choice. They do not have an equal playing field. And when I look at it all, I say it's worth taking the risk of litigation. Anything you do has a risk of litigation. But again, when I look at the probability of actual litigation occurring, much less winning or losing it, I don't see much of a probability of that happening . So I urge you to stick to your guns and put this on the ballot. And whatever wins, wins will we'll live with it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Foreman. The next speaker, Eric Strimling.
Speaker 6: Good evening. And again, thank you for having us so early in the agenda. So, so many things to speak on. The legal concerns are very great. I brought that up last time, the strife, the two months of battling it out. Honestly, I have a lot of respect for people sitting across from me right now and I don't really want to fight you for next two months. I really don't. And I would prefer to come up with a way that you can be neutral in this fight and and let the ballot work. Not sure.
Speaker 5: What good.
Speaker 1: Is.
Speaker 6: But what I think I want to do is talk to you a little bit about the canvasing I did last night. Some of the people that I spoke to, we're going.
Speaker 2: Door to door. We're doing voter.
Speaker 6: Identification. We are trying to find out where people stand, what their stories are on rent control. Ah, I spoke to a young family of three who signed a lease. The rent is so high they're planning to live out that lease for the year and leave. Alameda spoke to two families who hadn't lived here for a year yet, so they hadn't had a rent increase, which was good. One was from San Francisco and said, What do you mean you don't have rent control? Didn't understand why why people would live that way. And I just would ask people say, oh, look at San Francisco. The rent control is terrible. They're. Talk to tenants in San Francisco and talk to residents of San Francisco. I have many friends in San Francisco. They are not of that opinion and they aren't people who lived there. When it originally passed, they moved in at a time they could afford the rent at that time and they got to stay there. I have many friends in Berkeley. Same story. Another thing that is talked about, I talked to a family that moved in in February. She said, yeah, we had to get the landlord to fix a lot of things. The kitchen counter was collapsing and and he finally did do it. You know, one of the things they say about rent control is that it causes the buildings to deteriorate. Well. The building department has red tagged several buildings this year. I mean, it's the properties are deteriorating with no rent control going on. It's not as a result of rent control if the building's deteriorating. It's the result of negligent landlords or negligent tenants. But it's not about the rent control, public health regulations, building department regulations. They deal with those issues. It's not about the rent control. In the final conversation on hitting a. Please avoid this battle. Please avoid the potential legal battles that will come after it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Crumlin. Sister Pat Nagle.
Speaker 7: A thank you to the city council. I spent this afternoon. With many residents from the Bayview Apartments. You are once again facing. And no cause eviction. Many of them. My heart aches for them. And I assured them. That I would do all I can to address unjust systems. That's support. Such devastating. Results. Catholic social justice teaching. And I am Catholic. Teaches us. That housing. Is a basic. Fundamental right. For all people. Catholic social justice teaching also recognizes the rights to private property. And Catholic social justice teaching also says. That governments and communities have the obligation. To ensure and protect those rights. I fail to see. I'll placing an ordnance. Already passed on the ballot with incomplete information. Serves the community of Alameda. And most especially, how it serves those most in need of safe, secure and affordable housing. I am deeply saddened by the divisiveness that exists in this community, this one single community of Alameda. Since the issue of rent control has come up. We're not a community that stands together. And that stands together to ensure that the rights of all are protected. I'm not sure. How I can support you. Much longer. I want to. But I spoke today with the people who are effectively being forced into a no cost eviction. Basically you've agreed to it. By agreeing to set a limit. Of allowing 25% of all rentals. To be open for no cause eviction.
Speaker 0: If I could have you wrap up your.
Speaker 7: I'll wrap it up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll wrap it up when I am finished. As a person of faith, I do believe that someday justice will come. And it must come at the expense, not at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. But it must come because all of us have worked for justice in this city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So. Bill you. Bill Rowan. Followed by Beth Allen.
Speaker 2: A member of the audience just gave me a comment card. I'm just going to give it to. Well, as you've undoubtedly gathered by now, or you may be heard, art is, of course, taking the position that we do not want this placed on the ballot. And, of course, I'm not the only speaker who is going to be saying that. My obviously we have objections and of course that's been discussed over and over to the council, the ordinance that was passed. And you just heard one of the most significant objections because it allows landlords to evict 25% of the people in a building without regard to the size of the building. If the building is a hundred units, you can kick out 25. If the building is 20 units, you can kick out five. And there are many, many other flaws in the city ordinance. And I know the members of the council. I feel that this was a wonderful achievement that they passed, and obviously we disagree about that. But what I'm mainly concerned about tonight. Is the way that the ordnance is being placed on the ballot. And I disagree with Mr. Forman because I think that a lot of tenants well, let's put it this way, Art is going to go around and we are definitely going to advise voters to vote yes on our initiative and no on the city proposition, because that is the only way we can guarantee that both won't pass. And I really disagree with Mr. Foreman about that. I think a lot of tenants who may not understand what they're doing and I think there's going to be some are going to say, well, I like the ARC initiative. I also like the city initiative because they both help tenants. So I will vote for both. And then I think there's going to be a certain number of landlords and other people who are going to look at it and they're going to say, Well, I don't really like the city ordinance that much, but it's better than the ordinance. And guess what? The city ordinance ends up with more votes, even though both have a majority of the voters in the city. And I think that would be a very regrettable situation. So unfortunately, we are being forced to tell people to vote no on the city ordinance. And this is just really a regrettable situation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Beth Allen.
Speaker 1: Thank you. First of all, I want to say that I don't support the city ordinance going on the ballot. This is my story that I'm presenting to you today. I'm a person with a chronic disability and I live on Social Security. I realize how important the Alameda Renters Coalition initiative is. In 2012, I became ill. And this illness has left me with chronic pain, exhaustion and a broken immune system. I lost the ability to take medications and could not return to work because of my illness. I manage my pain just through daily choices diet, acupuncture, massage and limited exercise. Even with a roommate and shared expenses, I end up choosing between food and my health. I make decisions each month and end up sacrificing something that will improve my health. With rising rents, I am juggling the risk of homelessness with managing a disability. This past year my SSI did not go up at all. When it does, it is usually 1 to 2%. If rent goes up five or more percent, then how do I compensate for the increase? My income stays the same. For these reasons, I proudly support the HRC charter amendment for the rent. For the rent to 65% of the CPI. And no cause evictions and create an elected rent board. I will fight for this initiative all the way to November 8th. Because this is personal, because I live in this town and I make my health sacrifices every single week between acupuncture and food or massage and food. So this is very personal for me. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Allen. Monty Herring and I have a Lisa Vincent who's seated her time to Mr. Hain. So the total, Madam Clerk, is 6 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I should have 6 minutes. Someone say to 10 minutes. Okay. My name is Morning and I have lived in Alameda for 16 years. Tonight you will be voting to place the city's rent ordinance on the November ballot. But it's a modified version containing some last minute poison pill language. Tacked on at the end that enables a city attorney to sit at his or her desk and override the will of 8000 people who signed a petition for true renter protections. This legal maneuvering is a mockery of the democratic process. I object. I have heard some of your claim that the rent ordinance is better because it is more flexible and can be modified by the City Council to make improvements as needed. I submit that this very flexibility makes the ordinance vulnerable to political whims. This City Council has demonstrated a curious reluctance to modify this ordinance except on behalf of landlords, as in the case of the poison pill ordinance addendum I just mentioned. Six months after the fixed term lease loophole was called to your attention. You still have not taken action to close it. What good is flexibility if it is used only to benefit special interests? You claim that rent ordinance is better because of the rec? The Rent Review Advisory Committee citing it as an effective tool for mediating renter and landlord conflicts. I submit to you that the REC is ineffective because most renters fear landlord retaliation, that the REC is a biased forum because it is made up of political appointees. Would you like to have to seek justice before a tribunal of political appointees after you've been hit by a speeding car? The rack is obsolete. People see through the facade. To me, it seems like the city council is out of touch with the voters of Alameda. You live in a social bubble. You need to get out in the streets more and listen to people. April Squires and I spent two and a half hours yesterday afternoon canvasing voters at Alameda landing in front of Safeway. If our results are any indication of voter sentiment, backers of the rent ordinance are on the wrong side of a tsunami. The ratio was 40 to 3 in favor of the Coalition's measure. When Jim Sweeney was here a few weeks ago, the mayor allowed him to drone on and on, well past his allotted 3 minutes. Then city council members spoke at length, some mercifully, about Mr. Sweeney and the part planned in his name. Parks are important, but housing is more important. And timer evaporated, evaporated until high school students had to stage a demonstration to be heard so they could get home at a decent hour on a school night. These were the students from 470 Central who had lived under the traumatizing threat of eviction for over nine months. Think about what that has been like, worrying about where are you going to go to school and losing all your friends. Reading the worry on your parent's faces. The silence where there used to be warmth and joy. And this wasn't the first time there was a destructive pattern here. What do you think it does to children to know their government simply doesn't care about them? I submit that all this angst adds up in a child, that you're doing permanent damage to children and their sense of possibility and life. And there's no prosthetic or an amputated spirit. I think they think you can do better than this. More than a couple of you on this dais are attorneys. I hope you will ponder for a moment a number of landlords, property managers, developers and realtors on your client lists and recuse yourselves, where appropriate, from voting to put the rent ordinance on the ballot. It will only confuse voters. And besides, some pretty smart lawyers are saying your proposal is an invitation for a string of expensive lawsuits. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Back to Mr. Hain.
Speaker 0: Catherine Pauling. And this was the last speaker slip I have. Please submit. If there's anyone who would like to speak tonight, now's your chance to submit your speaker slips.
Speaker 1: Hi. I'm only going to speak a short time to I think many of us feel a certain amount of despair because of the disconnect that exists with the council and with most of us in the city, quite frankly. And I do want to maybe add one explanation when Sister Pat said the incomplete information on the ballot, I think she's correct. This was my first time seeing the argument that is going to be put on there. And you basically are saying, well, it provides some rent stabilization. It provides some rent, some eviction protection, it provides some of this. And you don't at all mention that you are allowing no fault evictions, no cause evictions. This is huge. And it's a huge difference that responsible tenants, responsible families, retired people, veterans, the people of our city, of our community can be thrown out with 60 day notice . And it's disingenuous to put it on there as if somehow it's some of this and some of that. And it looks just like what the same city attorney wrote with our name. You have the nice fuzzy name and we have the harsh rent control rent board costing money. And you don't even mention for cause evictions, which are the only way that we would allow evictions. And so it slighted it. Absolutely. Putting an existing ordinance on the ballot. And you say just to confirm, but if people vote against it, I my question is, does the ordinance remain? In other words, what if we don't pass but people vote against yours? Does that mean there is no city ordinance? And I can't imagine why that's true. If that's true, why is it on there? Except to confuse and split the vote? California Apartment Association, the political director, has sat here the last several regular meetings, didn't have to speak, sent out a letter because we always get copies of them. It's a broad circulation about how pleased he was with what the city council was doing. He hasn't needed to come up here and I don't think it's intentional. I think what you tried to do was to kind of do the half loaf, bake a half loaf, kind of do something out there, but not quite. But in fact, you're doing their work for them. This is the strategy they did in Richmond. This is the strategy they are pushing in Mountain View and Burlingame. And that's to put a second ballot measure, put on a similar ballot measure that confuses people and splits the vote. And I'm sorry, but those 75 general soft words that really don't tell what's going on will specifically do that. It will cause confusion. It does not tell people what the difference are. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Miss Collins.
Speaker 0: Our last speaker is Mary Paris Ruiz.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Mary Berry Reese, and I'm a I've been a resident of Alameda for over, I don't know, 15 to 17 years. I was not intending of coming today. But this is very personal to me. I, I work in the city of Alameda with working with shelter homes, working with Alameda Point Collaborative. And I, I believe that what we're facing right now is just more than than. Rent control. The housing crisis in Alameda itself is bigger than what we have. And I honestly believe that what we are trying to what you're trying to do right now is to create a bigger crisis of what it is, because right now you have a community where you have in the west end of Alameda, families who have been formerly homeless, who are in extreme poverty. And then you have in the other side of the immediate families that are. More affluent and the middle class people like myself and those who are in attendance, we are caught in the middle. I have two jobs. I'll be starting this week working in JCPenney's. I'm a professional. I'm a I have a master's degree, and I had to take a second job to pay my rent. I shouldn't have to. I did everything right. You know, when a school got a degree and I. But what is going on right now is to me is very painful to see because I purposely chose to live in Alameda for a number of different reasons. But one of them, it was the community. If I was out on a business trip, my neighbors would come in and water my plans and walk my dogs. And I was willing to pay a little bit extra for that. You know, but it comes to a point where I have to decide whether to take a second job or possibly a third job to be able to afford the same unit that I came in. I got a print out just the other day from my property manager would indicate that I have in the last ten years have paid over $200,000 in rent. And my light bulb broke in the kitchen and I was asked to pay it. They will not replace it for me. I have to buy one and they'll come in and install it for me. So I should be looking into what is what what we want this community to be and who we want the residents to be. And as I look at what's going on in Alameda Point and we have we have, you know, companies coming in and investing and we have a vision of what we want to do with that. And I just honestly feel that there's plenty of revenue that is going to come to support any cost that could that could that could be accrued by the expense of having a body that can manage, you know, and and help engage the conversation with the property managers, with the landlords. I understand I'm a businesswoman. I understand the importance to having them around. There's there's a value to the to the to to them. But I also think that by we're losing track of what made, what has made Mm. Such a beautiful place, you know. Anyhow, I just want to thank you for your time and I hope that we can move forward in a positive way where Alameda is for all of us, not just for a few. Thank you, Mr. Rees.
Speaker 0: That was our last speaker. So I'd like to open the discussion up to the Council. Like to kick it off. That's my road.
Speaker 6: Okay. I guess I'll go first. Thank you, everyone, for coming out. Talked to a lot of people over the past few days about this issue and I recall being a proponent of putting our measure on the ballot. I still am very proud of what we did. I'm proud of our measure. I think we've we've moved the ball. We put in some strong tenant protections. I wrote about it in the paper. So if you want to hear that again, you can read the paper. I'm not going to repeat all that given. I do have some concern about putting this on the ballot. I mean, given that I think we did such a good job, you know, the argument shouldn't be whether we did nothing or whether we did something because we did something. And I'm glad that that kind of tenor changed today. If you think it wasn't enough, then okay, go ahead. Make that argument to the voters. But if yours loses, ARX loses and then ours loses, then I'm left to wonder. I mean, where what moral high ground is the city have to defend our ordinance anymore? Because a majority of the voters basically said no. I think it was Monti maybe who made that made that comment. You know, let's try to remember how we got here. You know, I sat in that back room with many tenants a long time ago and people from Berkeley, and they basically said, you know, we want this, we want this Santa monica, Berkeley style rent control. And we don't want anything different. No movement, no budging, no negotiation. Now, a few weeks later, I sat in the other room with a bunch of landlords that basically said, We don't want anything. We don't want any rent control. CAA basically said, We want you to keep everything the same. No option A, no option B, no option C, no a hybrid between A and B, you know, blah, blah, blah. So I mean, I get that being an attorney, you know, if you think you you have the leverage, you know, you don't want to compromise. So now we're here. Now we have a battle between side A and side B and at some point I feel like Mercutio, you know, a plague on both your houses. I mean, in Oakland, the tenants and landlords and the council got together and everyone put together an ordinance which, by the way, has some components of the council's ordinance. So it can't be that bad for tenant protections. And they put they came together. We didn't do that. So I say to myself, I wonder, is this really my fight? I mean, is this really our fight as a city council? We did what we were supposed to do. Two sides on the extreme refused to compromise. We were the grown ups in the room. We came up with a compromise that moved the ball forward and did a lot towards tenant protections. So I'm wondering, is this really our fight? You know, maybe this is a fight between ARC and the CAA. I mean, they were the two opposite sides. And I'm not saying one is wrong, one is right, but I'm saying maybe it's not the city council's fight. In my view, I think that our fight is the Yuma. I mean, that's the most critical item on the ballot, in my opinion. And I think as a council we should be devoting our energy as a city staff, we should be devoting our energy and our time to getting the U.N. passed and not weighing into this fight that is really between, you know, ARC and the CAA. So at this point, I will be voting that place, the city's ordinance on the ballot.
Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft.
Speaker 5: I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight and speaking and all the people I've met with outside of this room. And by the way, I have been out on the street and I have been walking and talking and meeting with many of you in this room and many others. I just want to address a couple of comments that caught me by surprise because of the strength of the tone. Sister, while I appreciated the principles on which you spoke and I'm a huge fan of Pope Francis. I also want to recognize that Alameda is a very diverse community, and many of us come from other ethnic backgrounds and other faith groups. And so I certainly don't want anyone left with the impression that one group or the other occupies the moral high ground. And I would say that everyone on this council has searched their soul long and hard going into this. And so while you may not like everything we did, we were the ones who got the ball rolling. We tried to reach out. We tried to get landlords and tenants to meet with us to see what we could all work together in an ordinance. Many of the provisions that are in the charter amendment explained, for example, the unintended consequences of something like having an extra premium for relocation assistance for vulnerable citizens who are the elderly. 62 and over have a disability. Very eloquent speaker this evening or have children in the household 18 years and younger. The reason and this comes from the executive director of our housing authority is the unintended consequences is that landlords don't want to rent to those categories. Better to have relocation expenses that are fair across the board. Rather than single out categories. But that's something that in our ordinance, we at least have the flexibility. A lot of thought went into that. There's a number of of items in our ordinance where we differ. But remember, this council was the one that addressed this. So I'm taken aback. And I know you're right that the dialog has gotten heated, but, you know, please don't accuse us of having done nothing. We did something. It wasn't to everyone's liking. But and the other thing is about the CAA. Yes. I've been contacted by members of the CAA. And you know what I told them and I told them this even before the petitions were counted, I said Grassroots efforts will trump the big money every time I've been involved in a couple of them over my years of political involvement in this city. So but at the end of the day, we also on the council had to look at all sides. We are looking at what is good for the city in terms of being able to maintain a budget, to cover services like the building department, like code enforcement that goes out and finds these homes that need to be red tagged and need and repairs done. So we don't want to bankrupt our city, but we can get into the details. I feel as strongly today as I ever did about the ordinance our council put together, and I will support it and I will go out and speak. I thought Councilmember Odie did a nice job in his opinion piece in the paper. I have no concerns with the flexibility of a charter amendment versus an ordinance, but I also realize that this is a long ballot that we're going into. A week ago, a little over a week ago, League of California Cities East Bay Division met, Councilmember De Saag attended, I attended. City Manager Joe Carmack attended a political consultant for the league, was there speaking to us about only some of the 17. That was 17 state measures that are on the ballot this time. And that's after, you know, the presidential party and, you know, everything on down. And then we have county measures that will be on the ballot. And by the way, there's a very important one that you all need to get before, and that's the county affordable housing bond, because if as at least one speaker mentioned in this room, it's also a matter of supply and demand. And we've been harping on that. I will arrange a presentation and ask for this council to endorse that measure. We are not looking the other way. We realize that it's a matter of looking at a lot of different solutions because there is no one cause of of the problems that we're facing. But given that it is a long ballot and given and let me just ask for clarification here, maybe from the city clerk in the presentation that you did, there was the point. It said the city will do educational material outreach similar to the Utility Modernization Act. Are we able to do that even, you know, just to educate the electorate about our ordinance?
Speaker 3: Yes. And the attorney can back me up. Just to educate?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Just to present facts and educate. We're not advocating for a position. We were just putting out education.
Speaker 5: What's out there? Because I do want the voters to understand and the voters will decide. And I have huge respect for the voting process that there is a law out there that exists. It is a flexible law. And I've already reached out to a number of you and said if you're and I mean a number of you renters and said if your measure doesn't doesn't get the requisite number of votes, I am ready today to sit down and talk about what we could do better. I already have my own list, but I'll compare mine with yours. But anyway, at this point, I am interested to hear what the rest of the council says. But I feel that we can support our ordinance, that it is a winner for a number of reasons that doesn't necessarily have to go on the ballot. But I want to hear my colleagues speak as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council member de SA.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much for everybody coming out on this Monday night to talk about an issue that will indeed be one of historical significance for the or the city of Alameda. Indeed, we are right now in the midst of a regional and local rent crisis of many months. So the question tonight is basically this what role must government play in stopping the excessive rent increases? Because that's the crux of the matter. Stopping excessive rent increases. Alameda. Voters are discerning, intelligent and not easily confused persons. Whether they're homeowners or renters, whether they live on the East End or inside. And I think that whatever decision that we make tonight, we have to honor that. We have to pay tribute to that. Is this our fight? Yes. I do think that this is our fight. But the reality is this. Judging by how well-organized the coalition is, the reality is that we're going to it's going to be really, really difficult trying to eke out a victory for our measure should we put our ordinance onto the ballot? It will be a real uphill battle. But I believe that even if it is a losing cause, I do believe that this is the fight that we must join. And I feel that way because. What I see in our ordinance is. The Alameda way of dealing with. Seemingly intractable issues the in a way that I've known since I first came here in 1974. And that way is about working things out, about dealing with matters on a case by case basis and letting the proponents and opponents figure things out. And when I look at the rent review advisory board and the way in which we strengthened it with the March ordinance. I really see that reflecting Alameda way of dealing with seemingly intractable issues. I'm really concerned about the. Yeah. Renner initiative. I see so much of it really reflecting more Berkeley or more Santa monica in my understanding is that that's that's where a lot of the initiative came from. Right. So I think I do think that in promoting our ordinance and placing it on the ballot, it's important that we do that because it reflects the Alameda way of dealing with intractable issues. And it also is demonstrated to be an effective way of dealing with the excessive rent increases. Since the adoption in March, there's been almost 40 cases or so. And many, many of those cases have come to through the mediation process have been settled. Now I'll be the first one to admit, you know, the settlement, I think, has been on average about 8%. I'd be the first one to admit that at 8% is much higher than 1.7%. But I'll tell you what. We stop that 20%, 30%, 40% rent increases. We stopped the $500 rent increases with the mediation process. And I think this is something that we need to tout the rest of the residents. I'll be the first to admit, you know, seeing how well organized you guys are and seeing how, you know, the energy with which you bring that your passion to adopt, you know, the the Berkeley style rent control. I'll be the first to admit that, you know, in pushing our ordinance. I'll admit this may be a losing battle, but I tell you what, I think it's worth the fight because I do think it represents the Alameda way of doing things.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. De Saag. In my opinion, I think the best community discussion that we can have is to have both items on on the ballot. There's a lot of degrees of understanding those of us who live within the bubble and who've lived this issue for the last, oh, two years, understand it and understand the ins and outs. And even though that ordinance has only been in effect since March, it's still not fully known. However, I think it's very important for the electorate to be exposed to two campaigns campaigns that point out the strengths and weaknesses of of the ordinance and or the initiative. An informed vote is better than a vote of frustration, and I think this is the best way to do it. And it is only to two ordinances and whatever. Whether this ordinance is on the ballot or not, there are still going to be 17 state measures on in front of us. So I think the the long ballot argument I don't buy. It's people pay attention and I mean what's in the Alameda voter pamphlet and I think it'll give us a good chance to have a discussion. And I look forward to talking to people. I've talked to a lot of you. I've talked to a lot of my neighbors and my constituents about this, and I look forward to speaking with them on the specifics and having the debate. And I think it can be civil at the tone tonight with civil at the tone in the last few meetings has been very civil . And this is what democracy should be about. And I look forward to it. Madame Mayor.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I. In my humble opinion, this ordinance was the hard work of council listening carefully to the community. There were many compromises from council members along the way to come up with this. I don't think it is reflective of what any of us started with, and to me it is actually a very reasonable solution to a very serious problem. And I personally agree with the vice mayor his comments that in order to actually have a full discussion of what the tenants or a proposed ordinance as well as councils in the state, it is best to have it both on the ballot.
Speaker 0: Do I hear emotion? I.
Speaker 1: Or I'd like more discussion.
Speaker 5: Please.
Speaker 0: By the way.
Speaker 5: Explain city attorney, if you would, how the how the rest of what we have to do works, because there's the question of whether or not to put the measure on the ballot. But there's also the question of who would author the direct and possibly the rebuttal argument.
Speaker 1: Yes. So that's what we're we're asking you to do. Should you choose to put the measure on the ballot, you would have to approve the resolution and then decision would have to be made as to whether or not the council wants to draft an argument simply for the measure, and because there is not time to come back again to an open public session, we would we would suggest the council appoint a committee of two, which is what you did for the Utility Modernization Act, and they would do it.
Speaker 5: So my problem, I'm just listening to the comments. I think I can see where the votes are are headed. Meaning no disrespect, but vice mayor matter. S.E., you, of course, voted against the ordinance to begin with. So, you know, had you had your choice, we would have just gone with the rack. So. Well, yeah. I mean just.
Speaker 0: That's let me respond to that. Had in my head had I had my choice, I would have. And I said this multiple times as I would have liked to have seen that the relocation fees be subject to mediation because I believe strongly in mediation. It works. I was supportive of the other measures that were in, but I think that was a serious flaw that we applied one standard, whether you needed it or not, to the back end of the process. And I repeated this many times. I don't plan on offering myself as part of a committee to write a arguments in favor. That's and if this measure is defeated by a vote of the people, our ordinance goes down and the ordinance goes down. I see that as an opportunity to open up the discussion and modify. So that's that's where I stand. And I would suggest that tonight, if we take the question of whether it should be on the ballot first as a as one motion and then deal with the motion and the discussion about whether the council offers an argument and a rebuttal with the second motion or a second set of discussions
Speaker 5: . And just to follow on your response, the the beauty of an ordinance is it has the flexibility to add other provisions. But. Okay, so then. If let's suppose the vote is a 3 to 2 vote. Is it only the voters? Only the members of the council? Who or can it be it? It could be an oak.
Speaker 4: Or the Marriott.
Speaker 1: I I'd like to make a comment.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. In regards to the ballot question, I had some proposed changes and a few I didn't understand both there if you wanted to as part of the motion, the ballot question.
Speaker 0: So go ahead.
Speaker 3: City Clerk The adoption of the resolution includes the ballot question. Therefore, if you adopt the resolution, you'd be approving the language of the ballot question, which I did do the count and is 73 words.
Speaker 1: The 73 words correct. So in regards to the ballot question, some changes, I was going to suggest this at the beginning. Shall the voters adopt the city council's march, ferret out the word council there? Just because I think that I'm not sure people will understand it, I'd like to be able to describe it as city council. Another part that I thought we could consider changing would be on BEE requires mediation review, possibly add the word review there. I'm not sure that that's necessary, but because really mediation on C in regards to the title that says restricts reasons for evictions. I'm concerned about that language. I would prefer language that says limits and conditions, evictions. So that doesn't change the number of words. But to me it's more forthright about what the council is proposing. Limits and conditions. Evictions. And then. Also on the it says. Okay. Including binding decisions for rent increases above 5%. So that might also make it more clear. But it is and I don't know where the council members are in any of those suggestions, but those were ideas I had.
Speaker 0: Matt Ashcraft.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure I can even follow that. The.
Speaker 0: So if I could repeat what I thought was said, one is that it adds the word council. After City salts. The City Council adopted by the City Council. Correct.
Speaker 1: Correct. City Council's apostrophe S.
Speaker 0: And then the second requires review, not mediation of all residential rent increases above 5%. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: A French. Mediation review for the word review. I'm not sure that's necessary. May be redundant. Same on the second part of that phrase, including binding decisions on rate increases above 5%. If you want to clarify that.
Speaker 0: Well, unless there's some wording we're not here, I don't think we have the capability of reconstructing the whole thing. But I think and then and then the other one was limit and condition. Reasons for evictions.
Speaker 1: See on TV evictions, it says, restrict reasons for evictions. I think limits and conditions evictions appear more clear in regards to what we're really doing.
Speaker 0: So going down the list, how does everybody feel about adding council to its as adopt the cities right now adopt the city council's March 31st. Mr. de Song.
Speaker 4: Madam City Clerk. The inclusion of the word council actually doesn't represent a new number, right? Because City Council is still one word.
Speaker 0: Those everybody agreeable to that one.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm not voting for it. So not agreeable to anything.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I remember Ashraf. I'm looking at the city attorney. Were you going to add?
Speaker 1: Well, the only thing I would say about that is it is city councils. It's the city council adopted it, but it is the city's ordinance that's in the Alameda Municipal Code. But I don't mean to be argumentative. It's up to the Council.
Speaker 0: Mr. Desai.
Speaker 4: Well, what I would definitely defer to is the city attorneys or city managers. Observations on these are largely because I have to believe that whatever wording that we chose, it was. Tightly wound. So, you know, I. So there.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: I agree.
Speaker 0: Not not hearing a majority. I suggest that we now consider a motion on whether to put the words as written on the on the ballot for the direction that we gave staff. We have a motion.
Speaker 4: As some.
Speaker 0: Moved by Councilmember de SOG.
Speaker 5: A motion to put the measure on.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: As written? Yes. I was at a second, Madam Mayor.
Speaker 1: I'll second it.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Oh, I'd like to have a roll call per the clerk's instruction.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council Member States?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: As the Ashcraft?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Matter? Yes. No. Mayor Spencer.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Carries three.
Speaker 0: Motion. Carries 3 to 2. On the second question of offering a argument for or against.
Speaker 1: They would be interested in offering arguments, and I would like to be part of that.
Speaker 5: All right. And I'm going to if you'd call on me.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 5: I'm going to strongly object to the mayors having any part in the drafting for a couple of reasons. I saw the opposition. You wrote to the renter's measure and. Excuse me. To the. To the.
Speaker 1: Well, we go.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 1: The TV.
Speaker 5: BOTH Yeah. Yeah. No, I have seen the draft. Yes, I will. Sure, sure. We can start at the top. You have authored a measure in opposition against your own councils. Act, the Utility Modernization Act, but that's another topic for another day. But that certainly gives me pause and having you involved in this one. And I did see the opposition that you authored to the the ranchers ballot measure. And the reasoning was. Substandard. The writing was poor. And and I think it's time for other people to step up to that task.
Speaker 1: With all due respect, I think it is appropriate because I've been very you know, I've been part of this process from the beginning. I am the mayor and this is council's work. So I would like to be part of it. I don't know if there's anyone else that would be interested in that. In writing it.
Speaker 0: Mr. Dysart.
Speaker 4: The real since I have already been involved in the UML and I have joined in with members of the residents in raising concerns by a ballot response to the Renner initiative. I. I'm not I'm happy to get involved, but I don't have to get involved. That what I'm getting at. I would like to say I would like to sign it, though. As a council member, I have confidence that whoever writes it and offers it in conjunction with staff will write something that is. Persuasive.
Speaker 0: Mr. Modi.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I do think there's some value in having a different set of authors. Author This one than. Author The opposition to the The Ark Ordinance. It's up to two. Right. So it could just be one. I think we could just say ask, have you write it?
Speaker 5: Or it could be the two of us. And the point being, I would like the opportunity to highlight the strength of our ordinance as opposed to attacking anyone. But if I would be willing if Mr. O'Reilly would be willing to do with me and I will say I do appreciate my colleagues, council member de SAC and vice mayor matter. He did a very nice job and the the humor. Arguments and with the help of city attorney. Okay. But still you did. And but so a couple of us haven't stepped up to the plate.
Speaker 0: And I'd like to mention also that the process that we went through wasn't Councilmember de Song and I. Who wrote it. We sat in there, put good ideas down, and they were formed by with the help of city staff. And I see this is the same way. And I think if I'm not mistaken, the opposition to the Uma that the mayor. Right. You can correct me if I'm wrong. You wrote it yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Mission to the enemy.
Speaker 0: Yes. Without city staff and.
Speaker 5: We probably.
Speaker 1: Without staff. Correct? Without staff.
Speaker 0: And I think that this is a process. If we're going to follow this, it's either question, we're going to follow the same process or not. And if we.
Speaker 1: Don't have a problem, we're going to sell.
Speaker 5: Okay. So Manning emotion based here.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 5: Go ahead. So I will make a motion that I would volunteer myself and Councilmember Ody for the subcommittee just as we designated. The Vice mayor and councilmember, they said before. But anyway, we have a second.
Speaker 0: We have a second.
Speaker 4: Well, let me ask this question. Are there possibilities of council members joining in and as signatories, once you guys have finalized whatever language, it's a possibility?
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 6: I mean, if you look at option three, have a combination of council members and other eligible voters. Or for authorized no more than two council members. Okay. I'm sorry. Three or four other people. So that would be option three, I guess, right?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, I'd be happy to cosign on the rebuttal. OBL rebuttal against ours.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, should we do this?
Speaker 6: I mean, if we have a committee, then that limits us to option two, three and four. I guess we could pick two, three and four after we pick a committee or it doesn't really matter to. I think if we ever.
Speaker 0: Get a second.
Speaker 6: On the floor, you're going to say.
Speaker 4: Oh, no, I just want to know. I would like to sign one of these two, whether it's the rebuttal to the the opposition or whether, I mean, one.
Speaker 5: Understood.
Speaker 6: So do you want to pick an option and then see if we can?
Speaker 5: I think a number four would cover that.
Speaker 4: Okay, then.
Speaker 0: Do we have a second position? Okay. Second, it's been moved into active discussion.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to ask for clarification.
Speaker 0: Yes. What's your question?
Speaker 1: My clarification is everything that I heard on the last part correctly, member Ody and member Ashcraft both voted against putting this on the ballot. And now both of them are asking to be the two that write the argument in favor of putting it on the ballot.
Speaker 4: That is a.
Speaker 1: Little. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: So I think that that's ironic.
Speaker 1: And I would be very concerned about having two people's rights and argument in favor of it, just voted against putting it on the ballot. However, that being said, if in fact, the rest of the council has an agreement to do that, I would think it should absolutely be reviewed by the majority of council before it is submitted . And I personally would.
Speaker 5: Like the way it.
Speaker 1: Was so that all council members have the opportunity to sign the argument in favor, not just the two that voted against putting it on the ballot. So I don't think that's at all appropriate.
Speaker 0: So I see the city clerk shaking her head. My understanding is that the committee works with staff to to write this and then individuals can sign it. But there's no meeting to everybody. Put a thumbs up. You either sign it or you don't. Is that correct? Right.
Speaker 1: I want everyone to have the opportunity to sign it. And I would be concerned, though, that if there's only those two, I would prefer that there be at least someone that voted for putting on the ballot involved in writing it. And every that third person is it doesn't have to be myself, but I don't think it is all appropriate to have two people that voted against putting it on the ballot be the only two councilmembers involved in writing it.
Speaker 6: Can I speak to that?
Speaker 1: I truly think it's important to have someone who voted for putting it on the ballot involved in writing it.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 4: I think Mayor Spencer raises a good point. My feeling is, is this is that, though, what I would hope is that. Given the magnitude of the issue before us, whether we're going to have focused our rent control or we're going to go forward with the strengthened mediation process, given the magnitude of the impact of the of the question before us on generations of Americans, in my opinion, my hope is that this is something that all council members sign off on. And if that means that Council member Odie and Council member Ashcraft write it up, I'm fine with that as long as that we all because this is this is huge as huge as any issue that will face in the history of Alameda. This one is for the. This one is for the fences. And I think. As a council, we need to be united in expressing our support for the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Not to mavrodi.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice. One of the things we take seriously well, some of us do take seriously on this council is that when the council makes a decision, if we were in the losing side, then we respect the will of the council. And if tasked with the assignment of drafting this as a subcommittee, I will respect the will of the council, even if it disagreed, you know, with with the vote I took. I mean, that's what we're supposed to do. Some on the council don't always do that. They continue to undermine even after the council spoke. And so I, I think maybe we may if I can ask for a friendly amendment, because I think we did number four, which doesn't call for any council members to sign all except and then we want to have the possibility of council members signing it. So that would be number three, right?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. I accept your friendly amendment.
Speaker 0: And you repeat the amendment. A city clerk. So we all know we're.
Speaker 3: Authorized no more than two council members to draft an argument and have a combination of council members and other eligible voters sign.
Speaker 4: Well. So I guess if I'm going to be clear about that the that language of. I just want a very specific that the two council members write it and then the five of us are assigned it if we so choose.
Speaker 5: You know what I read? I read number two.
Speaker 6: Well, that's all council members saying. We could modify three and say that up to all council members. And if one refuses, then other eligible. Yeah. How about that?
Speaker 0: Oh, declined.
Speaker 6: I mean. There may be a contrarian in the mix. You never know what this council.
Speaker 0: Madame Mayor comment on.
Speaker 1: I would support. I think it's imperative that all council members be allowed to sign it.
Speaker 4: And that allows for that possibility. But. Councilmember Ashcraft and Councilmember Odie are going to put it together.
Speaker 6: With staff's help.
Speaker 5: Just like you did, right?
Speaker 1: Well here.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: All right. I think we have a motion.
Speaker 0: We have a motion in a second. Madam City Clerk Roll call.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Daza Yes. As the.
Speaker 5: Ashcroft Yes.
Speaker 3: That arrestee.
Speaker 0: As.
Speaker 1: Odie, yes.
Speaker 3: Mayor Spencer.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: So that was unanimous. Five Vice.
Speaker 0: Game.
Speaker 1: Okay. Then, in regards to their rebuttal.
Speaker 0: I understand the rebuttal argument will be. It's the same committee, the same conditions similar to the Uma. Is that I see people nodding heads on. They're radio for the fly, Madam Mayor. Yes, it's correct. Yes. Thank you. Any more questions from the council?
Speaker 1: So I don't think that that was the emotion. I think it was for the argument, not argument and rebuttal.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: May I address.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft, please?
Speaker 5: The second directive was consider authoring a direct and possible rebuttal argument. We took care of both of them in one vote.
Speaker 6: That's what the staff report says.
Speaker 0: Okay. Understanding the staff report. Is that clear? Okay. Item six be.
Speaker 1: That has nothing.
Speaker 0: I just I would like to have the city clerk just read the note so that everybody knows. She joined us late.
Speaker 3: So. And. Six Feet was a placeholder for potentially putting on the landlords initiative and since it was not found sufficient, we did not add it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Item seven City Manager Communications.
Speaker 1: So one thing I just wanted to follow up on Glenn's Tigers General Manager retirement that he talked about at the beginning of the meeting. Liz Warm. Adam is going to be the interim. Part time general manager and Joel and Boyer is going to assist as a previous AMP employee as well. So I just wanted to let everyone know about that and I really appreciate those taking this on in addition to everything else. | Regular Agenda Item | Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election to be Consolidated with the City’s Next General Municipal Election on November 8, 2016, and Submitting to the Voters at That Election a Measure, the Rent Stabilization Act, that Proposes to Have the Voters Confirm Ordinance 3148, which Amended the Alameda Municipal Code by (a) Adding Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning (1) Review of Rent Increases Applicable to Certain Rental Units and (2) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units; (B) Amending Section 2-23.4 Concerning the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory Committee and (c) Suspending Article XIV of Chapter VI in Its Entirety; and
Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal Argument. (City Clerk 2220) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07192016_2016-3118 | Speaker 0: No. No motion fails. Okay. Okay. So then if we don't. Right. So we already had ten and ten by itself that failed. We had. So then. Okay, so then you can do a motion to reconsider, right. By someone that voted they would change their vote. So I will be that person for ten a only. I'll move that we hear ten a only a.
Speaker 3: Second so we don't keep going around in circles.
Speaker 0: I was in favor. I opposed that. That motion carried unanimously. So we will hear ten a only and on ten a the staff going to present. So first. But I need to note there's a conference coming up right for our cities and we need our delegates appointed. I wanted to know who from council is attending the conference. Member de SAG. Is there anyone else attending? It's in Monterey. It's in my right. It's the on matter. Which October one is this year, right? This is the one in long the October five event in Long Beach.
Speaker 5: How many can go.
Speaker 0: To the seven? Oh, you're right. In Long Beach. I think anyone can go. That's interesting. From council. Yes. Yeah. So do you want it? But are the dates it?
Speaker 1: I was reading the history seventh in Long Beach, Berlin.
Speaker 0: Okay. So remember to remember De SAG is planning to attend. I'm planning to attend. Are there other council members that want to attend? So why don't the two of you? I think it would be primarily because she is our delegate. You be the you are usually. I am I am the alternate. But I can't go on those dates.
Speaker 5: So I'll I'll move that. We nominate Councilmember de Sung as our primary and Mayor Spencer as our alternate.
Speaker 0: A second.
Speaker 3: Discussion.
Speaker 0: Yes, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: I'd like to ask if we can give direction to our delegates to carry to that. I'm asking the.
Speaker 0: Question what the questions will be asked.
Speaker 3: Well, all the all the let me can I finish by my rationale for this all of the league California cities emails that come to me. I can count on half of my hand the number that address the item that we just agonized over for the last 18 months. And we do have we have a crisis that is in all the big cities. And I don't see anything in the League of California Cities about that. And I'd like it to be brought up. I also I have a council referral on homelessness. I don't know if people notice we've done our accounts, but we have to start doing something about it because we have a real homeless problem here and it can't be just solved in Alameda and that doesn't show up on any of the lead California cities. And emails and notifications and newsletters. And one of the things I heard that one city is looking to ask the governor to declare a state of emergency so that funding can come. But we I think we really need to do something about this. And I'd like that kind of a message to be carried by our delegates. If it's agreeable to the council, do the league and say, let's let's start something on this so that we can we can get some help here.
Speaker 0: In number in a comment. I mean, I agree with all that vice mayor matter. I would also say it would be nice if we were to see the agenda and the items that are to be voted on and certainly before October 5th to the seventh, we should have an opportunity to do that. And so then we can all discuss and give direction because that's only appropriate, right? I think we would have to know specifically what the issues are as well.
Speaker 5: So it.
Speaker 3: Looks.
Speaker 0: Like a motion.
Speaker 3: But I just want to make sure that if it's not if that the issues are homelessness and rent escalation.
Speaker 0: Well, there's multiple issues, I know, that will be raised.
Speaker 3: And my point is my point is that they don't show up on any of the information that's being sent to me from California cities. And it's a big crisis. And it's just amazing that the league hasn't used its muscle to to get some help for us.
Speaker 8: Well, let me intervene. Let me just say that as the representative to the California League of Cities, where the city of Alameda, including the East Bay Division, what I can do is certainly ahead of time as soon as possible. Get in touch with our East Bay League of Cities. Contact the staff person, particularly, particularly to find out if there are a range of issues regarding rent crisis, a range of issues regarding homelessness, particularly just see if they will be as part of the agenda for the October annual meeting so that we can ahead of time understand what and then perhaps in late September or early October.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I might go a step further and tell you. Talking about Samantha Cahill, I think that you would contact her. And she's great to actually say we would like to see this come before the delegates in Long Beach in October rather than just an inquiry.
Speaker 9: In the city could put a. A request on the agenda on the.
Speaker 3: Air we got.
Speaker 9: And so that's one option. The other option is that they will present, like, probably. Four weeks, three weeks before the conference, what all the city submittals are, and then we can bring it and have the council.
Speaker 0: Vote on it. So then can we also direct staff to then see what's our time frame? We're going to have one August meeting, but then we won't meet again till the first Tuesday in September. Do we do we need to give staff direction now, maybe to prepare a request to the league? Do you want to bring up something? Just.
Speaker 5: So can you amend the motion then? I'll accept that.
Speaker 0: Okay. I would. Did you want to amend? You want to create a motion?
Speaker 3: I think if. If it's your pleasure to have to have two different motions. I'm happy with our our delegates. That's, you know, I think that's fine.
Speaker 0: But but the only way to change that motion at this point would be if someone had voted. And we have voted. Yes, Madam Chair. We have voted yes. Okay. We're just in the discussion period. So we could still do a friendly amendment.
Speaker 3: So I'd like to amend it so that it's all tied up in a package under this agenda item that we provide, that we direct staff to provide the delegates. With. With a direction to raise the issue. Of homelessness and rent crisis in our city is the delegate to the delegates at the meeting in Long Beach.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you said rent crisis. Yes. Okay. So are you asking the league to come up with something that would modify the work that we just did?
Speaker 3: So I'm looking for things that the state could do to help us out because there's a lot of things that funding for affordable housing that the state is not loath to do. Tax credits for affordable housing construction.
Speaker 0: That would be housing as opposed to rent support?
Speaker 3: Well, yes, housing. And in general, yes.
Speaker 0: Keep it broad, huh? I think so.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I.
Speaker 0: Agree. You should be on rent stabilization or rent control that I think if they just have rent, that that would be what people are.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Housing. Crisis.
Speaker 0: Housing.
Speaker 5: I accept that friendly amendment. My pleasure.
Speaker 8: I just want to make clear, make sure that so the amendment is that we will have those delegates and the alternate pursue in conjunction with the League of California Cities issues regarding housing, particularly with regard to the rent crisis and to homelessness. Yes. So that and within that, there are a range of approaches.
Speaker 3: Yes. To be determined by the collective body there.
Speaker 0: And are those the only issues that we are seeking? Well, I think we'll know more.
Speaker 3: Those are the ones that those are the ones that I wanted.
Speaker 8: To put the time to.
Speaker 3: And I have a council referral on one of them. And we've just spent hours and hours and hours going back across all of our terms here on on housing crisis issue with regard to the rent.
Speaker 0: And any other issues. And the council members know, I'm always impressed with the city. It was a League of California Cities that they do cover a way. I mean, given how diverse our state is, they cover a wide range of issues. I think the one that the vice mayor raised certainly resonates across the state, but I would be content to see the agenda, yes, when it comes in September. So could that be a friendly amendment to review the agenda at that time so we could and weigh in on those issues that we'll be perfectly.
Speaker 3: Happy.
Speaker 5: With that, too.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So there's a motion. There's not a second motion.
Speaker 2: Are you.
Speaker 3: Asking it?
Speaker 0: You second it. All right. All those in favor. I that motion carried unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I do think it's important that the entire council. At this meeting and then at the future meeting, we'll see the agenda, give direction to our delegates.
Speaker 0: So that's what should be out there. That's that's.
Speaker 3: Why. Yeah, right.
Speaker 0: I absolutely agree with that.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And that it helps the delegates. I really do. All right. So now we are back to City Manager Communications. Okay. So patient. | Council Communication | Written Communication from the League of California Cities Requesting Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternates for the Annual Conference. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_07052016_2016-3077 | Speaker 0: The staff want to say anything before I call the speaker? Oh, no. Okay. I just. I'm just going to go ahead to you. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call the speaker. Paul Foreman.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. Well, this is my third time. Maybe the third time. Third strike in, year out. I don't know. The. The charter, the Alameda City Charter. Says provides that the mayor may take command of the police and fire department and govern the city by proclamation whenever the council determines the public danger or emergency requires such action. The ordinance you are about to vote on for the second time today gives the city manager acting as a director of emergency services. The power to control and direct the effort of emergency organization for the accomplishment of the purposes of this disaster ordinance. The rescue operation, which between and coordination of services and staff of this emergency organization and resolve questions of authority and responsibility to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency. For to require emergency services of any officer or employee. To command the aid of as many citizens of this community as deemed necessary in the execution of the duties. Just to give you a few. Now, if that language doesn't, just, in more words, say exactly the same thing that the charter says about the powers of the mayor . I've been practicing law for 27 years. I represent a redevelopment authority. I represent a school district. This is as clear a case of conflict as I can imagine. And what makes it even worse is that. You decided in the first reading to solve the problem by inserting this language in the ordinance? This ordinance is neither intended to restrict, nor does it conflict with the city charter, section 61, which is the power of the mayor. To me, that's tantamount to Congress passing a law saying no congressman can be publicly criticized, but this doesn't conflict with freedom of speech, saying it does not make it so. If there's either a conflict or at the very least, there's a an appearance of a conflict. I do not want the chief of police or the fire chief to get conflicting orders from the city manager and from the mayor as what they should do in the midst of a disaster. I do not want an Alexander Haig moment in Alameda. When a disaster actually occurs. Whether I'm right or wrong. There is an appearance of a conflict here. And you either. If there's a real conflict, you resolve it by either giving the power back to the mayor or amending the charter. If there's not a conflict. All I ask is you at least put in the ordinance why there's not a conflict. So some reasonable human being reading it like a police chief or a fire chief can know what you're talking about, because I don't. And just one last thing. I understand that the city attorney has given you an opinion on this because Mr. Mallory said he would ask for it. I know those things are supposed to be in private. This is a public matter. It involves the disasters that involve all of us. If there's a if I'm wrong. Or write whatever the public is entitled to know. Why? Not a matter of private discussion between counsel and attorney.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Counselor, would you like to speak to the issues he's raising?
Speaker 7: So. Certainly, Madam Mayor, I did provide information to the council which frankly could have been shared with me. I didn't do it because that's not my role. It's up to the council to do so. But I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 7: The charter. The language that you cite is permissive, not mandatory. We are completely in compliance with the charter. The charter section that you reference, which is 6.1, was put into place when the charter was adopted in 1937. Prior to the time there were any emergency operations, plans or the sophistication that we as a country, not just the city of Alameda, have learned over the years about emergency operations pursuant to all of that great learning, this city council, not this particular one, but the City Council of Alameda adopted in 2008 an emergency operations plan which lays out. So there's no confusion what happens in the case of an emergency, what the structure is. It has all been adopted by the city council pursuant to their authority under the charter. And the charter is also very clear about the distinctions throughout between legislative and executive authority. The legislative authority is established by the City Council as the policymakers. The actual implementation of policies is given to the city manager and it's made very clear in the charter that that's the way that works. So the emergency operations plan completely follows that theory. The Council has adopted a policy legislation and emergency operations plan, and the city manager is named as the emergency director, operations director. And there are goals and there is a huge binder that talks about all of those things. So this in no way modifies that. And yes, there is the language in in section six one, again, permissive, not mandatory, which by its very language says if there is a certain set of circumstances that the council decides requires that the mayor be put in charge of these things, they can do that. But what they have done to date is they have established this other process, and that's the one we are going forward with the ordinance before us here, before the council that before me is consistent with what's required under State Office of Emergency Services rules that there be a disaster council adopted, which is a pre-planning advisory body, and also then reaffirm certain tasks, declarations of emergency and goes to the implementation rather than the legislative authority. So there is no conflict with the Charter. We are perfectly in compliance with the charter and I don't think there's any confusion about what should happen in an emergency operations. And I think. Captain Oliver, thank you. Captain Oliver is here from the fire department who can answer any questions about that. And I think there will be some updates to the Council coming in the next few months as to where we stand on updating those procedures.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Council members dissolve.
Speaker 3: It's now time for comments.
Speaker 0: Yes, we only had the one speaker on the forum. So you can ask questions or make your comments in.
Speaker 3: The comments that I'd like to make is the following. The most important message, I think, to the residents of Alameda is this is that the purpose of a disaster planning council and all the preparedness that we're doing is that in the event of a disaster of such magnitude that we don't respond to it, to that on the fly, that we already have a game plan in place.
Speaker 2: This is just council comment. Mr. Foreman, when you hear.
Speaker 3: That we already have a game plan in place days, weeks, months, years, decades before, heaven forbid a disaster occurs of such magnitude. But the concern raised by the member of the public, Mr. Foreman, in the event of an actual disaster, if we're in the eye of the storm of this disaster, it is altogether possible that per the charter, that the city council, now the city council, the mayor can't take the power just on their own. It is altogether possible that in the eye of a disaster, the eye of the storm, that the city council can designate the mayor as being in charge of the police or the fire, because perhaps the city manager is elsewhere for some odd reasons. But that is a design that is a a decision of the city council per charter 6-1. But the point of having a disaster plan is that hopefully in the. We're in the eye of the storm of a disaster. We don't have to pull that trigger because we already have a plan in place and that we've got all the right people, including the city manager and the police chief and the fire chief and their assistance in place. Maybe they won't be. In which case, then. Then we would pull six one and that the ordinance as amended reflects that possibility. So 6-1 is included in the language, as is three dash 12. I think there are reasons to get into this lengthy debate about three Dash 12, and I'm in favor three Dash 12, and that re dash 12 speaks to the City Council's ability to determine emergencies and public dangers. And out of that flows all these other charter actions. But there are some debates within three Dash 12 that can happen. But I'm very happy to see that it's actually specifically referenced in the amendment in the ordinance as amended. So I feel that we have a plan in place in the event we're in the eye of the storm of a disaster. And so that we have the people both on our city staff and on city council who understand what what needs to be done then. And that plan is being put in place now so that we are not doing things on the fly just in case something happens on, you know, June 27th, 2019.
Speaker 0: Okay. I want to confirm when this came before as last time and the vote was 4 to 1. I'm the only one that voted against it and I'm the one that pulled it tonight. At that time, I asked if the meetings would be public. Can you can you clarify with the meetings, in fact, be public?
Speaker 7: So the meetings of the Disaster Council are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and will be open in public.
Speaker 0: All right. So I had pulled this evening because I agree with the speaker that there is either a conflict with the charter itself or at least at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict. And the charter is very clear that the mayor shall be the official and ceremonial head of the city and may take command of police and fire per the council's determination. My concern with this change is that since 1951, a member of council, i.e. the mayor, has in fact been part of this disaster council. And now our fire department and our and our staff are recommending that we completely remove any representation of city council on this disaster council. And in fact, if you look at our current people that would be involved, our city manager, our police chief, our fire chief, none of them live on our island. All council members do live here. And we had a letter submitted by a former mayor, Bev Johnson, whose recommendation was, in fact, to increase the role of city council , such as having the mayor and one other council involved in this. Yes, it is preparation and it would be important to have someone that we know will be on the island, at least involved in the preparation of a disaster of our city. So I do not support eliminating our role, the council's role. I would prefer we do the opposite of increasing the role of council on this disaster council. And I'm very concerned. I'm happy that the meetings are public because I do plan to attend the meetings and I would encourage members of the public to attend these meetings because we all know if we have a serious disaster, it is going to be on us that live here to figure out what we are doing, which is why we really encourage people to do this training. And I'm very concerned about eliminating the role of council from this. Now I'm going to call on vice mayor and I.
Speaker 6: I looked at this and I read the city attorney's opinion this afternoon and come to the same conclusion that the separation of operations from policy is maintained in this ordinance. And it does not usurp the ability of the council to to provide that authority to the mayor. It also does not usurp the ability of the council in its role in defining emergencies. And I'd like to move the second reading.
Speaker 2: And I'll second that and for discussion, if I could just save the discussion. We do things now differently than we did in the past and in some instances in when it comes to disaster planning and preparedness. Back in 1941, when the disaster council was first formulated six months before Pearl Harbor, by the way, the kinds of disasters that communities have seen would need to even have been contemplated. And so what we also have that we didn't have then is a much more sophisticated response to emergencies and disasters of all kinds from a variety of agencies. And so what the Disaster Council is and the ordinance that we're going to have hopefully passed the second reading tonight brings together a number of staff members and even community members from a variety of backgrounds that can help, whether it's fire, earthquakes, tsunami, economic terrorist attack. It's much more sophisticated than just, you know, an elected city council would be able to handle. But they're planning the policy. And as the city manager indicated earlier, maybe it was the city attorney or both of you. We will all have our roles. We'll be looking forward to having that updated disaster plan coming forward to us. And I will echo the mayor. We just got an email recently about cert training and we all on the council. If you haven't done it, we should do it and you in the community get your neighbors to do it with you. Set up your cert groups within your neighborhoods. It helps make us a safer city. I know a lot of neighborhoods already have. Anyway, that's my second in my discussion.
Speaker 0: And I just want to add if in response that if you look on the state's website for disaster council, their proposed city ordinance does in fact have the mayor be the chair. So we are not following the state's model ordinance. On this, we are modifying it. Councilmember, did you have a comment?
Speaker 4: I think this horse has been beaten to death. So I'll just echo what Councilmember de SAC said, because I thought he said it best.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I opposed. I opposed. Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Now we go to our regular agenda item six a.
Speaker 1: Adoption, a resolution calling an election to be consolidated with the city's next general municipal election on November eight, 2016, and submitting to the voters at that election a measure the Utility Modernization Act. It proposes to amend the City Charter by amending Section 1206 to reaffirm Nestle Power's annual general fund transfer and amending the ZIP Code by repealing Chapter three, Dash 59 and replacing it with a modernized utility users tax ordinance. Consider authorizing a direct and possible rebuttal argument and directed to the attorney to the impartial analysis.
Speaker 5: And the assistant city manager is going to give an overview. This council has already looked at the you are may and directed unanimously to go forward and place this on the ballot. And so this is the first step to doing that.
Speaker 7: Thank you, city manager. Before I get started, I just want to. Acknowledge that tonight is my 25th wedding anniversary. So, John.
Speaker 2: Are you still married?
Speaker 7: I don't know. I'll have to check when I get home.
Speaker 2: To make it.
Speaker 7: And Will? Also, I did want to acknowledge that we do have a whole bunch of folks out in our audience tonight that have been helping us on this. As you know, we've been talking about this for almost a year. I'd like to acknowledge Tom Mayhew, who's here, who's one of our attorneys, James Harrison, although I don't see him here tonight. We also have Tom Clifford, who's been helping us. Don Maixner, of course, Glenn Steiger, Babita, Elena Adair and Amy Wooldridge. So lots of people working on this. This is kind of the culmination tonight of a lot of hard work. And hopefully we're going to be answering the questions that you posed to us last time and asking for unanimous support for the Novem, putting this measure on the ballot in November. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.24 to Article II of Chapter II Related to Emergency Organization and Creating the City of Alameda Disaster Council as Required by State Law to Obtain Legal Recognition as an Official Emergency Organization. (City Manager 2110) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05172016_2016-2720 | Speaker 1: Recommendation to consider an infinite information report on the city's facility condition assessment.
Speaker 0: And we have a staff report. Do we have any speakers on this item? All right. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. Here in Public Works, we have a little bit of a chip on our shoulder about not having the most exciting items to present. Tonight, we're going to be talking with you about our facilities, condition assessment and also some changes to our municipal code regarding construction contracting may be in order to get this get our creative juices flowing. We've got a quiz to start off tonight. This is not a quiz that is public. Well, in a sense, we're being watched. So it's a pop quiz. If I had to.
Speaker 0: Have the audience participate and we have a lifeline.
Speaker 3: Is the smiley face significant?
Speaker 2: I apologize.
Speaker 1: You take it away.
Speaker 8: And if I had the Jeopardy! Theme music, I would be playing it right now. But I do not have. So tonight we're going to talk a little bit about facilities management and we're going to walk through three questions that test your knowledge of good practices in facilities management and a little bit about what our existing inventory of facilities, what the scope of visit it is. So here's our first question. City buildings cover 500,000 square feet. That's roughly the size of a the Golden Gate Bridge. Yes. There we go. That is the answer. That is pretty amazing, isn't it? It's not what I would have guessed. It's also three times the size of Oracle Arena. Now let's contrast that with the number of public works staff funded for city building. Maintenance is the answer 13.58.25 or 20. And I always wonder who those haves and quarters are.
Speaker 0: That's what I was going to ask. Yes.
Speaker 8: The answer is be. So it's a nice contrast. Isn't a lot of building to maintain, along with not a lot of people to maintain it. And one way to think about this is what if you were told that the Golden Gate Bridge only had three and a half people maintaining it? How safe would you feel going across that bridge now? These three and a half people, they actually they maintain a lot more than that in the sense that they're dealing with daily toilet toilets, overflowing, leaky faucets, all the sort of day to day maintenance work of facilities. Finally, and this one's a little bit of a giveaway. When in doubt, always go. Which of the following are best practices in facilities management? Well, we've got the condition assessment, which we're going to hit in a couple of minutes. Maintenance, management systems. I've been in front of this body before talking about our computerized maintenance management system, LUSARDI, that we're rolling out through all of our different assets groups while facilities maintenance becomes a part of that computerized maintenance management system. And then also long term capital plans. You might remember our capital budget from 2015 where we talked quite a bit about the facilities and deferred maintenance there and some of the long term plant plans we're developing. And so that's why for three, the answer is D. So I hope that got a little bit of the the neurons flowing. Now we're going to transition into our formal facility condition assessment presentation. Before we do that. I want to introduce Abdullah Ahmed, who's going to be supporting tonight. He is one of our newest project managers. He comes to us from Southern California with a tons of facilities management and project management experience, literally has taught the class on project management. So he is or has been instrumental in terms of getting these two items in front of us tonight. So thank you, Abdullah and Laura, we okay with the next presentation? Oh, yes. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1: Maybe. All right.
Speaker 8: So this is actually pretty rewarding to be up here discussing this because back in 2014, if you would have asked us about how the the condition of our facilities and where the information for that condition assessment was can be contained, the answer would have been not in my brain, but in a lot of our staff's brains and in paper in quite a few different places. And so I just want to show you a little bit of a visual demonstrating that. Take a look at those systems. It doesn't strike you as a super reliable system for facilities, condition information. And here's where we're pretty excited about the new maintenance management system, because all of the information that we've gleaned through these condition assessments, which we're going to talk about, is now in our maintenance management system. So it's in one place for our staff to access, access, rather than all of these different places in paper or in people's brains. We think that's a a big step forward for for our department. Now, back in 2014, we and the City Council agreed to bring in a third party facilities condition assessment expert Notts Faithful and Gold. They looked at our 38 facilities, essentially identifying where corrective actions need to be taken and also importantly what the cost estimates for those corrective actions were. Here is a list of the 38 buildings. It's a long list. It's got 30 buildings. Yes. And so these are facility condition assessment reports, actually. Just give me one moment. This is up. Sorry. This is volume one of these facility condition assessments. So each building has its own assessment 52, a 75 page document detailing all of the different corrective actions that Faith on Gold has recommended. So fairly extensive. As you can see here on the slide, they're covering all aspects of building facilities, everything from the envelope, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, you name it. It's in these these reports. Now, the next thing.
Speaker 0: So if a member of the public or council wants to see what's actually being suggested per item, if we come and check out this, how does that work?
Speaker 8: Sure. Just reach out to me. Well, happy to share it. And a member of the public could always do the same thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: The next two slides are not building by building information instead of their rolled up information. So in other words, if you take all of that data and the underlying condition assessments, you then roll them up. You come up with some good and some not so good news. So I want to share the good news first, which is that if you look at our current facilities, we've got about 50% of our facilities in good condition. So the building we're in now, the good news is it's in good condition and that really is good news. That's this is a building that's being accessed by the public frequently. It's where many city staff and our electeds reside. So it's important to have facilities in good condition. The other side of that is we have 50% of our facilities not in good condition. The number that I'm really hoping sticks in your brain coming out of tonight's presentation is that number in the lower right hand corner, that over $12 million in immediate capital needs. Let me explain a little bit about what that means. This is the number derived from faithful in gold. And essentially it it is a roll up of capital needs that need to happen without. And if they do not happen, we're going to suffer larger expense later. So you think about an H fax system that has a 20 to 25 year life, but it's it's actually 35 years in. And so we can either wait for that to fail. And if we do, our costs are going to go dramatically up in terms of its replacement and then lost use of that facility. Or we can replace it now and save that future repair cost. And so that's an example of those immediate capital needs. We're talking roof replacements where we have roofs that are leaking HVAC upgrades, substantial electrical upgrades. That's what's represented in that over $12 million. Now, I want you to imagine for a moment that coming out of tonight and the next year, we did nothing around facilities maintenance. So in other words, no further investments in our facilities. Oh, the picture would get dramatically worse in the next ten years. And again, this is where we're we're focusing on that a little bit above $12 Million number. That number would turn to nearly $35 million if we were to do nothing. Even more that remember where currently we're at, about 50% of our buildings are in good condition. We'll look at that number ten years out. That number is 8% of our facilities in good condition. It's all to say. This underlines the case for doing something sooner rather than later. And the good news is this council has already done some things. You approved about $2 million in high priority facility repairs back in September with some of those general surplus funds. Let me back up a little bit and just show a few photos of the kinds of conditions that are out there. You see a couple or a few slides related to water intrusion coming through roofs. Ironically, in the upper right hand corner, that's our maintenance services center. That's where our maintenance workers who come out to other city facilities to catch water or try to repair roofs on the fly. They're also getting dripped upon. That's what that that photo in the upper right hand corner shows in this next set of slides. You see, we've got lots of pavement and asphalt that needs to be repaired and lots of equipment that needs to be replaced. In the middle there you see the middle, lower middle, you see that missing downspouts. That's an example of something we would call preventative maintenance. So in other words, that Downspouts is helping protect that building's foundation from water running into it when it's missing. Obviously, that's not good for the foundation of the building. And so that's an example of the kind of work we want to do in preventative maintenance. We want to do more of this kind of kind of work. So what's next? Well, we propose to do is we're not asking for any approvals tonight. We want to come back in February of 2017 with some ideas for how we can bridge our facilities maintenance funding gap. And you may ask, why am I not asking tonight for that money? And for one, because that's what a capital and operating budget process is for. It's for folks sitting in your position to weigh the competing interests of different, different priorities and to make decisions around that. And so in February 2017, we will likely have kicked off the operating capital budget process. And we want to present options to you for first how to bridge that 12. Remember, I talked about that $12 million we're likely to raise over the next ten years or so, about seven and a half million that we can put toward those $12 million in repairs. That leaves about $4.8 million for those high priority facility repairs. We want to we want to propose a way to bridge that gap, probably with some general fund surplus dollars if they exist. The second the second part of that gap is a bigger one. That's about the deferred maintenance. It's not about the big projects. It's more about that that downspouts that needs to be replaced. It's also about painting or in fact, systems, making sure we get a technician out every year who checks that HVAC system to ensure that it's operating properly. That's not leaking out. That kind of year to year. Maintenance can extend the life of that HVAC system and save the city money over the long term. In some ways, what we'll be back in front of you proposing. It's a little bit like two spouses discussing a vehicle that they own that is in disrepair. So what the facility's condition assessment has done is it said what in the vehicle is working, what's not, what needs to be replaced, what's the routine maintenance that's going to happen next? And now the spouses are having a discussion about, okay, now we've got some dollar values for that. Where are we going to invest this money and where's the money going to come from? Is somebody going to get a promotion? Is there a will somewhere out there that's going to help us get there? And so that's what we're going to be back in February 2017 to discuss is with some direction from you on dollar values. We then can turn out the first two years of the facility's capital budget. We can then have the long term facility CIP plan and then as much as we can around that preventative maintenance plan. So that's what we're proposing to come back to you in February of 2017. And with that, if there's any questions that Bob Abdullah or I can answer, we're here to answer them.
Speaker 0: As a member Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: I had one. Thank you for that. Nice presentation, Mr. Garland. Can you tell us of the the list of the 38 facilities inspected and assessed? That's on page four of your presentation. Um, are all of these buildings projected to be in use in the next year to three, five years? And I had a couple of specific questions. So number 18, Building 76 pool is that the pool out at the.
Speaker 8: At Alameda point.
Speaker 3: To point. So it's not used now, correct?
Speaker 8: No, I believe it's not.
Speaker 3: It's not correct. So, I mean, what.
Speaker 0: How.
Speaker 3: Much how much money would we be putting into something that I think eventually is going to be replaced? Because, you know, we have plans for a nice recreation center at Alameda Point eventually.
Speaker 8: Definitely. Sorry if I interrupted. Especially because any dollar we put into a building that is that might not be used in the future is a dollar we're taking away from another building that's being used on a daily basis by the public. Those are definitely decisions that public works will make and also keep the city council informed about in terms of what buildings we might not invest substantial dollars in terms of facility maintenance. The buildings at Alameda Point, honestly, they're a bit tough, right, because we don't know over the long term where they're going to be and whom whose hands and how they're used. So that that's a question that honestly, we're still wrestling with.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we can take a closer look. And the other one I wondered about and it's, you know, very close to where we are right now. But the veterans building, what percentage of that building is in use at any given time? I've taken the occasional dance class there through an RPG. When my kids were teenagers, they were involved in the activities in the teen underground or whatever that nice program is at LAPD runs. But what percentage of that building is used in on a regular basis?
Speaker 8: That's a good question. I do not know the answer to that.
Speaker 3: Add that to our list. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other questions? Comment My Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: A minor question on your chart about the facilities. It'll still be good if we do nothing. You have a marina village there.
Speaker 8: What's that doing.
Speaker 2: There? What is it?
Speaker 8: So what? What we did was in some of our our what I call special districts, our landscape and lighting districts, homes, we have part of the components that relate to the public infrastructure out there. What we did was look long term what what needed to be replaced in those areas. So boardwalk, lighting, etc.. And so we're building that into long term plans and then running that against the revenue that's brought in through assessments. So that's what that Marina Village is about. It's about the landscaping lighting district, I think at zone five or six.
Speaker 2: And I don't know what I can say about that because I live next to the park. Can I say anything about that?
Speaker 3: Precious little.
Speaker 2: Okay. Never mind.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other.
Speaker 3: Comments?
Speaker 0: Just remember. Suck.
Speaker 3: Oh. Oh. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you very much for your presentation and for focusing public attention on the variety of facilities operated and managed by the city of Alameda for which continuing upkeep is needed in the short and a long term. Now, it seems to me that as we move forward on your the long term facilities planning and making sure to maintain these facilities, we might also have that discussion in the context of other CHP items so that we're not making the decision with regard to facilities in a vacuum. I know, for example, a lot of people are always asking me about. Frankly, their own streets. And that if you go down San Antonio Avenue, for example, I think that Street has not been paved in in a while. And it is it is getting to have some wear. And I just mentioned San Antonio Avenue, west of Grand Street as an example. But but. So there's a lot of tremendous needs that which when not attended. Will lead to even greater needs for the reasons that you discussed below. Something that's not invested in upkeep now. The costs go up. I don't know if it's an exponential going up, but it goes up at a higher rate than normal. But that just means that we have that that many more challenges so that. The thing that I would recommend for sure then is that as we move forward with your capital facilities long term plan, that we also have that conversation in conjunction with other items that are typically on our recipe for which, you know, there's been a lot of deferred maintenance.
Speaker 8: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the presentation. You know, I also echo the comments that my colleagues made, you know, to two quick points. You know, one, I know last year when we had our reserves and we allocated our excess reserves, we did tackle some deferred maintenance. I know the vice mayor has been a champion of tackling these deferred maintenance issues before they become worse. So hopefully I know you said February of next year we'll have a plan, but if there is some excess one time money that we can do this year, you know, I'd like to you to be prepared at least to give us, you know, what the high priority items are that we might be able to attack this year rather than next year. And I also agree that it's a good idea to get this plan and get this baked in our our ongoing budget so we can start addressing these these problems. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So I was just going to go back to the $12.3 million figure you gave us for rehabilitating or addressing buildings that were in poor the worst condition. So of that 12.3 million, some of these were buildings that we talked about or facilities like the pool at Alameda Point that might not ever come into use.
Speaker 2: So that's correct. Okay.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Right. And I wanted to ask when this comes back, I'd like to know historically, for instance, for the last 3 to 5 years how much has been allocated for maintenance and deferred maintenance annually and then the occupancy of City Hall West. I know when you're evaluating the different buildings, that's another one. I was asked specifically about what's going on there. If you can try to share what's going on in some of these buildings that people may not know what they have, how the city does use these buildings. And then on the animal shelter. We did have a meeting with some finance representatives and they. And they may have met with you. I'm not sure. I just wanted to make sure that you coordinate with them. I know that they do have some serious needs in regards to the facilities. Thank you. Yes. All right. That being said at this point, is that all the direction you need or.
Speaker 2: This is for information.
Speaker 0: We're good. We can move on then. Yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now we will go to six be.
Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance, amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending various sections of Article four and five contracts and administrative procedures and policies concerning conformance of all bidding procedures on public works projects to public contract code 22 zero 32 in California. Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting. I'm switching it. Liam.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. Again, Liam Garland from Public Works and these two items are intimately connected. And let me just explain that before we jump in, which is that one of the challenges we see with getting all of these facility projects done is that we've got some construction contracting, municipal code provisions that are out of date. And that's what this item is about, is about updating those municipal code provisions regarding construction bidding. So with that, let me give you an overview of what public works is asking and then we'll jump into the details about the request and why. So the first is you see that at the top of the slide is currently any construction project, over $75,000 has to come to City Council for approval before that contract can be finalized. What staff is recommending is that we update our municipal code, which has not been updated in about 26 years, to be consistent with what the state law is in the area. And that's $175,000. And I'll give you the reasons behind that in just a moment. But that's what our first request is. The second is to have the city council, and this is on the bottom portion of that slide. It's to have the city council designate approval of plans and specifications. I said that incorrectly. Let me start that over to delegate to the city, engineer approval of a project's plans and specifications. So without further ado, let's jump in to what are the goals for this. So this is not coming out of nowhere. It is obviously related a little bit more than a little bit to the work we're doing around facilities and seeing the challenge around some delays on the contracting side because of an out and out to date and out of date code. They're also besides just getting up to date on code, we think we can save about 10% on project expenses by having our code up to date. We think we can save for months on a project's timeline by updating the code, and that's quite a bit of time. This, of course, will enable us to complete the ambitious number of facility ships we do want to complete. We think there's going to be another benefit, which is that with the streamlined bidding procedures for projects up to 175,000, we believe that this is going to make that work more competitively, more competitive to be bid on by local and smaller contractors. Essentially, local and smaller contractors don't have an administrative wing of their firms to respond to cities of formal bidding requirements. The last two are really about the delegating the authority of the city engineer to approve plans and specs, and it's about increasing the city's immunity from potential legal claims related to those plans and specs . We'll talk in a little bit of detail about that. And then finally, we want to eliminate some unnecessarily unnecessary city council approval. So these are the goals of the municipal code update. You'll see here. This is section two, Dash 61 from our municipal code. It shows that $75,000 construction contracting threshold. In other words, we have to have city council approval for construction contracts over $75,000. You'll see the date here, February six of 1990. This has not been updated since then. This was also the same year that we opted in as a city to the construction. I'm sorry. California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. I am not going to say that again. It's Koepka. I will say that a few more times. We opted into Koepka in the year of 1990. Koepka has since been updated five different times and we have not kept current with that. And so that's why the increase from I'm sorry, the $175,000, that's koepka's current contracting threshold. And the revision we're proposing is essentially to have our code point to Koepka. And as there are future adjustments to that code, our code will also be adjusted. Here. You can see websites from the state comptroller's office who's involved in the updating of the construction contracting thresholds, essentially looking at what construction contract costs, what's the direction of those which is obviously up and making sure that these thresholds are kept up or updated consistent with the direction of construction costs. Here where we take a look at what other cities in the bay area who are in Cook what they've done and you'll see that that the top 11 there they are all consistent with where Cooper Cooper is currently. You'll see there's another five that are not consistent with where Cooper is currently, but they're above where where Alameda is. This slide shows the four months that we think we can save on our typical construction projects should this item be approved tonight? And again, this is why one of the reasons why we're coming at this now is because we're looking at these facility repairs, a bunch of which will be in the range of that 75 to 175000. And we think this is going to give us and public works a real opportunity to get more of that work done in a shorter time. Let me clarify a little bit about what this item is not. We are not making any changes to our current code regarding prevailing wages. We're not changing this body's governing of the budget and the approval of all of the projects in our capital budget. Oh, this doesn't change that that obligation or responsibility of the city council whatsoever. There's also another important point here, which is a construction contracting law is pretty clear in California. You award to the lowest responsible bidder, period. It's why these items end up on our consent calendar. We don't have much discretion in the matter whatsoever. And so that doesn't change either. If that changes, Bob Abdullah and I walk out of here in handcuffs. So construction contracts have to go to the lowest responsible bidder, and there is no change to that. So now I'm going to turn to the second part of tonight's item, and that is a proposed change where we're having the city council designate authority to approve plans and specs to the specifications to the city engineer. Oh, and I want to start just high level. So what is this about? And if you look at the photos here, this is primarily about our annual maintenance capital project. So you've got on the left photo, you've got our street resurfacing project, on our center photo, you've got our sewer main replacements. And on the right we have several pump station renovations. And these are the kind of projects that come up every single year. And the council has the option options the wrong word has the authority of approving these projects first in the capital budget. Then, if they are either facilities or new parks, they go to the planning board and staff's committed, in addition that for new facilities and new parks, we'd bring those plans and specs to City Council to be another opportunity for approval. And then on contract award, it's back in front of council. So the change tonight is only on the piece for approval of plans and specifications and only for projects that are like these routine maintenance projects, the street resurfacing, the sewer main replacement and the pump station renovations. So then the question is, obviously, by the way, there's a gain in time for public works. We can get more projects done without having to gain the City Council's approval of plans and specs. When we've got a city engineer who's got the expertize in the area who can approve those plans and specs, something is different today versus a couple of years ago. Case law has changed and now there's increased risk of a later legal claim if there's any change in those plans and specs once the work is done out in the field. And so what those court cases suggest is those changes don't have the immunity that's garnered with this city council's approval of the plans and specs. And every set of plans and specifications change once you get into the field. So that's a that is a an issue, which is if we want to better protect the city, then delegating that authority to the city engineer when invariably there's going to be changes to those plans and specs that best provides the city the legal defense it needs for any claims of improper design or plan coming out of those plans and specifications. So with that, I'm going to leave this slide up here with the two changes. I should say one other thing, which is if you do approve this item tonight, we've got a typo actually in the proposed ordinance where we refer to a subsection of Cooper when that reference should be a subsection F. No. Reverse. We refer to a subsection F when the subsection should be referring to D. So as long as we can incorporate that into if there's a successful motion, then we'll be where we need to be. With that, I'm happy to take any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. First, clarifying questions and councilmember clarifying questions. All right. I have clarifying questions then when you go back to your presentation, when you had approval by the city engineer as opposed to city council, does that mean that currently city engineer does not approve these along the process.
Speaker 8: City city and approves them, but then they need to come to city council for a final approval.
Speaker 0: So if you look at your chart. I. I don't know which page it had. You had four steps. Okay. On page ten.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 0: You don't have if you don't have a step there that shows the city engineer approving. So that currently happened. When does that happen?
Speaker 8: So it would happen before the plans inspects were submitted to the City Council for approval. Essentially that's a city engineer stamping the plans inspector saying These are good to go.
Speaker 0: All right. So it does currently happen. So we would still we would just continue that. So the. Question here is where you're being asked then to remove the city council as part of this process. But it would still go to the planning board and the city engineer. And who is our city engineer?
Speaker 8: It's great that you mention that. I am proud to announce Shriram Agami here, who I just if I ever have an opportunity to give a few words about him.
Speaker 0: As you could approach the podium so that the audience can see you also.
Speaker 8: So Shriram has literally decades of civil engineering experience, comes to us from over in Oakland, which is experiencing similar conditions in terms of a built out city with lots of aged infrastructure and also Shriram. Once you get to know him, you'll realize he's got all the engineering skills and he's got a personality to boot. He came through a really competitive selection process and was the 100% consensus choice. So I'm really happy to be introducing Sharan tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It's a pleasure. Thank you. Of. Oh, I, I it's I, I mean, I was really excited about joining the city of Alameda. I thought it would be very challenging. Task two to take responsibility for it. And I. I'm really happy to be here. And I. It's my first it's my debut session with the council, and it's been an exciting one. And I enjoy.
Speaker 9: The staff that I'm working with. And we have we have many interesting projects coming.
Speaker 2: Our way and we hope we look forward to working with the council on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Welcome and thank you for joining us this evening. All right. Any other questions or comments? No. All right. So then we do we have speakers on this item. No speakers on this item. Okay. So then we can discuss this item now. I'm vice mayor.
Speaker 2: I think. Increasing the threshold is just a reflection of how much things cost today versus how much they cost years ago. I'm still a little. Can. I'm not so concerned about the the relinquishing of the council approval of the plants and specs. I understand of the the intent. Um, I. I do think this chart that's on slide number. Is it or. Is is a little confusing to me still because I, I think you explain that the council and the planning board. Look at the plans for the new facilities and approve that. It's that one. Yes. But then there'll be when those specs come back reflecting that plan. What I'm understanding is there's no need to go to council with those engineering specs for council approval, and I agree with that. None of us are engineers. None of us can stamp that. So I think this is a good opportunity. And I'd like to move that. We. Adopt this consideration with the caveat that at the end of a year we have an assessment of Did it work? And what were the problems? So I think we can make these adjustments. But I'd like to quantify the result.
Speaker 0: The other council members. The member. Member.
Speaker 4: I'll second that motion with the technical amendment that you mentioned, if that's okay with the vice mayor. I don't really have anything more to add than Frank already said.
Speaker 0: Remember, Jason?
Speaker 7: I think the thing that I want to add two basic points. One is the shifting from the $75,000 threshold to the hundred $75,000 threshold. You know, I think it looks like a big number. And it is I mean, even the 75,000. But I think it's important to take into account that the 75,000 was set in 1990. So simply when you input the $75,000 into West Edgecomb, it comes out to be roughly 138,000 in today's dollars. So really, the the change is $138000 to $175000. I think in that light, while I did have some early concerns about the going to the upper threshold, I that's certainly something that I can live with. And having the reporting along the lines that vice mayor at RCN indicated in one year's time, we certainly like to see if it is, for example, true that there were that much more locally owned businesses that that were less able to participate. The second point I want to get to, though, is I am concerned about the city engineering replacing the council. One of the advantage advantages of having the council approve the plans and specs is that, you know, we have a lot of residents who are very engaged in our city, many of them themselves, engineers of one type or another who have on some occasions attended city council meetings to point things out that perhaps. You know, the public might want to know. So on that, frankly, because the city engineer still is involved in the process, I prefer the status quo. So I don't know how much more to say about.
Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. I think it's important for municipal law to reflect the current state law. And I'm married to a construction lawyer, so those numbers don't make me bat an eyelash. I agree with the vice mayor that I don't have a degree in engineering. And while I can read a planner aspect, that's about as far as it goes, but I would look to a professional. And also, while I understand that we have a very engaged population, I know that the professionals we have working for the city are. Working for the city. I know the standards that they are adhering to, and I have confidence in the fact that I expect them to do their professional job without it being politicized. Sometimes we have very well-meaning public members of the public, but oftentimes there's there's an agenda at work there, too. So I'm very comfortable with I'm glad that we finally firmly filled that city engineer's position. And I think we've got a good team on board. And I compliment you, Mr. Garland, you've done two nice reports for us here this evening, so I am fully prepared to support this motion with the amendment. And I and I just would also throw in that certainly come back to us in a year's time and tell us what you found. Give us another pretty presentation. But I don't know if a year's time will be enough to say that. And X-number more local contractors have now gotten work because I think it takes a little time for these things to percolate. So, you know, let's let's take a look, but let's also be patient because those results could take more than one year. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I want to walk through this chart again. If I'm reading this correctly, the first time city council approves it is in the budget and our that our two year budget. Yes. So when I recall it's in there, it's actually posted. No, it's no information about a project. It would be a dollar amount. The dollar amount that we would be approving.
Speaker 8: It's fairly, fairly detailed. The Capitol had a copy of the capital budget here. It's definitely not insubstantial.
Speaker 0: So that so there's detail in the budget about the project that would be approved. Detail.
Speaker 8: Sure. In the capital budget work covering the number of sidewalk repairs we're going to do, the number of miles of sewer main replacement identified, the pump stations that we're renovating, etc.. That's all listed in there.
Speaker 0: All right. And we approve that as one agenda item.
Speaker 8: I believe in the last budget process you had a presentation from me about the capital budget specifically. That was one of the study sessions. And then in the final approval of the budget, it was both operating and capital budget that were approved. Yes. And there was some discussion of the capital budget within that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then it goes to the planning board. If it's pertaining to a park or a new facility.
Speaker 8: A new park or a new facility.
Speaker 0: Yes. And the planning board makes those approvals and that does not come to council. That's why it would end there into this new process. It would not come to council.
Speaker 8: No, no, no. It would come to council. So staff is committed to making sure that new parks and new facilities come to city council. It's the routine maintenance projects that would not come to council for approval of the plans and specifications.
Speaker 0: Okay. And the projects that would be specified during the budget process. That's when we that's when council would approve each project.
Speaker 8: That's right.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then so this chart of the city council approving plans and specs, that is the items then that are in the budget. We will not have it come back again.
Speaker 8: Yes, you'll see them again when the contracts are up for approval in front of the city council, but not at the stage of approving plans and specifications. Unless it's a new city facility or a new city park.
Speaker 0: Okay. And now it's my understanding we. So you just introduced to us our new city engineer. But have we not had a city engineer? Or is he replacing someone or we've had a vacancy there?
Speaker 8: No, we've had a city engineer who is stamping documents, stamping plans and specifications. We've had that city engineer under contract. So there's.
Speaker 0: Your contract.
Speaker 8: Exactly.
Speaker 0: All right. So this process, if at some point we don't have an employee who's a city engineer, then we would still have this process of sending those out to whomever is under contract. Or are we planning to, from this point forward, have an in-house city engineer?
Speaker 8: I am ecstatic.
Speaker 0: Is that what's happening here?
Speaker 8: Yes. Yes. Shriram is going to be here. And it's my job to keep that position.
Speaker 1: Filling that position in house is not related to this process.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: A of regard. So we need a city engineer in house regardless of what the council decision is tonight.
Speaker 0: Well, that's what I would think. And I think it's I would agree that we need an in-house city engineer. And I would be but I would be concerned about approving a process that eliminates council that sends if, in fact, we don't have a city engineer, that then with consent, you know, as we have in the past. So I would agree that it is important to have a city engineer moving forward. That that's a critical part of this process. But remember, De Saag, it's.
Speaker 7: Just a quick question in terms of types of plans that are being approved in the third arrow in your design. Let me give you an example. Say, the city of Alameda approves it as part of its CHP redoing a street. So at the third arrow, is that the point in time? Would it be up to the city engineer to approve a plan or that street as to whether or not it's going to be treated with what do you call service slurry seal versus something more grinding and redo? So is the city engineer basically saying what kind of treatment is going to be done for a street?
Speaker 8: Oh, yes. That is a typical city engineer role in this instance. What the city engineer is doing is typically that decision has already been made, but developing the plans and specifications for whether it's a slurry, sealing, complete reconstruction, and then what the city engineer does is is approves those and they then can be bid they go out for bid. The lowest responsible bidder is awarded to after it comes back to council for that contract award to be approved.
Speaker 7: So just not to be mysterious. So what I'm trying to get at is in some instances, it's obviously cheaper just to fill a pothole or deal with roads with, you know, the I think there are three different types of treatments. I can't remember slurry, seal and whatever. But in the long run, it always ends up costing more if you do the short run cheap treatment. So what I'm trying to get at is that what treatment that needs to be used for streets is a decision of the council, is that correct? And then it is up to the city engineer in this process that you've laid out to to see how the plan is meeting whatever treatment is is agreed upon for a street. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 0: I can answer the question. Okay.
Speaker 8: So what happens during the budget process is that the city council will approve X number of dollars for a street reconstruction, x miles of reconstruction. The city engineer working with one of our senior engineers will come up with the plan for how to accomplish accomplish that. The city engineer in turn under this will approve those plans and specs so that they will go out for bid bid and then that contract will come back to you for approval of that doesn't covers, you know, essentially a small pothole repair. That's a whole nother a whole nother being. And my answering your question or. No?
Speaker 7: No, I think not exactly. I think what I'm trying to get at is there is a street that has a rate and that needs to be repaired. And the types of repairs that could be done on the street could be low level or maybe. But we because we do that, because it's cheaper or maybe we do a higher level, but we don't because it's more expensive. But then in the long run, it costs more.
Speaker 2: Bob Hahn, Public Works Director. The streets are categorized by the PCI, the pavement condition index. It's a program run by MTC and they evaluate all the streets. We feed them the information and they evaluate all the streets. So the treatment on any specific street is related directly to the PCI of that street. OC of the PCI is very low. It means the street has deteriorated. And beyond potholes, areas are coming up. You have complete areas that are failed. That is the condition where you would grind the whole street down and repave the street over completely. Okay. A slurry seal is appropriate for a street like ten year old. Okay, so with the ten year old street, it's still in good condition, it's still tight. And that PCI is probably somewhere in 68 or something like that. That street just by that number would get a slurry seal because there's no reason to tear up the whole street. We wouldn't tear up a street unless a couple of reasons. Number one, if we were tearing it up to put pipes in and I want to remind the council that we're on a very aggressive program right now of replacing three miles of sewer throughout the city for the next 23 years. And that is driving our pavement program because we have worked very closely with both East Bay Mud and PGD, and we have given them a 20 year look out of the streets that we're going to be replacing sewers. And we have invited them to the party and to jump into those streets in a two year period after we got our sewers down. Sewers are typically at the lower level. Okay. And then they will come in and do their infrastructure repair and then eventually that street will be repaved over completely because it will have all kinds of cuts in it. And then fine.
Speaker 7: Well, just to summarize then, it's the treatment for a street is driven by the PCI. And the role of the engineer is simply to make sure that the treatment that is being implemented is done engineering appropriately.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So if you have a PCI of 78, it would take a slurry seal. If you have a PCI of 60, you might want to grind that whole street down.
Speaker 7: So what I was trying to get at was that so it's not up to the engineer to determine it's the PCI.
Speaker 2: It's it's a calculation that every city goes through. That's how streets are prioritized. We are prioritizing our streets right now based upon our sewer program, but we also have additional money to address those streets that are deteriorating. We're not ignoring the streets where we're really trying to concentrate in a strategic manner, how to replace the sewer pipe , how to get everybody in. But we don't want to do is we pay the street and all of a sudden the next day, Piccini says, Oh, I need to expand that pipe down there. I'm going to tear up your brand new street. Now, we've gone from at PCI of of 100 down to a PCI of 80 something overnight because now PGE has come in and torn it up. And once you open up that asphalt water gets in, that's how streets deteriorate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have one question. It's on the redlined ordinance and I believe that would be up to I think this is the council on page four, the section two, dash six, 1.4 award of construction contract. It says the city manager. Is authorized to award informed contracts pursuant to lowest responsive, responsible bidder. And the word responsive is new. No is being added. Is that.
Speaker 2: Responsive? Has always been there. Okay. A responsive bidder gives us all the information that we have requested in the bid package. Okay. If the if a bitter left out a piece of paper that we needed in that bid, then he is nonresponsive and he's thrown out of the pool because he did not comply with all the the things that we requested to be submitted at that point. So that's a non responsive a non responsible bidder is somebody that maybe has a history of botching jobs over the past five years. We do a little history search on the contractor and find out. Well, the city of Walnut Creek said they're never going to use this guy again. That changes our attitude and that's a non responsible bidder. If that can be proven, a non responsible bidder has a right for a hearing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments at this point? All those in favor, I suppose. I'm sorry. I just wanted to make one quick clarification, please, in case you need to revote. So this is the first reading of the ordinance. And so so I wanted to make sure that the direction that you gave to staff to come back with an assessment of how this works.
Speaker 5: Is a direction and not part.
Speaker 0: Of the.
Speaker 6: Ordinance, is that correct?
Speaker 0: So that's one.
Speaker 3: Institute?
Speaker 2: Certainly, that's correct. It's not part of the ordinance. Thank you. Wording to include in the code.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Counsel.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 7: I'm going to pose. I, I prefer that the buck stops with it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. So we have four in favor. One opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Motion passes. Thank you very much. And now we move on to six C.
Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter 30, clarifying text amendments to Section 3058 through 3050 9.3 of the zoning ordinance related to water efficient landscaping. | Regular Agenda Item | Recommendation to Consider an Informational Report on City’s Facility Condition Assessments. (Public Works 310) (30 minutes) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05172016_2016-2891 | Speaker 1: Nine A's consider having counsel sign the Friends of the River letter urging the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Interior Secretary to reject the proposed Shasta Dam Raze and the Temperance Fight Dam for the Friends of the River. May 18, 2016. Legislative Outreach Which requires council action tonight.
Speaker 0: And this was my referral. And we do have speakers on it. And there is a letter that is attached here. And, but I, I brought it for, to hear if council would be interested in joining me. Otherwise I would sign it. And I really do want to attend the. I'm planning to attend the day tomorrow in Sacramento and join our community members. If, uh, if council supports this. All right. And I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers on this item Heinrich, Albert, Nina, Gordon Kirsch and then Richard Banger.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. My name is Heinrich Albert. I'm a volunteer with Friends of the River and with the Sierra Club Water Committee. I've previously sent the members of the council information summarizing the two specific projects that we're asking or that we address in the letter and that we're asking you to support. What I would like to do tonight is just discuss the two issues that were raised in the letter from Alameda Municipal Power. So if you had a chance to look at the summary that we sent out on the Shasta Dam race, we don't discuss hydropower generation in that summary. And the reason is that there's no significant change. I've just gone back in and reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation, Feasibility and Environmental Impact statements. They look specifically at several different generating sites. Some go up, some go down. The net change is not significant. So if we do a cost benefit on this project and we look at the very significant dollar costs, we look at the environmental damage, which is done both upstream of the dam and downstream, including in our own estuary. If we look at the cultural loss to the women went to tribe and we try to balance this out with really what is just a pittance of new water and no significant change in hydroelectric generation. I think this just does not pencil out. This project does not make sense. Now, the second point that was raised was the litigation by Northern California Power Agency. So Alameda Municipal Power is a member of that group and they've initiated the suit, the purpose of which is to reduce the payments for environmental remediation that Alameda Municipal Power pays. So the Central Valley Project, which includes the Shasta Dam, it is required by law every year to do very extensive environmental remediation to balance out the damage that this existing project does. They in turn pass that on to their customers, including Alameda Municipal Power. Alameda Municipal Power wants to pay less for this environmental remediation. I have no opinion on the merits of that litigation, but in my opinion, when you're in a hole, stop digging. If you want to pay less for environmental remediation, then we shouldn't build more environmental problems that we then have to remediate. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Nina Gordon Kirsch.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Nina. It's my first time at a city hall meeting. It's very exciting. I'm from Friends of the River and I have a lot of training in the water industry. I did a Fulbright scholarship in Israel about wastewater treatment, and then I continued and did my master's degree in environmental economics, and I wrote my thesis on a cost effectiveness analysis of wastewater treatment options. So I'm familiar with cost benefit analysis. The Temperance Flat Dam proposal doesn't make any sense from a cost benefit analysis perspective. The costs there's financial costs, $2.6 billion, and growing projects like that always increase in costs as they continue to get built. There's environmental costs, fisheries, damaged ecosystems of where the reservoir will be. A lot of those plants will get ruined. There's also cultural costs, such as the Native Americans that use that river and that whole area. And then there's benefits. There's an increase in water supply, but it's only about 70,000 acre feet per year. And that's a tiny, tiny percentage. That's like point 2% of California state water needs as a whole. So it's a really small percentage. Um, and then there's also hydropower, which is a benefit, and the project is proposed to create 160 megawatts of watt of electricity per year. Yet creation of this dam will actually flood two existing hydropower plants. And the net, there's a net loss in electricity production. So as much as there might be some hydropower created in this dam proposal, the overall power creation will decrease. So that doesn't make any sense. Um, so I just want to say that if Allen, if the AMP is focused on increasing renewable energy like hydropower, this isn't the answer. And there's been a lot of proposals and I think five different proposals and none of them have have shown to be successful.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Richard Baer. And then he's our last speaker on this item. If you'd like to speak on the side and please turn on your slip.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council on City Staff. I support the letter. I think it's unfortunate that our municipal power company, whose middle name is Green, recommended that you take a neutral position on this. In this case, neutral is not benign. Neutral says that you're willing to live with the consequences. In the case of the Temperance Flat Dam of flooding, an area that another branch of the Interior Department has recommended for designation as a national, wild and scenic river. I think this points up a shortcoming of the AMP scorecard on what is green and. In their calculation. Apparently, the only way this river has any value is if money can be derived by sending water to agribusiness or generating power. And as as a previous speaker pointed out, it's not really going to be a net increase in power. This isn't the first time, by the way, that our municipal park company has been on the wrong side of the river, so to speak. About six years ago, when the Department of Interior recommended changing the water flow allocation on the Trinity River. Previously, up until that point, 90% went to agribusiness and power generation, 10% to the fish or the fishery. They wanted to raise it to 47% for the fishery. The rest to who? Agribusiness and power generation. What did our local power company do? They joined with the Northern California Power Association or agency filing suit to try and prevent implementation of that. Our city only withdrew from that lawsuit after there was a public uproar. Same thing happened in Palo Alto, Sacramento Utility District, Port of Oakland. And so I think. I think you should not remain neutral. You should take a firm stand. And some people may think, well, this is a little far afield. Well, it's no farther afield than sister city in Asia. You know, maybe we should have Sister Rivers take a road trip.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you very much. And this is a lot closer than a sister city in Asia. This is right here in the state of California, in northern California. So I brought this as a referral. I think that the language in the letter is very straightforward. This year, the fate of three of California's outstanding rivers, McCloud, Sacramento, San Joaquin, are in our hands. And I agree with the last speaker that doing nothing is not doing nothing. And it is actually time. I submit it's time it is appropriate for us to take a position on this.
Speaker 2: And yes, given that there's enormous cost for dubious results and in the long term, I think we're we're better off following the approach that this letter supports. I move that we as a council sign this letter.
Speaker 0: I would second that. Yes.
Speaker 4: Member I'll just add that, you know, I've met with all three of the speakers on this individually and find their arguments compelling and I plan on supporting this and thank you for bringing it forward.
Speaker 0: You remember Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: So thank you, everyone, for your presentations. And I have met with staff and I understand the concerns of AMP. I will note that we do pride ourselves on having a clean, green utility. This is these rivers that are listed in the letter are not among the ones we receive our power from any of our hydroelectric power from . I do think you need to look on a case by case basis, and maybe there will come a time when we need to look at some of the hydro electric sources of AMP. But we I still think we do a great job with our electric municipal electric utility. I do give a lot of credit to the people who dig deep. Mr. Abbott has, I will say, hounded council. I don't know about others, but me and but I do appreciate those who go into depth and these and I also talked to a friend who's active in the both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters and looked at all different sides of this. And so I am prepared to support Alameda signing on or signing this letter as a as a member of the city council.
Speaker 0: Remember, these are.
Speaker 7: A thank you. I've met on several occasions with Mr. Albert and on most on all occasions I indicated to him that I was going to predicate my decision on what our legal counsel and what our AMP staff members have to say. And in conclusion, what AMP recommended was this AMP's recommendation that his Alameda Municipal Power's recommendation would be for Alameda to take no position on this matter at this time. I'm going to I'm going to stick with AMP recommendation on this, but I will say thank you very much to Mr. Alberts for always bumping into me at the farmer's market.
Speaker 0: All right. That being said, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor. I have those opposed. Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Next item nine b.
Speaker 1: Consider having council endorse one or combination of options for the future structure of the Association of Area Governments, including an option to merge with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which requires Council action. | Council Referral | Consider Having Council Sign the Friends of the River Letter Urging the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Interior Secretary to Reject the Proposed Shasta Dam Raise and the Temperance Flat Dam for the Friends of the River May 18, 2016 Legislative Outreach, which Requires Council Action at the May 17, 2016 Meeting. (Mayor Spencer) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_05172016_2016-2900 | Speaker 7: Great. Well, thank you very much. The reason why I put together this referral was in light of our decision several weeks ago, about 1435 Webster Street. At which point in time a resident had indicated a desire for a parking permit program. Such a program does exist in the city of Alameda and has existed since, I believe, roughly 2011. And has been in existence since 2011. Now, I don't know if any parking program has actually been implemented, and I suspect none has. And I do recall during the course of the Del Monte project, so there was possible discussion of having a parking permit program around the Del Monte project. But for whatever reason, none such came to pass. I have heard indirectly that that the work required to ratchet up the support, especially from the area that the parking permit program has currently devised, is it requires a lot. At a minimum. For example, the parking permit area has to encompass six contiguous blocks and to get a consensus on that might be a one of the stifling factors to the creation of a parking permit program. So one of the things I'd like to do is just have a presentation on the parking permit program so that in hopes of actually of preparing a program involving the different facets of of our of our city hall that's involved in the parking permit program so that people, residents on the night of the presentation as well as as on a permanent basis, perhaps some kind of saved video, kind of can see the way in which the parking permit program works, how people access the different rules that have enabled it. So that's one thing. It's kind of informing the residents about its availability. Two is looking at where we can make things perhaps easier for residents to implement such a program. And let me give you a specific example. Recognizing that a parking permit program requires and ought to include at least six contiguous blocks, we might think about having even more scaled down parking permit program because it's altogether possible that for the project that we had discussed two weeks ago, 1435, a program, all that's needed is just for the 600 block of Taylor Avenue and the 700 block of Taylor Avenue, which stretches from St Barnabas all the way down to Webster Street and from Webster Street all the way down to Washington School. That's not a Washington school anymore. Myelin. So that. And what part of the discussion is in limiting a parking permit program, making it even possible to have it even scaled down to this level and making it easier for residents to have such a scaled down parking permit program. Part of the discussion. My hope is to see if the costs involved with that are already embedded in services that are right now delivered anyways. So that a scaled down parking permit program. As as a separate parking permit program from the one that's in books right now or maybe as a replacement, I don't know. So that as so that a scaled down parking permit program does, it won't necessarily represent a substantial incremental increase in service outlays. For this reason, you have a traffic person going up and down what street? I don't know, maybe twice a day anyways. So for them to go down one block to the left of Taylor and one block to the right of Taylor at the Taylor. And what Webster seems to me does not represent an incremental a substantial incremental increase in outlays. It may or may not. I don't know. But that's that's something to to be discussed and for staff to take a look at. So just to summarize, one is I think the city manager and her staff put together a presentation, hopefully very well prepared, so that it could be kind of posted on our website somewhere so that the value in and of itself that it's there to is to have a discussion, to see if it's possible to have fiscally possible, to have an operationally possible to have a scaled down parking permit program. So as to deal with what I believe to be one of the fetters to implementing such a thing. That being the sixth contiguous block requirement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And we do have one speaker on this item. I'm going to go ahead and call her at this point. Eleanor, I'll pretend.
Speaker 1: I am Eleanor Albertsen, and this is my first time at a city council meeting. So anything that I hear parking my ears perk up, people. I live in Bayport and people don't even know what Bayport is. Bayport, if you by chance don't know. I think it was the first area from the Navy base that became a development. I mean, people think I'm talking about Bay Forum when I say Bayport and it's on the West End near the City College of Alameda. Okay, I've lived there for four years and for the past two years I have been the chair of the parking committee of the HRA. It's a voluntary position, you know, you see, I'm spending like over 2 hours of my time here. Over the past two years, I've spent much time on this because what's happening is with all this new development that's going on. Things get really complicated when it comes to parking and it's so bad for some people in Bayport. Seriously, I mean, it it's some streets are so bad that people have actually moved out of the community. Some houses have turned over quite a few times. I'm the third or third owner of my home and the house is only like 11 years old. And I think what created the problem is the whole idea that it's complicated because your city streets and private streets. And I think the I'm just putting this out there to you as people of importance in our community. You know who. Who are responsible for new housing and things like that, that you have to really consider people's needs. And people do use cars. I mean, I ride my bike, but I also do need a car. And when I have company, I really have such anxiety as to whether they're going to have a parking spot or not. Because when you're on a private street, only owners and guests of owners are supposed to park there. But that's not the reality. The reality is we have people parking in all sorts of vehicles like trucks and people living in their vehicles on the street. We get all the people from across Ralph Esposito who can't find parking there in their Section eight housing or their apartments, and they park on the street and there's really no way to enforce it. So anyway, so I came out with a lot of other people to do this parking proposal, and we did. We came further than anybody else. I believe in the I don't know, maybe the 11 years that they ports existed. And we have a very solid proposal that because everybody has a different situation, it's very hard to get a consensus. So. I want to support any type of permit parking because that has come up as an option in our neighborhood, too. And it's very, very difficult to reinvent the wheel. I mean, I'm from the health field. What do I know about parking? But I had to do a lot of learning and I've lost a lot of sleep over this. So please consider having some kind of parking permit proposal out there so we can use it to in Bayport. And if anybody has any suggestions or any direction for me, I greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: And I talked to Tony a few times about this.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. All right, counsel, comments, questions. She was our only speaker on that item. And vice mayor.
Speaker 2: I think it's a great idea. It's 2011 listen and if the depth of the depression from the city side and. We have had point after point on parking coming up so I'd like to move that we erect for the the council referral to direct the city manager to put together an updated presentation on neighborhood parking permit program with the options that have been discussed by council member disorganize referral as well as the points that have come up in the discussion of 1435 Webster Street and at the Harper Bay Ferry Terminal.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 3: Ashcroft Thank you so. I mean, I think this is something to look into. It certainly came up in the context of 1435 Webster. I think staff, I believe Jennifer and Liam Garland have been having some meetings. I mean, I know they have have been meeting with folks from the Arab neighborhoods that are impacted by overflow parking for the ferry there. So I imagine staff is already looking into this. You know, go forth and do good work. But I would also just add is that obviously money doesn't grow on trees. We had some pretty sobering comments earlier in this meeting about the need to do to address some of our traffic concerns that could lead to personal injury. We had a very unfortunate fatality recently if we had to decide and maybe these are completely different pots of money. But if we had to decide between.
Speaker 5: More.
Speaker 3: Enforcement, traffic enforcement on the streets to keep our pedestrians and cyclists and motorists safe, you know, that that would, in my mind, be a priority. Maybe we can do it all, but it's not easy. And I do. Commander. Speaker four The effort you're doing in your homeowners association volunteers rock. But anyway, so I'm not I mean, I think it's a, it's a timely topic, but just to to see, you know, where it fits into our budgetary constraints.
Speaker 0: Remember, Odie?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll second the motion that the Vice Mayor made. I think this is a very timely referral. I mean, when you brought this up, when we had the discussion on the motion to approve the 1435 project, know I committed to supporting this if you would bring this forth. So I'm not going to change that commitment. But, you know, we've this is this is our responsibility to tackle. And we've heard the problems with the Del Monte and the issues with the parking there. You know, we've heard the issues on Bay Farm with the ferry when I served on the homeowners board, on when I lived on Bay Farm, and that was our biggest issue. I think that's probably the biggest concern people have out on Bay Farm is people parking in front of their houses. But, you know, it took us a while to actually, you know, decide to go forward and put in a parking program and starting to tell people when they shouldn't be there. So it's kind of a big step. I understand there might be a little reluctance, but, you know, we have a program out there and I believe from the comments that we heard last meeting, that the program is supposed to generate enough revenue to support itself with with tickets and permits. So I'm not sure that's going to be a problem if we design it. Right. But maybe there's a way that we can fix it or adjust it, you know, for like the council member district said on on Taylor, but not too many of us were aware of this program. So the more education that we can do, you know, the better it is for me. So I'm planning on being supportive of this. And thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: Oh, I have I have questions because it's my understanding staff is currently working with the homeowners associations at the ferry on a proposal that would go to them. And in regards to what just happened on Taylor, that would be, I think, a different scenario. And the ask here, I'm not sure. I actually think it may be better to address these different neighborhoods in different as different items. And I and and if in fact people on Taylor have are interested in the program, then I think it would be appropriate if there is a barrier to the current system. But then it could come to council to read to to see if there's a problem. If people are, you know, then we could modify the program. But I'm not sure that this is the best use of staff's time. And I'd be interested in hearing from our city manager because I know that they are. In fact, I'm sure we all know working closely with the homeowners associations by the ferry on the farm. And that to me is a and in regards to prioritizing how we're going to be spending staff's time. My preference would be that we address real problems. If people on Taylor have an issue, then we should be looking at that. The people they form. I know we are currently working on that and the people I can report whatever that issue is, but I don't. I think that they actually are very distinct issues for each one and would and this ask I'm not sure that this is really the best use of staff's time in addressing the real problems in certain. Neighborhoods. My son, I'd like to hear about.
Speaker 7: My senses just quickly that they are actually very similar problems in that what we're dealing with in both situation is the overflow of parking as a result of some kind of transportation network, whether it's the ferry system in the at the Harbor Bay or whether it's the carpool system for which there is a city side that encourages carpooling right there. So it's a city that's promoting, carpooling and and the bus system. So those people parking their cars there and leaving it all day.
Speaker 0: Yes. So I'd like to hear from staff. I actually think they both are.
Speaker 1: Right. There's lot staff, though. Liam, the police chief, are here if we have any specific questions, because they have been meeting on a regular basis, both internally with a bunch of different departments and with the Harbor Bay groups and Harbor Bay and Bay Port have similar issues that might be resolved with some proposed language changes to the way.
Speaker 3: Oh, it would be lovely if we did have a yes update from both Mr. Garland and SCHIEFFER, Larry.
Speaker 0: But I'd like to let the city manager finish her comments and then introduce them to her.
Speaker 1: And I think the issue is, although they're similar, when we look at how best to implement them, it may be like in Harbor Bay, if if it's a very small area, then people are willing to walk farther and it just impacts the next adjacent block. And so I think we have to look at it pretty much at a case by case basis of how far someone's willing to walk. So we don't keep impacting the next neighborhood. So.
Speaker 0: But so would you like to give us some insight as to what this should look like? Do you want to hear from them first?
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's hear from.
Speaker 0: All right. Observer, Larry.
Speaker 2: Chief just got.
Speaker 0: Demoted. Very cheap.
Speaker 2: Ouch. That's right. That was really quick. No, sir. Would you like to speak to Chief Ledbetter? So there's a lot of sort of. Floating balloons with this concept and we're still we have been meeting with the Harbor Bay is about working out a residential permit program there. There are there are some distinct differences but like member dislike said, the the main issue the one that's going to be common in any of these proposals is the overflow that's impacting the residents who have homes who can't park or have their guests over. So with that in mind, fiscally, it's not going to cost us. We're not going to I don't see the police department having to make a choice between the traffic enforcement that was brought up earlier and enforcing a residential parking permit program. I have most of our parking citations in town. Most of them are issued by our part time parking tax. We're down one position. There may be two. They're not. Although I have my staffing issues with the with the police officer rank these the part time parking positions are not really difficult to to fill. Member days I've mentioned you know the the regular routes that they run to do the meter enforcements and you're correct it wouldn't be a big deal it wouldn't add any additional cost to the department to have them come through another time or two on six or the 700 block of Taylor or out at Harbor Vale. On the public and private streets to do the extra enforcement where we're not talking about all day, we're talking about the beginning of the day and the end of the day. So it's really kind of already baked in to our costs. I do. I would have some concerns further down the road if this becomes popular and it takes off. And we've got 15 neighborhood parking permits going on and we've got different areas to enforce. Then I might come back and say, okay, I've got a problem, I need more people. Or This is this is now starting to be a problem. But if we're talking about Bayport Harbor Bay and the six or 700 block of Taylor or some other nearby neighborhood to the Webster Street corridor, we can handle it with what we have right now.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Liam Garland from.
Speaker 8: Public Works, which won out a couple of things to that, which is we will be back in front of this body on June 7th with some proposed changes to the residential permit parking program for four ways specifically. And that has to do with a proposed solution for the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal might relate to Bayport. So that's something we should definitely be in contact about. The other thing to consider is you've got a citywide transportation study and parking is an element of that as to whether proposed changes to the parking program are worthy of analysis. It seems like that's the vehicle to address that because as if there's more of these permit programs citywide, that's citywide effect. That's something that can be considered through the course of that study.
Speaker 0: So let it be. I wanted to hear from staff or city manager regards you. So when you look at this proposal, is this the best way for us to address these issues or. Well, it sounds like some of them will be coming up to us through work that staff is already doing? Or would you recommend.
Speaker 1: Ideally we could bring this back June 7th with the first set of changes. We can see how that works here. Continue to hear from the community, have it included in the citywide transportation plan and that's coming now. Fairly soon, too. And in part of that process, we're meeting with residents and we can figure out more specifically what it is under the current program. And we can also encourage residents to, if they have an issue, they can start talking to staff now on what it would look like and what the barriers are so we can sort of learn . Under our existing program because any resident can apply for it. Now, any group of blocks of residents can apply for it now, and so once they start learning about it, then we can find out specifically what the issues are.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 2: And I think the motion in the second can still stand because you've outlined that there's already work being done, and I think the timing is actually good because the points that are in here can be can leverage the work that's been done. And this can come back in the context of those are the public works report that's already coming back and the transportation master plan but that that work that's being done. So I think if we go forward with this, it takes these elements. I think the scale scaling element, the financing element and that that impact that's talked about where where the problem is being pushed. I think are specified in this referral. And those now I'd like to see highlighted as we go through this process, both with my own bay and what's going on with our overall transportation demand management program
Speaker 7: . I only can. My only concern that I would raise, though, is that the citywide transportation plan that we're putting together is I think we're like three months into an 18 month process. So. So that would be that would be a concern. By the same token, I don't I mean, the work that's being done in terms of the H-2A, it seems as though there's been good forward progress on that. So I think that should move along. So, you know, with regard to some of the issues that are raised tonight, particularly the is it possible to scale it down and how do we deal with what are the secondary policies we need to think about should in scaling it down, if others then begin to like begin I mean, what are our countermeasures? I mean, those are things that I'm looking to staff to think about and then and and come back. But it doesn't have to be in June, but I really encourage us to not wait 18 months, though.
Speaker 0: And I would like to have some input from the community if if if people on Taylor are looking at this, I think it's important we hear from them. That's a concern of mine if we're driving it and we haven't heard from them. Now we do have someone here from Bayport. But to me that is telling us that there's a neighborhood there that staff could very well be meeting with and making sure that we are meeting their demands and seeing if, in fact, our current policies already meet their demands and that we just need to have that conversation. Member Ashcraft That's your hand up.
Speaker 3: I think there's more. Manager.
Speaker 1: I was just going to make the recommendation.
Speaker 5: That as part of what Councilmember de Saag was asking for is that when we come back on June 7th, that we can actually do a presentation on the ordinance, not just what our changes are, but so that it's a presentation and this is what we currently have on the books. So it's sort of like a tutorial 101. And, you know, and at that time, I think Mayport and Harbor Bay and we will have some of the Harbor Bay changes. But I think that also might help address what Councilmember Desai was looking for.
Speaker 7: Let me just make sure to say Taylor Avenue was raised only as illustrative purposes, largely because it was a project that it occurred and that there was a resident who did speak for that. But the larger point about Taylor is that is this is that we have these business districts part Street or Webster Street, and you have you have police going down there, traffic, traffic people going down them and doing their their stuff. So in the regular course of doing their stuff, they're there anyways. It's not necessarily a significant incremental increase in in outlays that's required for them now to go to one or two blocks. Now, as Chief Larry said, yes, but if you have success with one or two blocks, you know, it might spur ten others in the area. But my response to that is. Or staff then to kind of contemplate what our our countermeasures in dealing with.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: Remember, I just wanted to add real quick, I think the assistant city manager said what I was going to say. I mean, I think the important part of this that's common to all the neighborhoods is that there's a plan out there, a program, and that we need to educate the public on what it is and how we can go about setting it up, and then we go from there. So with that, I'll call the question and list the other question.
Speaker 0: All right, so we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, I. Oppose. I'm going to oppose a motion carries for two one. Thank you. Next item is nine d.
Speaker 1: Consider reforming the Council of Council Review Process of Planning Board decision.
Speaker 0: And this was a member of his referral.
Speaker 4: Or my comments to.
Speaker 0: All right. So well, then, do you want to speak to what we're going to describe what the referral is, or should I ask the court to? Well, we have an audience of watching here. All right. So.
Speaker 4: Oh, has it pulled up? A brief description. The review process for planning board decisions calls for review on important check and balance in the city process. Ensure that a majority of elected council have the ability to ensure that the work generated by the Planning Board and other bodies rise to the expected quality and appropriateness. And it goes through and makes a proposal on reforming it. It doesn't take any authority away from the council members. Council members could still weigh in under this proposal. They can even weigh in earlier and probably have a chance to convince others earlier to of the validity of their their concerns. So it's just an idea that we have maybe a more nuanced review that would ensure that all projects go through a full vetting before being brought to the Council for a rehearing, and that a review actually has the likelihood of actually being overturned if brought to the council. You know, for example, I'm not comparing us to the Supreme Court, but, you know, if you want to bring a case to the Supreme Court, you need four of the nine judges to say, I want to hear that case. You know, it might be worthwhile to consider, you know, perhaps two or three individual on this council. It would have to raise a concern because there are issues that we may want to hear that we may not vote against later on, but we want to give them an opportunity to have an hearing. And there may be situations where we do want to have a hearing or the other way around. So I want to hear the public comment and I have some remarks and then I'm happy to hear colleagues input. But the one thing this is not the end all be all. | Council Referral | Consider Directing the City Manager to Prepare a Presentation on the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program. (Councilmember Daysog) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04192016_2016-2804 | Speaker 7: Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to preserve this evening on the College of Alameda a promise. So I want to thank the Mayor Spencer and the City Council for providing me with 5 minutes to give our pitch and promote our program. I've provided a packet for each one of you that outlines a description of the Promise Initiative, the National Promise Initiative. And President Obama has a college for all campaign where he guarantee he wants to guarantee that all graduating seniors have two years of free college upon their completion of high school. And so that College of Alameda promise is borne out of that initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to ensure that we have a better educated America. And so the College of Alameda wants to be a part of that process and that movement. In your packet, you have the promise, the national promise campaign initiatives that are going on in the state of California, and then an outline and background and scope of the College of Alameda Promise program. To date we have at the College of Alameda promise our framework is going to be that all graduating seniors from Alameda High Schools will attend the College of alameda free for their first year. We're going to pilot this fall with Encino High School. We will scale up in at Island next year and then Alameda High School the following year. And then there's charter schools or whatever in Alameda that we'll bring them on board as we go along. Our promise will include not only payment of fees, but it will also include a $300 book grant. And then we have some organizations that are willing to provide each student with a refurbished laptop to bridge that technology divide. One of the. One of our concerns in Alameda, especially on the west side of the college, is when we look at the Alameda Point Collaborative and the transitional housing and the level of poverty in that area, is that one way for those communities to get out of that? Poverty is through education. And so the College of Alameda, we want to be responsive to that and support individuals in Alameda to ensure that they have a higher education. To date, some of our partners are Alameda Unified School District Assemblyman Rob Bond, his office supervisor Roma chan's office. CSU East Bay has guaranteed admissions for students as long as they meet the requirements. I met with the president there. UC Berkeley has a transfer admission pipeline, and so we will work with them to prep to make sure that students are prepared to participate. We're also Pur Force Foundation is providing funding for the initiative tenacity ten Lacrosse, which is one of our new partners at College of Alameda, gave us $500,000 seed money. So we're able to launch and kick off the initiative. Other interested parties are the Jack London soccer group, so they have expressed an interest to partner with us. Mills College wants to do a two plus two plus one where they spend two years at College of Alameda, two years at Mills, and then they will guarantee them admission into their first year of graduate school, which is a really nice opportunity. And then San Jose State is waiting for the new president to get on board and then we will work with them and their team to bring folks on. And so we have a we have right now we're at the beginning the infancy of the partnership, but we have enough to launch and get students started in participating in our program, and we're just really excited about it. When I first started here at the College of Alameda last year, this was kind of one of my visions or dreams for the college. And to show that we are committed to Alameda because folks have told me that we've been an island unto ourselves. And so I want to say I want the community to know that we're committed to them and their students. The students in the program will get intrusive counseling and support services. They will meet with a counselor twice a semester. If they're qualify for financial aid, they will be awarded that as well, and they will have an education plan to make sure they don't take empty units and that they're on track to transfer, get an associate degree or whatever their professional goals are. But we're there to support the students and the citizens of Alameda and their children. And we've prepared a video for your review. And we also have in your packet connecting with community, a brochure about our college and the programs and our student profile. And we're asking you this evening that the city would support the College of Alameda. Promise. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 8: A promise of education in next step to the future for Alameda High School, students starts with College of Alameda and Youth with a host of associate degree and certificate programs. College of Alameda provides high quality instruction in job relevant career training. Right here on the Island College of Alameda is offerings including our career. Technical education programs are unique with many of the programs offered few other places in the Bay Area College of Alameda offers education on a global scale. And to accomplish this, we joined a powerful initiative called the College Promise Campaign. The Promise program was inspired by President Obama's America's College Promise Plan with a vision to make the first two years of higher education free for all students who went to community college. The College of Alameda Promise models this program asserting that students success is greatly improved when financial barriers and the associated stress are removed. The College of Alameda Promise will provide priority registration one year of college without fees and a book stipend to graduates of Alameda High Schools who enroll full time at College of Alameda. The College of Alameda Promise was designed to serve Alameda residents with the most need of the nearly 10,000 students served by the Alameda School District. Many are English language learners, special education or low income. The promise will begin in fall 2016. Serving graduates of internal high in the Alameda Science and Technology Institute, the two schools that serve the highest need students on the island. It will expand to Island High in year two. In Alameda High near three. We anticipate that as many as 667 Alameda High School graduates will attend College of Alameda via the Promise program in the first three years. What kind of results do we expect up to? 20% more students attending college and a 30% increase in retention and graduation rates, specifically among at risk students. More students will transfer to further their educational goals. The promise will also strengthen students access to career pathways, helping prepare them to join the workforce in Alameda and surrounding areas. Funding for the promise is being generously provided by individual, corporate and foundation donors, and we're asking for local and state support as well. How can you help? We ask you to get involved, adopt the promise and support it in every way you can. We invite you to the campus, your campus, and look forward to achieving success together. We promise at College of Alameda.
Speaker 7: I know my 5 minutes are up, but I wouldn't invite the City Council and Alameda City to participate in our Promise initiative and I look forward to working closely with you. We have a meeting this Friday, the kind of finalize our launch. We're looking at our launch on either May 12th or May 30th, and we'll have the appropriate folks there to help kick it off, all of our partners, etc.. So again, thank you. Are there any questions or anything?
Speaker 1: Thank you. At this point, I think it's for us to move along because as opposed to be announcements. Okay. So thank you. And regards to us joining the College of Media that will come back to us at a later time. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: And I just want to say thank you. And that was it's really inspiring to hear how you're looking at the neediest of our students and and partnering with with the school district in this way. So thank you for continuing to be a valuable resource in our community.
Speaker 3: Hey, remember days.
Speaker 5: Out, I'll have you know that back in 1984, when I was a senior in high school at Encino, I did attend classes at College of Alameda with Miss Wise.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Now I'm going to proceed with item three Bee.
Speaker 0: Proclamation Declaring April 23rd, 2016 as Earth Day in Alameda.
Speaker 1: And Kathleen Carney of the Library Board will be accepting this and the proclamation. Whereas, April 23rd, 2016 marks the 46th anniversary of the first celebrated Earth Day, a day in which events worldwide are held to demonstrate support for environmental protection. | Proclamation/Special Order | Presentation by Dr. Joi Lin Blake, College of Alameda President, on the College of Alameda Promise. | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04192016_2016-2795 | Speaker 1: And it includes language that I think could actually discourage members from speaking. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 9: Yes, I had similar concerns and I did not feel that these added any value to the Sunshine Committee or Sunshine Ordinance in instructing us and instructing people to follow it, as well as to improve the transparency of city activities.
Speaker 2: And the section was that, again, mayor.
Speaker 1: Had to dash 91.17 public comment by members of policy bodies. And I believe that there was also a language added by staff that the the Commission had not recommended. That being said.
Speaker 4: Member Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move a final passage of the ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code by amending, adding and deleting sections of Article eight Sunshine Ordinance of Chapter two concerning local standards to ensure public access to public meetings and records.
Speaker 2: I. Second.
Speaker 1: Any discussion. All those in favor I oppose?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: I also oppose the motion carries 3 to 2. Thank you. Now we proceed with the regular agenda items.
Speaker 0: Six A adoption resolution amending the fiscal year 20 1516 Operating and capital improvement budget and approving workforce changes in the city manager's office and Public Works Department.
Speaker 1: Do we have speakers on this item?
Speaker 0: No. All right.
Speaker 1: So if you want to speak on this item, please turn on your slip. | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending, Adding and Deleting Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter II (Administration) Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. (City Attorney 2310) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04192016_2016-2793 | Speaker 6: Good evening again, Mayor and members of the council. Elaina Dare, finance director. So tonight, as you will see, we're going to take a look at the city's budget. As a reminder, the fiscal year 1516 budget was originally adopted about a year ago. Well, was prepared and then adopted in June 2015. Today, we're going to discuss the mid-year update to the 1516 budget. It will include General Fund, which will be probably the main focus, but it also provides some updates to other city funds. So the first slide you will see is really a summary of the general fund and we tried to build a story for you. The very first column you will see is a the adopted budget. That's exactly how it was presented to you back in June of 2015, and that's how it was adopted. Then during the year, actually up to now, we've made some revisions and you will see those listed in their revised budget column and those happened between September and March timeframe. The large one, as you may remember, when the budget was adopted, the concern was what should we do with the available balance within the fund? And then in September we got back and you have taken several actions on allocating some of those funds across various programs within the city. So tonight we're actually proposing additional amendments to the budget. And I'll go in detail through those as well. And the very last column, assuming those amendments are approved, that's where the staff is projecting to be for the general fund at the end of the fiscal year. So this is not actual this is a projection what we believe would be the best estimate at this time. So that said, we expect that by the end of the fiscal year, by June 30th, we will end up at about 24% of available fund balance for the general fund. Okay. So some of the items that you will see. First one we're going to talk about is property tax. So we're asking you to update the budget and increase property tax component of the revenues by $1.3 million. And really, the main component of that 1.3 is what we call the water fund waterfall funds from the Dissolution of Redevelopment Agency. What happens is once all the bills and all the obligations have been paid that the city put on required obligations, schedules, the remaining funds are then distributed among various jurisdictions and city is one of them. So we've gotten, I would say, a waterfall of funds from that. We originally expected it to be around 1.1 million. We're expecting to get probably an additional 750,000. This would be more of a one time funds. Again, those moneys are really dependent on what the obligations are of the redevelopment agency, and we provide those to the State Department of Finance annually starting this year. And so it depends on what the obligations are. We also had some small increases in other property taxes. So that made up the difference of 1.3 and about 750,000. Another revenue we would like to update is motor vehicle license fee. And Lou, that particular revenue has the same way of increase as the property taxes, even though it's called motor vehicle license fee. In lieu, it is collected through the property tax and as the property tax. GROSS So this particular revenue source as well. So our property tax went up and therefore we are getting a little bit more money on this particular revenue source. Property transfer tax. We would like to increase it by a little over $2 million. And again, this particular revenue source is. A reasoning for increase change in ownership. So the more homes are sold, new homes are sold and the appreciation, the home prices. So this is really a combination of the two.
Speaker 5: Just a quick question. Do you know if there is one or two projects that drove the $2 million in transfer tax increases? Or is it generally across the board that the appreciation?
Speaker 6: There were a few transactions that happened that were fairly large and more of a business to business type of transactions. But there were some properties that were residential and happened to exceed actually which keep track of those that are over $25,000. So there were quite a few that were in that amount.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Okay. Utility user tax. So in this particular source of revenue, unlike the other three you just saw, it's actually a declining revenue source. So proposal for us, based on the receipts that we're seeing to date, we're actually suggesting to decrease this revenue source by $150,000. Again, we collect utility user tax on four different utilities, gas, electricity, telecommunications and cable. The major decrease is actually within the telecommunication services or attributable to that service.
Speaker 1: Can you be more specific about landlines? Is that what you're talking about?
Speaker 6: It includes variety. Yes. Landlines is one of them. So telecom kind of encompasses many different things and landlines is one of them. And landlines do decrease as people stop using landlines.
Speaker 2: And use cell phone. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: Get more use of the cell phones bundling services.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Transient occupancy tax is actually going up and we're asking to increase it by about $220,000. And our consultant who helps us out with projecting the revenues, some of the larger revenues also mentioned to us that the rates, hotel rates are going up and were up about 13.2% from the same time frame compared to last year. So that really is increasing for us. The revenue source in this case. And the more people travel, the better the economy. We receive more revenues. Investment income. It has a slight increase, but we wanted to recognize that as well. That's the increase on our investment portfolio. So the increase again based on the market condition, but $30,000. Going into. So those were more of a general tax revenues. These are going to be now the departmental revenues. So we have variety of those as well. The largest one by significant amount, 655,000 increase is in the fire department revenues. And what it's made up of is mutual aid reimbursements from the state. The department is also doing a good job and doing inspections. They report their inspection fees are going up and the largest one is GMT reimbursement and it's ground emergency management transportation. And the fire chief is here in case you would like to get details on that particular program. But it's something the department is actually providing a service and then submits to the state for the reimbursement. It's fairly new program that was established by the state and we're expecting about $300,000 to receive back from the state. Okay. The next one is police department. We expect we actually already received an $80,000 grant. You may remember a while back, actually in 2015, around June, July timeframe, you approved the purchase of a boat, which was funded also by a grant. So we got the money and we're recognizing that particular grant public works department is actually having a decline or a reduction in the revenues, approximately $100,000. And the reason is decline in the fuel prices, therefore. It's going down.
Speaker 2: QUESTION Mr. Chair, can you just explain that? So how is it that a decline in fuel prices led to a decrease in public works department revenues?
Speaker 6: So the department actually. Gets buys the fuel, and then they charge it out to all the departments that end up using that fuel. So all in it's a charge to other department. And as a result, because the cost went down, they are not charging as much and therefore it comes back to them with the lower amount.
Speaker 2: But then, isn't there also a corresponding decline in the expenses of other departments that buy that fuel?
Speaker 6: Correct. Public works is kind of your central department. So once you start spreading it across all the departments, the changes are small where it wasn't really wanting to actually make an adjustment.
Speaker 0: Thanks.
Speaker 6: So this is actually our first. We told you that changes are happening and hear the words this time around, we actually giving you a picture. So hopefully a picture will worth a thousand words and it kind of gives you a more of a graphical presentation. The sources of funds are the how we receiving a where we're getting the revenues from and the uses of funds is where those revenues are actually being allocated too. You will see that the largest one by far is a transfer tax, which is talked about that. But with all the uses that we currently have, they're not nearly significant and we're still adding to the bottom line of the available balanced general fund of close to $3.3 million. So we also thought it would be important to kind of summarize for you some of the transfers out that we have. So obviously, we just kind of lumped them in some cases together and this gives you a little bit of a breakdown of the transfers out. The part of the requested amendments we're asking to allocate about $25,000 to Capital Projects Fund, and this is for the Dock Replacement Library, asked for an additional $15,000. And that and I'll go in a little bit of detail on that on all of those as we move forward. But Library is asking an additional amount for payment to their part time employees because of the wage increases that were effective January 1st and $575,000. You may remember back in September, you originally approved a transfer to cover the cost of building demolition at base reuse or Alameda Point. And we evaluated or actually the bases director validated that we didn't need those funds. And so we're returning them back to general fund. So this is again, it's actually a repeat of a slide, but on a budget update summary. This is more of of why this is what we just talked about kind of a glance. Again, this is what it looks like as a reminder. And one of the items that's always been asked is, well, what is the general fund balance? Because what we generally present to you is the available balance. So what is the total fund balance for the general fund? This particular presentation gives you an idea. It gives you all the components that we have within general fund. The total general fund balance is. $30.7 million or close to that. And so we have four components. And the largest by far is the available balance. And that's what we like to refer as 20%. That's the our mark sort of speak. But the reality is, as we said, by June 30th, our expectations will be at 24% of total expenditures of the general fund. So that in a nutshell is the general fund and the changes to it. So now we're going to talk a little bit about all the other funds that are asking for changes. As I've mentioned earlier, library is requesting $15,000, which is the wage increase effective January one, 2016. And that was not something that the city decided to do. This was a state enactment or law, and so we're just complying with that. In addition, the library received a $23,000 grant, and that's for library materials. So library is asking to adjust its revenues and expenditures, but $23,000. Base for use. Increase in leasing revenues of 871,000, which is actually offset by a contractual services for a payment to the consultant that assists the city. And actually within their base of use areas in Alameda point with those leasing activities. And again, you will see an adjustment here. This is the other side of the transfer that's being reversed on General Fund for the contribution for building demo. Rent Stabilization Program. You may remember that you have adopted or approved an allocation from general fund, $300,000 for the rent stabilization costs. A lot of them actually majority of them go to housing authority for the operations and management of this program. We are asking to actually appropriate it now within the rent stabilization program. We've made the transfer out of general fund. This is more, I guess you would say, an accounting reason so that we have the ability to spend the money. Again, $80,000 covers contractual services within the city, which actually includes the fee study. And 220,000 will go to the housing authority. Alameda lending. We're asking to increase Alameda lending funds expenditures by $34,000. And the only reason is we missed that particular budgeted item during the regular budget season. It was a brand new fund, so it was really just an omission. But we have to bring it back to you for the approval. Arbor Bay Assessment District A. An additional increase in the budget for payment to the wedo for ferry services. Capital improvement projects. I've mentioned earlier, $25,000 for the install dock replacement. There are three additional ones and I just noted them as really the accounting changes. Particular reason is this particular funds were included as part of the governmental funds. However, they are more out of a restricted sources, so we're just trying to put them in the right bucket. So there's no dollar changes. It's just simply moving it from one fund to another. Vehicle replacement. We're asking to increase the revenues and expenditures in a vehicle replacement, $130,000. And again, the expenditure is to do the ambulance remount funded with the proceeds from the bowls ambulance. One of the items that the fire chief brought up is a way to assist paying for ambulance remount. And one of the ways was he looked at B-list ambulances that a program that stopped it was a pilot program. However, likelihood of restarting is going to be a little bit of time. By then, these particular vehicles would probably be outdated. So while they still maintain the value, the thought is to sell it and actually use it for something that the city can utilize. And $30,000 is to purchase a park maintenance truck. Again, one of the trucks that the city had was in the accident and funds by really insurance proceeds partially and also the reserves that are within the Parks Department contributions that already happened. Superfund. The Department is actually proposing to reduce the assessment revenues. You may all know that the sewer assessments are collected through the property taxes. So those are the assessments that we're trying to reduce by $1.9 million. Original budget, when it was put together, was done actually before the sewer fund fee study was completed. And. This is an adjustment to pretty much be in line with the fee study report that was done. Just as a note, the department's expectation because the fee study was done with assumptions of whatever the revenue supposed to be, wasn't relied on what the budget necessarily said originally. All the EPA decrees that require us to do so were replacement. They were still calculated into what the revenue was expected, not the one that was actually in the budget and therefore they're still expected to be on time and have sufficient collections to do the replacement. $622,000 was actually a revenue increase and this is in the connection fees. I consider those more to be of a one time type of source of money. As you have new development, you get the connection fees. They're not necessarily repeating all the time. And again, sure, project capital projects where we for accounting purposes moving to were related projects back to the sewer fund. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them as well as the stamp.
Speaker 1: All right. The first question I have is the presentation, as far as I could tell, went with the budget. And there's a second part of this item that we're being asked to approve workforce changes in the city manager's office and public works department or someone else to be addressing that part.
Speaker 6: I can address that. So and I was my right. I apologize for that. So there are a couple of changes that are happening. And one of them, as you mentioned, within the city manager's office, the. I.t. Director original allocation was to be funded half and half between general fund and alameda municipal power. However, when the director actually came on board and. Pretty much evaluated the work and amount of work and what needs to be done between the city and Alameda Municipal Power. It was determined that there won't be as much time be spent and allocated to AMP. Therefore, the Department is requesting and an adjustment in allocation of the salaries which is going to be changed to 25% AMP and 75% General Fund. And the second one is for public works department. The department is proposing to upgrade the position of program manager one to a program manager two. And really, this is based on the need of the department, the program manager, to give us a little bit more responsibility and supervision. We're program manager one duties do not encompass that. And for just operational needs, that position is more appropriate.
Speaker 1: And what is the dollar amount for the I.T. director that's shifting from AMP to the general fund?
Speaker 6: There won't be any impact actually for 15, 16 fiscal year. And the reason is the position was expected to be hired in September of 2015. However, because the hiring didn't actually happen till early spring of 2016, what happens is there's sufficient savings from that position that we're able to cover the cost for additional 25% that's been paid out of general fund in 1516. In 1617. As we go through the mid-cycle update, we will provide you 16, $17. What's the difference in the position?
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. A member Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: Thank you and thank you, Mr.. Nice presentation, as always. I had a question on page four of the staff report and this is when we're talking about. Up at the top of page four, it says that the police department expenditures budget is proposed to be reduced by $450,000. This decrease is to recognize the labor savings due to difficulty in filling vacant positions created as a result of retirements in the department. So my question is how will we address adding back the money into the LAPD budget when suitable recruits are found and hired?
Speaker 6: So in each fiscal year we and we did it actually for 1516, we worked with the department to determine what their expectations are in actually hiring new personnel or additional personnel to fill their vacancies. That said, we've already assumed certain savings. If you may remember, back in June, actually about half a million dollars for the general fund in savings from the position not being filled. A lot of them were actually for APD. So what happens is even though the department is filling the positions, they actually had quite a few retirements this year. Sometime in December, I believe that wasn't exactly expected. And the feeling of positions subsequent to that is not happening as fast as they would like. So what happens is it created additional savings to the department. So when we go into 1617, we still budget at the authorized position level unless the department tells us that we having issues are filling the positions and then we'll rely on some of the savings.
Speaker 2: Okay. So this is a one time savings in the local level. They're not going to be able to fill those positions until the fall or the next fiscal year.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 6: They're actually expecting to feel quite a few positions this year, but it still is not fast enough to fill them all. And we still have savings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because we're getting coming to the end of a fiscal year, aren't we? Yeah. Correct. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 9: I have two questions. The first is if you could elaborate a little bit more on the impact of the overstatement of almost $2 million in sewer fund revenues, that the line and the staff report says that in spite of this, we should be able to hit the target. How do we lose $2 million of revenue and still hit the target for replacement? If if that can be explained and then this the second is. When we approved the budget last year. We approved a two year budget this year budget. This year's budget was in the in the positive about. I think it was $1.2 million. And then next year's budget is supposed to be in the negative by one point. Uh, it was. Well. So we're, we actually actually a little bit more. So there's a small deficit if you look at the two years and then I see the trend in, in police and I have the same concern that Council member Ashcraft expressed about. These one time savings, if you will, and I understand adjusting the budget to looking backwards, but looking forward, we're going to have an increase there or at least have the same amount so that you answer that question, we'll have the same amounts will be able to staff fully. I also look at the trend for the fire department and we went from an 800 addition to the budget in our mid-year cycle and now we're almost a million over. So how does how do we continue to do that and face a budget in our next year that's going to have a deficit? And that's a rhetorical question. I'd like us to come back and resolve that because we're not going to be able to sustain that if that trend continues as. Is that accurate?
Speaker 6: Well, one of the items for the fire department actually is even though the increase in the fire department budget is large, a lot of those expenditure increases are offset with the revenues that the department is bringing in. So it's almost like you have to look at the net impact of the department and on the department's budget. And the net impact is actually just to let you know, is is under 357,000. Correct.
Speaker 9: But. Even even so when we look and some of those were one time right and and temporary they're not continual except for that transfer of the GMAT. Correct. That's a pilot program or is that that's a new program.
Speaker 6: That was a new program that was established by the state. And so department actually has to ask for reimbursement. So the services happen, they have to ask for reimbursement and the state is actually paying back. So this is something that already happened and it wasn't actually quite expected. It's fairly laborer's, as I understand, and I'm sure fire chief can speak to that as to what information needs to needs to be submitted to the state. And they actually review it fairly closely as to what type of. Operational indicators they actually have to provide in order to receive a reimbursement. So and I would like to maybe ask the.
Speaker 9: But needless to say that that trend, looking at a second year of the two year budget that projects a deficit. I'd like us to get a full report on what we're looking at. Are we looking still at that $1.2 million hole, or are we going to adjust our revenues knowing what's been built? To recalibrate that second year of this two year budget.
Speaker 6: And we are we are going to bring back mid-cycle update for you, which really looks at two fiscal year 1617 and it's expected to happen in June.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1: And Brody with your questions there.
Speaker 9: Mr. Galan's going to talk about.
Speaker 3: All right. Yeah.
Speaker 8: All right. Madam Mayor, members of the city council. I'm Liam Galan with the Public Works Department. Yes, I can understand that. You might have taken a deep breath when you saw that. What was happening is we had two processes going on at the same time. We had the cities adopting a budget and then we had at the same time setting sewer rates for the next five years. And the mistake I made was not having those sewer rates set enough far in advance so we could plug in that revenue number in the final adopted budget. So none of the work plans we've developed, including that the five year study was based on 20 years worth of work and the financials related to that, none of that work dependent on this placeholder number in the budget. So it's the rate study number that really is the it's the real money. And for that, there's no changes whatsoever that's on target because that makes sense. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Remember?
Speaker 4: I think the question I had was just answered about, you know, what the next steps are when we're going to get an update again. And just to make sure that as we get that update, you know, we see kind of the big picture. We're looking at these very minute like maybe quarterly nine month numbers, but not seeing like the yearly picture, the five year picture.
Speaker 6: And that information will be included. It's going to have the general fund for the full fiscal year with all the updates, whether it's revenue related or expenditures related. We'll obviously include the update on the labor costs, which is the largest. But as you mentioned, we are looking at the revenues as well. And it's going to come back to you. It's going to be a full fiscal year. And in addition, with the five year projection.
Speaker 4: And, you know, has is our request, usually we can just make sure we know what's one time, you know, and what things we're going to have to think about that are going to be recurring.
Speaker 1: Remember Daisuke.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. When I look at the. More extensive sheet, not the PowerPoint presentation, but the other exhibit one. The Budget summary Yeah. When I look at the budget summary, the thing that catches my eye is based upon what we adopted in FY 1516 that we adopted on July 1st, 2015, and then that was subsequently revised in the following September through March period. And then that subsequently revised even more, which is the point of tonight's discussion at the end. You are projecting a 24% reserve ratio. Okay. And to me, I like that number and. And I want to say that because. You know how while we had a really high reserve ratio previously of 38%. And there was, you know, great desire to move, to bring it down to 20%. I think the thing to think about any reserve ratio is that it's not like a thermometer in a house. It's not like you can set your hair thermometer and then, you know, your house will be of a certain temperature. The reserve ratio instead. It's a byproduct of all these transactions. And on the revenue side. Revenues that come in or perhaps don't come in at. But on the expense side, holding down expenses. So I like the fact that we're above the 20% ratio and I have no desire to. Now go down to 20% just because 20% is some some number. I won't argue with anybody that 38% was high. But I think, you know, we should. Position ourselves against thinking that we can be engineers, that we can engineer a permanent 20% ratio. It'll always be something north or something south. But we want to have a certain target. And I think at 24%, there's a certain cushion. Between 20% and 24%. That makes me feel comfortable. Um. I just wanted to make sure to note that because to get to where we are, I mean, we did spend a lot of money our previous reserve amount. And I'll be the first one to say, hey, that helps pay for the. That's a citywide transportation strategy. So I'm not going to bite the hand that these but that you know, I always am cautious that, you know, you're lucky to have whatever ratio, reserve ratio you have and the higher the better.
Speaker 1: All right at this time.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My questions go to first of all, in regards to when we vote on the adoption of the fiscal year amending the fiscal year budget here, does that have to be today?
Speaker 6: Well, we prefer to be for it to be today because some of the departments kind of relying on their. Budget to be set for expenditures so they can move forward with their programs or projects that they have in place.
Speaker 2: We were also supposed to hear this two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, that wasn't my question. But what is your state that you need this voted on by? Or is there a certain date?
Speaker 0: It we wanted it voted on as soon as possible. So the departments know for the last couple of months in the fiscal year how much their budget is going to be, otherwise they can't go forward and do the projects that they're intending to do.
Speaker 1: All right. So there doesn't appear to be a date certain. So I'm going to continue with my questions. Then on here. The library is asking for an increase because of the increase in minimum wage. I didn't see that reflected in other departments, for instance, REC and Parks. What about other departments that have employees that are at the minimum wage level?
Speaker 6: So with Park and Rec, they actually expected in their rates an increase. And so that was already calculated in their budget. Unfortunately, library did not take that into consideration.
Speaker 1: So out of all of our departments, the library is the only one that will require an increase to cover the increase in the minimum wage.
Speaker 6: Correct. If the other departments needed additional funding, which some of them have asked for it, they had sufficient other appropriations within their departments to cover those increases. So they don't ask for an additional money.
Speaker 1: Okay. What about the items that were in our parking lot? Because this has some new items and yet we had had as a council a parking lot. When does that come back to us for funding or.
Speaker 0: That's tentatively coming back right after the legislative break of September, when we have a better idea of what the close of the fiscal year budget is going to be.
Speaker 1: So why are these and why are these requests given a priority over requests the council had had in the past? For us to look at.
Speaker 5: I can answer one question. One answer to that question just one is the necessity of funding the rent program. That correct. So rent.
Speaker 0: Stabilization.
Speaker 5: Rent stabilization programs.
Speaker 0: Madam Chair, if I might just ask, question and clarify because. So I participated in the parking lot discussion and that was last September. And that parking lot discussion, my understanding was that that discussion was concluded. And I'm I am not aware of other parking lot issues that we're tracking right now. So maybe if you could help us understand what you're referring to. Because I'm not aware of any other parking lot issues.
Speaker 1: Okay. I thought that there are items on the parking lot. I'm thinking Alameda Museum may have had a request.
Speaker 0: And we had.
Speaker 6: The art.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry to interrupt.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: We did have a list. And, you know, we had a fair amount of money and we made sort of decisions where that money was going to go. And some places we said no. And that may have been one of them, which was, I think you're thinking in the Carnegie.
Speaker 1: No. The Burmese army to museum. I thought they might have been asking for money, but I think that we spent some money at that time and the other items we didn't necessarily fund because we didn't know if we'd have money to fund them. But now we're being asked to make other expenditures. So I personally would have thought, and I'm happy to, we can review the parking lot and see what items on there. Weren't funded thinking we didn't have money to fund. But there's new items here that are being raised, and I would have thought that they would we would consider them all together because we didn't fund everything. On the parking lot is my recollection. So and then also in regards and I want I want to move on because we also received some emails in regards to these items and one of them spoke to the army to police department reduction. And the commenter here seemed to think that you had concerns that we do have a need for increased police, for instance, on the street, patrolling for more visibility, doing to help residents feel safe and comfortable in the neighborhood shopping districts. More officers could be used to increase community outreach and community building and more interaction with you, things like that. And did you have a response in regards to that?
Speaker 6: So again, we did work with the police chief and the captains in figuring out what their budget would be and if they have the ability to fill their positions. Unfortunately, trying to hire a police officer, the recruitment is quite a challenging process. It's not like hiring somebody for finance or public works. Unfortunately, even though I look for the best people.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I already got the.
Speaker 6: We all look for the best people out there. But police certainly has a different standards. They look at certainly greater details about the people when they hire them. So their success rate in hiring hasn't been as good as they really wanted it to be. They're doing it for them currently as a continuous recruitment. So it's not like they just open and close it. It they really they receive applications every day and they try to do their interviews, preliminary interviews weekly if not biweekly. I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: If that.
Speaker 6: The chief, I'm sure, talks to the city manager and gives more details on that. But we have to talk to the department and that was their expectation. They want they certainly wanted to hire everybody and fill all the positions yesterday, but unfortunately, that's just not working out for them.
Speaker 1: Okay. So at this point, our city does need people to apply to be police officers and applications are being accepted currently. All right. So I think that's important to share and that that is part of the issue then. So will we actually have fewer officers on the streets during this time because of these retirements and not being able to fill these positions, but in practice that have on our community.
Speaker 6: Or the patrol?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that's a fair question to ask of the finance director, is does the city manager and assistant city manager want to step in every city to different areas? And here I would just throw in my $0.02 worth. There's a reason we have a high quality police department because we do go through a very stringent recruitment and assessment evaluation.
Speaker 1: A member and I appreciate that, but I think staff could. So I'm asking the questions right now. If you could hold off, if you feel uncomfortable, I'm happy to hear from someone else.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Mayor.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: So the police department, as the finance director said, is recruiting. They recruited and one person through that was going through the police academy did not continue on. And so there are actually one position short than what they hope to be, but the police chief is going to do continual coverage of officers and he is not asking for additional officers. He's just trying to fill the positions that have become vacant. It's not unusual. It's actually a typical thing that you're constantly replacing police officers as there's retirements and I'm going to other departments. But it is a it's not an issue that the police chief raised as something to be addressed tonight.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate hold on. I want vice mayor. Yes.
Speaker 9: Isn't the point, though, that. The $450,000 delta, the reduction between now and June has no impact. We're looking for impact. Like if it has no impact, they can hire somebody now. They have enough money to get whatever done it has. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yes. It's salary savings from previous.
Speaker 1: So we did receive this email which was shared with staff in advance. And I think it's important to answer the questions posed by our community. And it doesn't have to be, but I think it is important that these be addressed.
Speaker 0: And we we read that and I talked to the police chief about that particular email, and it was actually a compliment of the police department as, first of all, thanks for the savings. Second of all, we want to make sure I think the misinterpretation of that is that the funds meant a decrease in services, and we haven't done that. We just had salary savings previously.
Speaker 2: And I have a question for Mr. Himax. So the implication of the email the mayor read or alluded to seemed to suggest that we're somehow not fully staffed on a shift. But that's not my understanding.
Speaker 0: That is not our understanding at all. It's we meet the minimum police requirements for staffing.
Speaker 1: So actually, I would suggest that this email suggests that we could have greater police visibility and out and on the streets. So that I want to share with you, I think it's appropriate to consider at least when this is showing a reduction. The next email I want to speak to was regarding the fire department and that in the past it was commented that we would be exploring of them reviewing the fire department expenditures or staffing. Is my recollection actually staffing? Do we anticipate that that's going to be coming back at some point?
Speaker 0: The. Our chief.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council Member City Staff. Dugong. Fire Chief. So what was the stuff in question? I'm sorry, Mary.
Speaker 1: It's my recollection. And there's an email as to this that was also shared with staff in advance that in the past there had been discussion by counsel and in regards to revisiting or looking at staffing as my recollection of the fire department without review, without repeating the entire email. And I thought that that was going to come back to us at some point.
Speaker 0: I you know, that's something that we can look at. I think the couple of times that we've had this conversation, I think the last time we had this conversation was on Safer grants. And I think we decided that we were not going to have that conversation. So, you know, I think, Chief, and I think you do that and say if this is if that's the will of the council, that's you know, that's something that we can that we can bring back. But I think at this. There hasn't sort of been that general consensus direction to staff about about that.
Speaker 1: All right. The next time. So. Thank you, Chief, then.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's nice to see you.
Speaker 3: That's.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then. Okay. So those are my my questions.
Speaker 3: We remember, Audie.
Speaker 4: And are subject to any additional comments, I'd like to move adoption of the resolution amending Fiscal Year 1516 Operating Capital Improvement Program Budget and approving workforce changes in the city manager's office and public works departments.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: And I would request that that be separated into bifurcate into two separate motions.
Speaker 2: We have a resolution. Can we hear from the city clerk what that would do to us? And that's a request. Is that something we vote on?
Speaker 1: That's a friendly, friendly wash.
Speaker 2: She wants to buy for.
Speaker 1: Kate, and I would like it to be too much there.
Speaker 3: Either a friendly amendment or a substitute motion that would have to be seconded.
Speaker 0: And just to answer, Councilmember as the Ashcroft's question, I don't know what the bifurcation would be. It would maybe be back hitting the two now, therefore, be it resolved sections and then.
Speaker 2: At this point certified. I think we're just seeing if we have a second.
Speaker 5: What's the.
Speaker 1: So the and approving workforce changes. I thought that that should be a separate vote. As opposed to being included with the fiscal year operating and Capital Improvement Program budget. During no second. I'm going to go ahead and proceed with the any comments on the motion?
Speaker 9: I would like to make the comment. I do think it's important. When we because two items came up on the largest expenditures in the in the general fund there was. And we had comments from the public on their comments on the state of the police department budget and the state of the fire department budget. And I know what we've voted for in the past, but I would like to make sure that we evaluate those. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, the chief had talked about reallocating staff and the ambulances on Bay Farm Island. I think that's still worth talking about, especially in light of looking at whether we are and we not. One will find out in June a deficit in the second part of this, in the second part of this two year budget. So I think it's very important that we actually do look at the largest portion of our general fund, the police department, the fire department, the trends, and then what that second year looks like and can we sustain it? And I think that was the discussion that was alluded to in that one email.
Speaker 3: Right. And I.
Speaker 2: But you're not referring to the motion to buy. Forget the.
Speaker 9: Work. No, no, I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: That's a good direction to staff to.
Speaker 9: Put in this motion so that we're set up for having that evaluation and discussion when it comes time to looking at the second half of this two year budget.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I want.
Speaker 4: That because I'm confused where the deficit.
Speaker 0: Is.
Speaker 4: I'm confused about a deficit. Well.
Speaker 9: It's from the.
Speaker 4: Movie.
Speaker 9: From the two year budget. The first year was projected at $1.76 million, $1.176 million surplus in the budget. F Y 15, 16 and FY 1617 had a $1.229 million shortfall.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: But on the.
Speaker 9: Yeah. We passed a balanced budget sort of.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 4: But the numbers we're seeing today are actually an improvement over what we adopted back last year.
Speaker 9: Yes, but I want.
Speaker 8: To.
Speaker 0: Show the numbers that if they're approved, tonight will change the. We'll come back when the mid-cycle and we'll have updated revenues and updated expenditures. And that change might, you know, the deficit and the shortfall in the surplus might be different. And so we'll report on that. As far as the police and fire, if there are issues with I mean, we could do some calculations on what the trends are and growth. Is that what you're. Yes. Talking about for police and fire, both for personnel and revenues and expenditures? Yes, exactly. But just big picture, sort of like what we do at the CAF or is data that shows trends.
Speaker 9: Yes. And any time we're beholden to the state, I worry because when the budget bursts, the state is the first to pull back.
Speaker 0: Right. So we'll include the, let's say, for grant information and say for Grant.
Speaker 9: Yes. That's another one that as long as the economy is rolling along, the state is fine. But we all know what happened when the economy adjusted. And I just want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for another fall.
Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, if I can just quickly say, I think former council member Doug Duncan used to say it well when he would say to make sure to keep an eye on the what he referred to as the out years. So I think that's part of what we're talking about is not just looking at the amendments that we're contemplating this evening, which is to get us to the end of fiscal year 1516, but to also contemplate when we begin the discussions for the new cycle of two year budgets, not only looking at that particular cycle, but the out years beyond. 16, 17. 17, 18. And but that's the practice that that we've done quite frequently.
Speaker 1: And it was my understanding that we would see a longer term that go out five years or even more than that because we have been approving contracts. And it's my understanding that we would see projections of farther and I would say five years is actually the minimum because I think we need to see at some point ten , 15 years. But whenever we're going to hit them all, if there's going to be a wall hit where where we are long term. And I think that was actually agreed upon with staff that we would see a longer term projection.
Speaker 0: With the understanding. I mean, five years is typically what you go as far out as you go to, because after that it is anyone's guess, especially with the volatility of the economy.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I mean, I agree with most of the comments, you know, being said and I think that's kind of what I shared in the questions that I wanted to see how this looked long term. But I just want to make sure that, you know, we're not creating a false narrative out there that the city is running a deficit because we have a two year budget cycle. And over that two year budget cycle, we're not running a deficit. And for the first year of that two year cycle, we've actually added more revenue over expenses and we've actually increased our fund balance. So, I mean, I know you can pass and you can pick and you can choose and whatever statistic you want to say, it probably fit whatever narrative you want to say. But I just want to make sure we don't get it out there that, you know, we're operating in a deficit. And I believe Safer Ground is a federal grant. But I think the question still remains that, you know, we need to look long term on how we're going to fund these these positions.
Speaker 1: And I would agree, we need to look long term based upon our contracts. We have long term contracts. In fact, we have contracts that we've agreed to that are six year contracts. So if we're only looking at two years, I don't think that's appropriate. And I think we do have to do our best when we do commit to six year contracts that actually have liabilities that go much beyond that. So that and that being said, I want to add that staff's report showed a two part recommendation. And unfortunately, in my opinion, it was included in one resolution. And in the future, I would prefer that we hold in fact, keep it two parts, which is what was in staff's report. And I will not be supporting a single motion member. Jason, I.
Speaker 5: Just want to conclude by quickly saying I'm going to support the motion, because I think the issue is to a deal with the positive revenue news that we got a deal with it to allow us to get to the end of this fiscal year. And in dealing in dealing with that positive news, we are also able to deal with immediate needs that the citizens require, i.e. the need for funding the rent stabilization project. That was not part of the discussion when we had last year, when we were talking about how to spend down from the 38% reserve to ultimately the 20% reserve. This is the new information and new money. And fortunately, we're in a position to do that. And I'm also going to support this finally, because in terms of the workers that I worked at talking about, for the most part, we're giving authority to hire to try attempt to fill vacant positions. So it's not additive for the most part. So that's why I support.
Speaker 2: And I'll just chime in to that. We talk about the increase the state increase the the minimum wage, which was a good thing to do to to $15 an hour. And so, I mean, but you stop and think, people who are making $15 an hour, that's still not a lot to live on. And so many of the issues we deal with at this council have to do with being able to afford the cost of living here. So we're certainly not going to be grudge the the for the most part, part time workers that we have in the city who are making those hourly wages. Are they mostly part time? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So anyway.
Speaker 1: We have another question, right. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Motion carries for two one. Thank you. And now six be have been pulled because there was an agreement reached between the tenant and the landlord. So then we have six C.
Speaker 8: It works.
Speaker 0: Provide direction staff regarding general policies, municipal code requirements and potential amendments to the General Plan of Municipal Code to address development sites with mixed use zoning. Yeah. No. | Regular Agenda Item | Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget and Approving Workforce Changes in the City Manager’s Office and Public Works Departments. (Finance 2410) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04192016_2016-2766 | Speaker 8: Ready? Yes.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council. My name is Sandra Thomas, city planner, city of Alameda. I'll be presenting the staff report and presentation tonight on your workshop. This is a workshop. It's really a continue. It's a in response to the council's March 1st referral to look at the mixed use zoning here in Alameda and our general planning policies. It's also a continuation of the tour we did last month of the Northern Waterfront sites. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to. Evaluate our general plan and zoning standards, policies and standards for these sites and in particular to sites which are on our minds right now, which are the Arsenal terminal site and the Alameda Marina site. The reason these are on our minds is because they are either they're both right at the beginning of a extensive community planning process. And for that reason, tonight is not the night to be making any final decisions. What we would like to do tonight is talk about our overall community objectives for these two sites. Talk a little bit about what our general plan says about these two sites. Talk a little bit about what the zoning says about how these the planning process has to unfold on these two sites. And if you see something in the process of tonight's hearing in this workshop that you think needs to be changed in our general plan or zoning. Tonight's a great night to flag those issues, very similar to how we handled the council referral about a year ago on the density bonus ordinance. One of you identified a potential problem with our density bonus ordinance. We came to you in response to that referral, essentially with the staff and said, okay, we've looked at our density bonus ordinance and we've we've we see some things we might be able to change to respond to the problems in the ordinance that you identified. You think we're on the right track and you said, yes, I think you're on the right track. And then we said, okay, well, we now need to take that through the planning process that's outlined in state and local government about how we change our ordinances, which means we have a public hearing in front of the planning board , and then they make a recommendation to you that gives the public a lot of opportunity to participate in the process. So in a similar way tonight, if you see some a problem with our general plan or zoning, we'll flag it. And that would then be direction to staff tonight. Proceed with either amending our general plan or zoning ordinance. And what we will do is you wouldn't make those amendments tonight, but we would start that process, take it to the planning board, and then it would return to you for a final general plan amendment or zoning amendment. I also we're going to be talking about two sites in particular, Alameda, Marina and Alameda and Arsenal terminals. Tonight is not the night to be making any final decisions about these sites. As the council knows here in Alameda, we we take these kinds of sites through an extensive planning process with the community. Many community meetings then many planning board meetings. We require a lot of analysis. We require a lot of different studies. We require a lot of various alternatives and analysis. All that information gets sort of put into the public discussion and then the planning board works it all through and then they ultimately they make a recommendation to you . And at the end of the day, these master plans are going to have to come to the Council for final adoption or denial or amendment or adjustment and approval. But we don't have all that information for you tonight. So tonight's not the night for any final decisions, but it is a good night to start talking about these sites with the community, who's here tonight and also between the council and the staff so that we can see if we are on the same page. Because if we are if we can articulate kind of what our objectives are as a city. Then we're going to have a more effective planning process. Staff is going to be more effective with the applicant. Staff is going to be more effective with the planning board. The planning boards can have a better idea of what you're looking for, and we will all be giving the same message to the the developers, property owners and and architects throughout the process. I showed these two these two pictures up here because mixed use mixed use is something that is just part of Alameda. We've been doing it for over 100 years. Park Street on the left turn of the century. This is what we call in the planning jargon, vertical, mixed use commercial on the ground floor, residential upstairs. You know, it goes back to the very first days of Alameda on the right marina village. This is more what we would call horizontal mixed use as a master planned community with Marina Village. As you see in the slide, we have boat slips commercial. We have residential separated from the boat slips by the lagoons and the open space and then separated between that and the road. The retail portion of the project, all one project, the one of the first master plans done in Alameda. And we think a successful master plan. So Alameda is not new to mixed use. We've been doing it for many, many years and we do it fairly well. How do we do it in Alameda for these large sites like Marina Village? And this is true of small terminals and the aluminum marina site. We require a master plan. A master plan sets all of the requirements for the site, you know, the kinds of uses how they should be organized spatially. But we also put restrictions and limitations on these uses so that they can coexist well, because it's not just about putting things next to each other, but also thinking about what types of uses we're putting next to each other and then disclosing and making sure that we try to eliminate potential problems in the future. For example, residential deed restrictions and disclosures. At the Alameda, the Marina Shores Project on our Future Clement Truck Wrap, all of those houses on their deeds has a disclosure that Clement. In front between them and the water is going to be a truck route. Now we want that to be disclosed to those residents as they buy it. They look at the house, they go, oh, this is beautiful on the cross in this little street. And there's going to be a there's a marina in front and looking out of the water. That's all wonderful. But that is our designated truck route. The trucks aren't there yet. They will be when we can complete clement. It does not prevent one of those residents from coming down here in five years and saying, Oh, my God, you need to move the truck route. It's too loud in front of my house. Staff will be the first to jump up and say, okay, you have that right to ask the council to move the truck route. But don't say you didn't know about it. You bought your house knowing this was going to be a truck route. So there were no surprises. There was no fast ones pulled on you. This is we've we've put that disclosure and deed restriction on your property. We have similar deed restrictions and disclosures at Harbor Bay. You're buying a house across from a business park, although it looks like a lot of vacant land that is going to be a business park. So understand that if you're going to buy into this neighborhood on the commercial side, we also do we put limitations on the operations, if need be, because of their proximity to other uses , like residential, so hours of operation, truck delivery, those kinds of things to try to minimize conflicts between uses. But it all starts with good site planning. This slide. I'm sorry about this. A little out of order, but I'll just go through these one by one. One of the big questions, one of the things we're going to have to decide on each of these projects, because there are mixed use projects. They are is how much housing to put in each of these projects. This, of course, in Alameda is always a important issue. There's basically when you think about these three projects, I think there's going to be three. And the issue of housing, how much housing is appropriate on each site? I think there's going to be three basic issues you're going to have to consider through this process. One is what is our what is our state requirement, regional housing need, and are we compliant with state law? Number two, what's our local housing need? And it may be different from our state. You can think of the state need as the absolute minimum the city can do at a citywide level, not on each site at a citywide level. It's the absolute minimum. Our local need might be greater than the minimum state need. And then there's a third factor, which is housing pays for a lot of things in a mixed use project. It pays for a lot of the infrastructure. It pays for some of the land uses, like open space that don't pay at all. So to have a good mixed use project, you need commercial, you need open space, you need residential. If the commercial, depending on what kind of commercial it is, and let's say it's maritime commercial or something that doesn't pay a lot of rent , we're going to need residential on that site to help pay for the infrastructure which is needed to supply the open space and the facilities for the maritime as we want. So I'm getting ahead of myself. You have to know about your regional housing need. That's the bare minimum. And this is going to be important because this is going to come up a lot. The way this works, I know the council knows a lot of this, but just for the community, because I want the community to also understand these numbers. The state basically sets an absolute minimum for each city. It's set through a regional process, and it's based on an eight year term or eight year term is 2014 through 2023. So we're kind of at the beginning of the term. We're about a year and a half, two years into our eight year term. April 2016. Our requirement is to have at minimum, enough land zoned for residential for 1725 units. They the city. The state knows that we don't actually build housing, we just zone land. So our requirement is to have enough land for 1725 units. That is broken into two categories and this is important for a better understand that land. Some of it has to be in what is called high density, high density land, land that allows for higher density housing and multi-family housing. The rest of it can be in low density land. It doesn't have to require multifamily. It doesn't have to be high density. In Alameda, it's very easy to determine which category the property falls in. If we have the multifamily overlay zoning district on the piece of property, then it qualifies for the high density land. If it does not have the MF overlay, then it can only be counted to the low density. If you have an excess in the multifamily, you can use some of your multifamily to cover your low density. So the MF land is the only land that can be used for high density. It also can be used if you're running a deficit in your low density and you've got excess in your high density, then you can shift it over. So getting too complicated here. The basic require absolute minimum state on the high density side is 692 units. On the low density side is 1031. You add those two together, you get the 1725. So those are our base requirements too, as of today. We have a surplus in both categories. You have enough land in the high density category to do 1412 units. So you're running a surplus of 720 units in that category. Likewise, in the low density land, you have a surplus. I can explain the surplus and why we have such a big surplus, but I won't do it tonight. The point is you have a surplus. What that means is you have more flexibility when looking at each site. So in the housing element we've allocated. How many units we think will go on each site. And I'll talk about each of these sites and how much we allocated on each of these sites. But the point is you have surpluses. And what that does is it gives you the council the ability to adjust the numbers, whereas you look at the plan for each site, you might decide to do more units on a site than we said we would in the housing element. Of course, from a state point of view, that's fantastic. But you can also decide to do less on a site than we projected because we have a surplus. You have units to play with and you could do less on a particular site and not run afoul of the minimum because you have these extra units in your inventory . But. A couple of words of caution. You're only two years into your eight year period. If you were to decide on are your first two projects, oh, we don't want to do any housing on those first two projects. And you take away your surplus. You are now putting yourself in a very precarious position for the rest of the period. Every single project from that point on, once you use up your surplus, you have no flexibility at all. None at all. You have to do, at minimum, the number of units that you promise the state on every single site from that point on. So as we get closer to the end of the eight year period, 2021, 2022 staff is going to not be too concerned about your surplus. Two years into an eight year period, we're pretty concerned about the surplus. We want to give you a healthy surplus. You can you can start eating away at it, but eat slowly. I referred to the minimum as like the electric fence. And you're walking through the farm. Don't you can walk near the fence, but don't touch the fence. If you violate your housing element and you go start running deficits and somebody calls you on it, we could be in serious trouble as a city. You could lose your land use authority as the city council, the city of Alameda, and turn it over to a judge. You don't want to go there, so keep a healthy surplus, but know that you have a surplus which gives you flexibility in designing each site as we as we proceed through the planning process. So the two sites real quick and simple terminals on the left, a really unbelievable piece of property. About 15 acres of privately owned land, six acres of state tidelands, which is basically owned by the city for the people of California. So you've got about 21 acres of dry land. You've got another nine acres of submerged land basically under water. This is a site that surrounded by water on three sides, kind of unbelievable. No public access out there ever. So an incredible opportunity. The housing element programed 234 units on this site. Alamy. I'll meet a marina on the right. Another incredible sight only. A couple of blocks to the east of Arsenal terminals, also on the northern waterfront, 20 acres of privately owned land, approximately five acres of tidelands land, dry land owned by the city. On Tidelands, you cannot do residential. So Tidelands land can only be used for things like open space or maritime uses. 19 acres of submerged land, same thing. No housing, but maritime uses on the water. And we programed about 396 so that 396 units, the 234 four and so, you know, you can obviously do more than that on any of these sites if you want. You can also do less as long as we keep an eye on that surplus and you don't eat too deeply into that surplus. For example, if you decided to do no units on either of these sites, you have 720 surplus units in that. In the high density, you would pretty much be using your entire surplus just on these two sites if you didn't do housing. So that's not something we would recommend at this point in the cycle. So a master plan. What is a master plan to do? So both of these sites are zoned Amex mixed use. They are both in the general plan for a mix of uses. A master plan is adopted by this council after getting recommendations from the planning board and after, as I said, months of hearings. But ultimately the city council has full discretion over the number of housing units to go on that plan, the amount of commercial employment to go in that plan, the amount of open space to go on the plan, the placement of all of it, where things go. It's basically a planning exercise and documenting that in a what's called a master plan. And then these operational conditions and requirements that I talked about, I gave some examples and of course, the phasing of the development. So it's really it's it's a with the master planning the mix district allows is it gives the community full discretion over how to organize the site and plan the site which is an incredibly powerful tool it. So but what that does, of course, is it gives us a lot to think about it. And the other point I was going to just quickly make is you also get to customize you get to customize the master plan for each site , because these are different sites. They're not it's not like Park Street, which is a whole series of properties that are just in one contiguous area that all have sort of the same characteristics. You want a similar building height, similar kind of use. They have this coherent district. The mix is used on sites that are not necessarily next to each other. They may know one like me and Marina, has 200,000 square feet of businesses on it today and it's not terminal's has none at all. So two very different conditions with the master planning. You can customize those master plans to the specifics of that site and to your community objectives for that site. So what do you have to think about, though? I mean, there's a lot to think about. So obviously general plan and community objectives for each site. What are we really trying to achieve on the site? That's the basis of this of the master plan we have to think about. This site needs what's going on with the infrastructure, what kind of reinvestment is necessary on that site for us to achieve our general planning community objectives. You're also have local employment needs. Obviously, economic development is big. We need new businesses in Alameda. These sites provide an opportunity to start to plan for that. We have a really awful jobs housing balance. We are basically a residential island. Jobs and businesses are important even from a transportation perspective. Your general plan calls that out as a transportation strategy. Adding jobs as a transportation strategy. We have fewer Olympians leaving the island every morning to get to jobs off island. Local open space needs. Of course, these both sites have opportunities for open space. And then as at the end, of course, you have to think about your regional housing needs. Stay away from the electric fence. And then, of course, beyond that, easy to stay away from the electric fence. But what do we need from a housing perspective here in Alameda? Our local needs may be different than our regional need. We may be looking for certain types of affordable housing. Workforce housing is something we've been talking more and more about. Of course, live work, housing, liveaboard there's all sorts of opportunities within this category. And and it comes down to what does this council, what is this community looking for on these sites? I'm just going to take a couple of minutes to talk through some of the basic things about these two sites that we do know about. And then we can open it up. You can. It's your workshop. And I know there's people here from the community who would like to talk to you about both these sites tonight. And I will be involved in this these planning processes. And I neglected to say at the top. In terms of talking about these sites, what we've provided in your staff report or two attachments. The first one dealt with internal termites. And what it is, is basically an excerpt from the general plan for Internal Terminals. We are very lucky. We have the council in 2008 adopted what's called the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, which included 25 odd policies in our general plan, specifically talking about how do you do a master plan for this site? So that's great. So what we put in is as exhibit three on the master, exhibit four in the master plan is the internal terminals, general planning policies. And the idea there is the community should look at those policies. The Council should look at those policies. They were adopted in 2008. But there may be some policies that we look at today in 2016 and go, you know, that's not quite right. We have some different objectives today. So if you do, we should we should identify those. So what are these policies do? I'll spare you. Reading through all 25. But the big ideas. This needs to be a mixed use site, not a single use. A mix of uses, open space, residential and commercial are specifically called out as appropriate uses on this site. The general plan talks about the opportunities for water access on this site, both for water shuttles, ferries to the sea, into the estuary, and connecting to the regional transportation system, as well as just recreational access to the what's called the Alaska Basin, which is that kind of incredible basin of water between Wind River and this site. And then another obviously big concept is this idea of moving the publicly owned land. Currently the city owned six acres of land. It's right at the core of the of the of the site of this peninsula. And the private property owner owns the whole edge. And this the concept is. Make the entire perimeter of this three sided peninsula publicly accessible. Yet for opportunities for the public to get to the waterfront, use the water and put it into public ownership if possible. So big concept there in terms of creating continuous public waterfront access and activities all the way around the perimeter of this site. It's over 2400 square feet of shoreline. So it's a lot of shoreline on one piece of property. The internal development team has submitted a first draft master plan. We're starting to evaluate it, look at it. Just want to tell you a little bit about what they're thinking to make this work, because these things, this the entire edge needs to be completely rebuilt. It's basically eroding wharfs and docks and needs to be completely rebuilt. The entire site needs to be all sorts of geotechnical issues. And obviously we're not going to want to take on any public waterfront access. That, first of all, is not improved. And second of all, it doesn't have a maintenance. Obligation on the development. They're there preliminarily looking at around 500 housing units. They're looking at approximately 50,000 square feet of commercial and approximately five acres of open space. I am sure these numbers will change over the next year as we go through the community planning process. We haven't had any discussion about these numbers yet in the public realm, other than small meetings between the developers and community members or me and community members. But that is sort of where they are. Their starting point is their initial ideas about this, and this is just a real summary. I think the big issues that we're going to argue about as we move through this planning process with the community are not argue, but debate and analyze and study at great depth is obviously the number of housing units. That's always going to be a big issue on any site in Alameda. The building heights and this is going to be a very interesting conversation. If we can get through agreement on the number of units, then the next question is, how do we want to arrange those units? We want to arrange them in a lot of buildings that are short and squat and cover a lot of the property, or do we want to arrange them in fewer buildings that are taller, which leaves us more open space on this site? It is going to be a very interesting conversation and is going to really challenge a lot of us and our sort of conceptual preconceptions about what is an appropriate height on this site. The general plan says the appropriate height is 5 to 6 storeys. So if the community and and the planning board ultimately end up recommending to the council to do something higher than five or six storeys, I think it's 60 feet in the in the general plan. They would require a general planning amendment which ultimately can only be done by the city council. So that's going to be an interesting conversation. The other issue that is going to be really important to this planning process is the character and quality of the public open space. I mean, that is the big benefit to the public of this project. Moving on, coming down the homestretch here. Let's talk about Alameda Marina. So Alameda Marina, we don't have the benefit of 25 policies in the general plan. This Alameda marina was not in the northern waterfront general plan amendment. It wasn't covered by it. There are some very general policies. Obviously, it's mentioned in the housing element. So what we did for this workshop is we included exhibit three, which we call Alameda Marina Staff's recommended guidelines for preparing a master plan. So what we did is staff as we wrote down what we thought would be the instructions we would give. We meaning staff to the to the. To the applicant developer about how we would recommend that they put together a master plan. What are the city's priorities for this site? And our thought was tonight and I know you're going to have some speakers tonight who have taken the time to look through this. And we really staff encouraged everybody to take a look at this and come tonight with ideas and kind of and adjustments or revisions to our language. Once again, the whole idea here is let's get staff and the council and the community as much on the same page as we can. Then we can all speak with one voice to the developer. Our vision on this site, and as we articulate an exhibit three, is we do see this as an opportunity for maritime, what we call maritime mixed use, a mixed use site that has that preserves and reinvests in the public maritime facilities out here. So it's a great waterfront site from staff's perspective. Maritime industry is one of our sectors. That's what makes Alameda different than Emeryville or Oakland. We will never compete with Oakland for class-A office space over a BART station. We won't compete with Emeryville for big box freeway oriented retail. We don't have freeways. We don't have a BART station. We have. What are those? Neither of those cities have. We have some fantastic waterfront sites which are great for waterfront maritime uses. So it's important to Alameda and we need to be cognizant of that and want to try to build that that sector, if we can. So high priority in our sort of guidelines is maintaining that maritime industry, allowing it to grow, maintaining other employment out there. We've got about 100,000 square feet of maritime businesses out there today. We have another 200,000 square feet of of other or of employment total. So, I mean, we have, you know, a large number of businesses at Alameda Marina. We don't from stats perspective, the goal is we don't want to lose any of them. We are not the master plan is not going to identify which tenants stay and which go. It's just something to talk about square footage. But we can use your your master planning process as essentially a site specific zoning effort for this thing. We also believe that you can improve and expand open space opportunities out at the Marina Alameda area and that you can add housing to this site. Here. The on site issues are huge. As with central terminals, you know, the priority here is to reinvest in the infrastructure and the public lands, much of which we.
Speaker 8: Own.
Speaker 10: And which are in desperate need of repair. I'm sorry I had some even better photographs that I wasn't able to get into the power point in time. But once again, about 2700 feet of shoreline, all in terrible condition. The photographs that I wanted to show so this is what you see here is a cave in. Right. This is it's caving in behind the piers. Well, if you go around to the shoreline side, you'll see those piers don't actually touch the water. They have literally corroded away. So what's happening is the Alameda marina is slowly falling into the bay. The water has been corroding the bottom of the piers. So now that's failing. The soil that's being held back by the piers is starting to sloughed into the estuary, which means the surface. Of the marina is starting to cave in. It's happening all over as we've been out there now a few times on various tours. To walk along the water side of these piers and see underneath these docks is really quite. Well, it's quite scary, frankly. So many of these, Piers, literally don't even touch the water. They're just hanging in the air because they've corroded. So the idea of maintaining maritime, the challenge for us and the estimate is was probably over $30 million of improvements is necessary ultimately in the way we are thinking about that is if you want to maintain these maritime businesses out here, we need to find a way to reinvest in this property because if we allow it to continue to corrode, our maritime businesses are not going to be able to survive there and they're slowly going to deteriorate as well or move away. So the idea of doing nothing at Alameda Marina is not a good option. And far as from staff's perspective, we have to do something. And the question is what to will fund these kinds of improvements. Which gets us to the question of housing again. Because housing very often is what pays for this kind of infrastructure. We could try to really jack up rents on maritime businesses to help them pay for it. But that is not necessarily productive because maritime businesses very often can't fund a lot of improvements beyond their rent or jackup prices for boat slips. But that could be counterproductive as well, because an empty marina, it's not helpful either. I think that this conversation is going to rotate a lot around the dry storage areas. You see this aerial photograph, you see of Alamy Marina. You see what is a lot of what we call dry storage, large parking lots.
Speaker 2: You're talking about lower.
Speaker 10: I'm talking about the lower this big area. Right. The lower end where you see it looks like a giant parking lot. And then you get up to those buildings there. That's one giant area. And then at the other end, you see another dry storage area up by the AMP building and Grand Street. It's smaller, but it's a parking lot at the northern end. These are dry storage. So this is where you can store your boat. If it's a small boat, you can go out there and take your boat with its trailer, take it over to a crane, put it in the water, sail for the day or for a few days, and then sail back and take your boat out of the water and put it back in this parking space. Only about 60% of this area is actually leased for boats, but 40% are random vehicles, containers. There's an AC transit bus that somebody is storing out there. Don't ask me why. I don't know even what's in the containers. There's just a you know, somebody had a container and they decide to lease a space. There's a whole bunch of RV vehicles out there. You know, does that have to be on the waterfront? I think from staff's perspective, no. Is dry storage important, though, for an effective marina? Yes, absolutely. A couple just data points. Only 24% of all that dry storage is actually leased to Alameda residents, which is, you know, I mean, we don't want to just limit this to Alameda residents, but it's important to know that only 24% of the of all the spaces are actually rented by Alameda residents. Of that, 43 boats are owned by resident Alameda residents out there, and only 30 of them are actually operable.
Speaker 8: Boats.
Speaker 10: And only 16 are actually use, I think, active. The definition of active was has it been in and out of the water in the last two years? So. I'm not trying to make any point about dry storage other than we think there's opportunities here with more efficient use of the land. Re re looking at the dry storage areas and other areas, but we definitely believe there's ability to plan for this site where you keep all your businesses. And introduce housing to help pay for the infrastructure costs that are necessary to support those maritime industries. So we see a planning opportunity here that we think could be a win win for both the maritime businesses, this site as an economic engine as well as a housing opportunity site. Do I know the right number of units right now? No, I really don't. So we have our draft staff's recommended guidelines for preparing a master plan. I'm sure you'll hear from some of the speakers tonight on some of those ideas. And they're at the end of the day tonight, what we're looking for is if you have any concerns with the annual general plan policies tonight or in the future, the sooner you let us know about it, the better. Because if we need to change our general plan to give a clearer picture of what we're looking for, the sooner we do that, the better. Any concerns with the staff's guidelines for all medium arena? It would be great to hear from the community tonight as well as the council tonight on on sort of that those guidelines. They can certainly will be useful to us as we proceed with Alameda Marina. And then, of course, like I said, anything you want to see changed in our general plan or zoning to either that you pick up from these or from the community tonight, now would be a great time to let us know. And like I said at the beginning, we're really kicking off a planning process here on two different sites, both very exciting, we think would be great opportunities for the northern waterfront and for Alameda as a whole. So this is not the last public meeting you'll be at on these two sites, but it is one of the early ones. So I'm available to answer questions. I know there's representatives from both sites here tonight. I think I've seen some faces, familiar faces from the community here tonight as well. So with that, I think I will stop talking and turn it over to you.
Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer. Q Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. We have, I know, over ten speakers steps in there being people are coming up right now and turning minute, turning them in. So I know there's more at this council. Have any clarifying questions? All right. None. I'm going to go ahead and start calling our speakers. And you can line up on my right side and then just proceed with the speaker ahead of you completes and it'll be 3 minutes per speaker and our first speaker will be Dorothy Freeman, then Sabrina Svensson, then Sean Murphy, and then Thomas Sharon. Dorothy Freeman is first. The rest of you may line up, so we'll be ready to go. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor spencer. Council members, staff and alameda. I'm Dorothy Freeman. The staff report exhibit three for the alameda marina masterplan is in need of changes. I am requesting that the council direct the staff to make further clarifications to the guidelines for preparing the master plan. While the staff report appears to be a plan for preserving the present business environment, there are too many statements that will allow the developer to present a plan for building housing within the marina. The paragraph referencing multi-family residential uses, including the all point seven through nine, should be removed from the document. There is not enough land at the marina to both preserve the existing maritime business so important to Alameda and build multifamily residences. Removing the marina housing unit and acre numbers from the housing element will not cause us any harm with the housing element. Alameda has provided all the necessary market rate, housing units and acres needed to satisfy the housing element through 2023. The marina owners should be looking to preserve and grow opportunities for maritime and small scale manufacturing businesses. The bulkheads supporting the marina do need repairs, but income from present and improved business opportunities will be sufficient to accomplish these repairs over the next two years. Building housing units is not the only way to accomplish the necessary work. The transportation paragraph also has references that are troubling to me. Transportation services to Oakland and beyond, including water based transit, implies water shuttles leaving from the marina. Water shuttles planned for internal terminals and Alameda landings should be supported by the marina. But a shuttle crossing at the marina is not practical. There will be no place to park the cars that would bring riders to the marina. As stated in the report, services that connect to larger circulation networks within the city are what is needed. A land shuttle bus would take riders to the new estuary crossing. Shadows and keep and help to alleviate the parking problems at the president and proposed Perry stops. Many visitors arrive at the marina by boat. A land shuttle traveling around a clump along climate would allow them to visit our business districts during their stay. While I applaud the staff for their efforts to create a solution acceptable to the property owners and the citizens of Alameda, this document is not quite so. Has offered an edited version that that better clarifies the need for preserving the present environment. I support their changes, but I request the City Council to direct staff to research the possibility of removing the zoning changes made in 2012 and work with the property owners to improve the marina for what it is best suited for maritime and other business opportunity. Alameda needs a vibrant marina maritime business district more than it needs additional market rate housing.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Sabrina.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council members and staff. I'm Sabrina Svenson.
Speaker 0: My family has.
Speaker 3: Owned and operated expenses about works for over 50 years within the Alameda Marina. And in this time, our business has changed as the maritime industry continues to evolve.
Speaker 6: We are currently exploring all.
Speaker 3: Options to keep our business in Alameda, as well as exploring the possibility of a smaller footprint.
Speaker 0: At the marina.
Speaker 3: Or potentially even moving some of our services to another location with on within Alameda on the island. One of our main objectives has always been and will continue to remain to obtain as many jobs as possible. As we explore the options for the works. My family is also continuing in its role as one of the owners of the marina, and we continue to support plans for a mix of uses at the property. When my dad signed the Tidelands lease agreement with the city in 2008, he intended to prepare the marina for a future by ensuring a funding mechanism that would reinvest in the property, not just for a few users, but for all. Alameda. And as co-owners, we want we intend to continue to work with the city, our tenants and the community to fulfill our obligations under the Tidelands lease, including the infrastructure improvements that the marina so desperately needs. And there are a lot of them. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. John Murphy. And then Thomas.
Speaker 8: It evening, Madam Mayor, Council Member of Staff John Murphy, Business Development and Alameda Marina. First of all, to thank staff for their work on this item. It's an important item and we appreciate the opportunity to host the council at the Marina on March 11th, on a very rainy Friday, to examine both the Northern Waterfront and Arsenal terminal . And then I'll meet Marina. We will look forward to continuing to work with the city, our tenants, the community, and developing a master plan for aluminum marina that serves Alameda. Earlier this morning, we submitted a detailed letter in response to the proposed guidelines. Without getting into that detail, I wanted to just use a little bit of time to outline a few important points. Our planning timeline has always been guided by the already established framework created by the city's policies. A municipal code. We haven't yet submitted a project application and we're working within the existing guidelines and the tidal land lease agreement with the city to create that master plan. This plan is also being informed by feedback we receive from the council, the staff, the tenants, the community in an effort that we really started back in 2008. Our plan will consider a mix of uses, including a variety of multi-family housing types for different economic levels to help address the city's housing shortage. It'll preserve and enhance maritime jobs. It will maintain a level of service for the boating community. It will include important mitigation for traffic. And to that degree were participating in the upcoming workshops to create a citywide TMA. Our team has a lot of experience in creating both land and water transit solutions that have been successful at Jack London. And we'll bring that experience to this project in Almeida. Importantly, the the kind of mixed use plan that we propose is the only way we can pay for the tens of millions of dollars. As Andrew indicated, yes, it's at least 30 million. It's unfortunately closer to $40 million of infrastructure. And a bulk of that is on the city owned Thailand parcels. We've already been invested in this property and in this effort. And we'll continue to do so through the development of our upcoming master plan. We look forward to ongoing collaboration with the city and community on this project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thomas Sharon and then Liz Taylor and Helen Source.
Speaker 11: Tom Sharon in an elevator for a few years. Been up here a few times. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. I'm not even going to talk for 3 minutes. I'm a member of Saw the Save Alameda Working Waterfront. And it's a pleasure to meet you tonight, Shawn, and I hope we can work with you in this process to do what you say and what Andrew has said to the city council this evening. I do ask you to look at the document which you all have received from saw with its amendments to kind of clarify some of the things. I'm not going to go through them all. You've got it in your hands. And finally. I just hope we can preserve unique maritime. Employment. Craftsperson community that we have, as I said, the last time I was here. When I came to Alameda 18 years ago, there were four four marinas.
Speaker 8: Or four, four boatyards that.
Speaker 11: Dealt with.
Speaker 8: Residential.
Speaker 11: And recreational boating. Of course, if you put that, they ship and yacht, that's a heavy commercial. You know, as for big.
Speaker 8: Ocean going work. Right now, suspensions. And half of Alameda Marina.
Speaker 11: Are the only places where you can go to get your boats fixed here in Alameda. Unless you've got a big, big boat, you want to take the bay ship and yacht. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Liz. And then Helen saw.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council and city staff. I'm Liz Taylor, and we have a business in the Alameda Marina. It's one of the more unique businesses there. I really just wanted to say how much we appreciate the fact that the council is looking at this issue very closely and looking at the value of the maritime jobs and their inner connectivity between each other. There's quite a lot of interaction between the large ones, like they ship and Swenson's and Dwyer and sail makers, and they all work together to really make this a vibrant community that has global reach. It's not just about jobs in Alameda, but it's about the reach of Alameda to the maritime community around the world. And so it's very much appreciated that you're taking this seriously and giving us all an opportunity to be involved in this in the workshop process and not just capitulating to, you know, the quick fixes. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ellen Soares and then Brendan Sullivan. Sir, Serene Yana.
Speaker 0: Did. Haney thank you for this hearing. It's a nice opportunity to talk about things when decisions are life shaking or not going to be made, but only explored. In the 50 plus years we've lived here, the changes in the estuary were even more dramatic, and the mixed use for street ships draw such a depth they can't get past or two, and therefore the uses in the estuary have changed dramatically. You go down there and see the acres of asphalt and goose poop and it's all over down there. And imagine what could be and what actually is an opportunity for the city. We've looked at these drawings in these pictures and they all show open space like the bay is what you see from there. You go down there and stand in, you could easily swim over to the other side. Oakland is building a huge development right across and the partnership that our two cities could develop would be dramatic. We get money for our parks, get money for the open space and the infrastructure from the state by partnering and working together with our developers. Mussel and I. Jim probably knows more about that and I do, but it's it's an opportunity. And Oakland is eager to talk about those opportunities. You also don't see any boats buzzing up and down, but you go down there and stand. There's a tremendous amount of traffic and they need gas and they need lunch and they need fish bait and whatever. There's an opportunity for commercial that we can share as well. So the opportunities of the site are obvious. The need for housing in Alameda, it's obvious. We've had this room filled with people demanding affordable housing, and we've had a skewed housing market for many years because we couldn't build next used housing and and large apartments. So we have to have some housing sites and for all incomes. Our Alameda Home Team provides panel discussions. So I'm going to take advantage of this to invite people to come to our June 3rd open discussion of these issues. We'll have this featured as well as Sweeney Open Space and Tim have, I hope, a good open discussion. Again, people are there to be informed. The panels are free and it gives people an opportunity to ask their questions, to make their suggestions when a decision is not being made. I just want to conclude by saying consider the opportunity of partnering with Oakland. They're very happy and very eager to do so. I've had enough conversations with them that we've been talking about a cross channel panel that might look at it on both sides. So I hope you'll keep that in your mind. And also, I have the staff ensure that the developers adhere to the guidelines that are laid out in their plan. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Brendan. And then Nancy Hurd. And then Brian Maguire.
Speaker 8: The Mayor and council. My name is Brendan. I was going to just this tonight as part of the wreck anyways, but luckily that got resolved. But I work in the Alameda Marina. I live on Pacific Avenue on the West Side, and I don't necessarily have a position about whether the plan is good or not. But I hope to share a little bit of my my experience. It can keep in mind as I go through it. I do have some concern when they talk about. Housing, especially mixed residential in the aluminum arena. I work at a growing ecommerce company there. Speak a.
Speaker 1: Little.
Speaker 8: Sure. I work at a growing e-commerce company there, and I go in at 6:00 in the morning and I open the office along with a few other people. We have. Trucks and tractors. Tractor trailers that come in to offload and load are our units that we sell. And I also live on Pacific and Fifth, which is really close to some very other large apartments, and there is absolutely no parking available at all. And that is the kind of concern I would have. Going forward as some are going to complain because I'm in the office at 6:00 in the morning doing my job. Is there going to be room for a tractor to come in and pick up a pallet of units from from my office? I think that's really practical. Is it? Because I also saw the previous. A few weeks ago, maybe two months. You know, there's going to be bike lanes, probably inclement, as is a tractor trailer going to be able to turn onto that. How's that going to work? You know, I work in an e-commerce company. That company will go away from Alameda if it's too difficult to do business. And I love LME so much because I live and I work here so that's something to keep in mind that. There's businesses that are already there that employ a lot of.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 8: Good paying jobs. You know, nobody's rich, but we're making a living. And it's just something to keep in mind that I'm multifamily housing. I don't know if that would be such a great fit for that space, considering that the businesses that are already there, people aren't going to like the fact that we open up at 6:00 and there's a lot of people there at 6:00 in the morning already doing work on boats and tractor trailers are just something, keep in mind.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Nancy Hurd and then Brian Maguire.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor and council members. This whole process started in November and we started hearing from the developer about how they were going to bulldoze everything and put houses all over everything. And we saw pictures and we've come a long way in a very short period of time. And I think this has been a great experience working with the city and city council members to come to some agreement. And when we first started the saw organization to save the Working Waterfront, the organization all decided.
Speaker 1: Together.
Speaker 0: That what we really wanted was commercial.
Speaker 1: Industrial.
Speaker 0: A little bit of retail. And if we absolutely had to have housing, it needed to be work, live. And through the process that we've been working with, with the planning department, we came up and we we felt like we were really heard with all the things that Andrew put into the.
Speaker 1: The staff report and.
Speaker 3: Ah, the proposal for.
Speaker 0: What the master plan might look like. And then we sent you a copy of our reaction to it and the changes that we'd like to see in some of the words and some of the things that we think could be changed. And I hope you do take a look at what we proposed. You know, that's just a little different. Things that I am particularly concerned about at this point is the dry storage. I it cannot go away. And parking there is really hard it's really hard to find a place to park during the week.
Speaker 3: During the day. There is just.
Speaker 0: Nothing on a monday morning. If you go to any of those businesses, there's no place to park. And that's that is an issue. And so this the idea of having the.
Speaker 1: Transit across the the.
Speaker 0: Estuary for and having to provide more parking is going to be hard. And the other.
Speaker 3: Major thing I'm concerned about is.
Speaker 0: The identification of the historic buildings. They are deemed to be eligible.
Speaker 1: For the national.
Speaker 3: Registry.
Speaker 0: According to a report that was done by the state in 1988. It is not well, it's not easily too easy to find this report.
Speaker 3: It we currently resides.
Speaker 0: In an office in Sonoma. Took a lot of digging to find where I could find this particular place this the report outside of the Alameda Department Planning Department and during the school process. I'm very concerned that it's going to be overlooked and I want to make sure that those buildings do not get harmed in any way because they are historic resources to our city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Brian McGuire and then Doyle Sayler and Laura Thomas.
Speaker 11: Good evening. First, I'm just a little surprised after a couple of speakers ago to hear a renter, a representative for the rent review advisory committee, that the mayor of point a few months ago up here speaking against workforce and affordable housing at this site. You know, it makes me wonder what viewpoint is being represented when our renters are coming before that body. But anyway, it's surprising to hear that from from somebody who's supposed to be advocating on behalf of renters in the city. First off, I'm a sailor. I live in Alameda. One of the reasons I moved here was because of the maritime focus of this community. And I understand that Swenson's in the boatyard and the community there is sort of it's regionally significant to the Bay Area's boating and sailing community. And, you know, I hope that the. The maritime community in Alameda and in the Bay Area doesn't allow themselves to be used as pretext for people who really just don't live a block away from the marina and don't want any housing built across the street from their house because, you know, they want everything to stay a certain way. I think the sailing community in the maritime industrial community can definitely work with the developer, hopefully to do what it takes to preserve as much. Of that community as possible for the city and for the for the region. But at the end of the day, we need workforce housing. We're talking about potentially doing the bare minimum versus starting to make up for 40 years of shirking our responsibilities thanks to things like Measure. I mean, we're talking about potentially a hundred plus or minus, give or take affordable housing units at a place like Alameda Marina, potentially . And using leveraging that to pay to fix the city's asset, which is the working waterfront and preserving that for the next generation. I mean, right now we're using that land to store wealthy Alameda and Arby's while, you know, many families are struggling just to hold on to the roof that they have. There's lots of options. You know, I think the staff report outlines some of the trade offs very well. I mean, looking at the Tidelands Parcel and Arsenal terminals for potential programing of dry storage hoisting capabilities, I don't know about boatyard, things like the northwest corner of Seaplane Lagoon where the Alameda Community Sailing Center is hoping to be relocated west of site. That's a natural complement to something like dry storage or even a boatyard, you know, capability. But we can you know, these are solvable problems and housing is not. At odds necessarily with preserving the maritime jobs at the site.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Thank you. Royal sailor Laura Thomas and then Karen Bay.
Speaker 8: Madam Mayor, city council members and royal sailor. I'm with renewed hope and I'm coming here to show my support for housing, affordable housing, which I think is very important. I like what Andrew's made a point with is that housing pays for infrastructure that we need and that the city council, I think, you know, understands this issue pretty well that we need to do something. I think the economy's distressed and when the economy is distressed, it provides political forces that go behind these sorts of development of our city. So I just want to encourage the city council and the mayor to move forward on developing and plenty of affordable housing. And I just want to thank Brian for his articulate statement a moment ago. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Laura Thomas. And if you want to speak on the sign in, please turn in your slip.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Counsel for Thomas from Renewed Hope. I want to say that I actually first came to Alameda because the man I was going to marry lived on his Cal 34 enforcement basement, then called the Alameda Yacht Harbor. And at the time, he took me sailing up the estuary one day and he described everything along the way. And it was fascinating. It was a world I didn't know anything about. And yet I grew up a few blocks from the Oakland side of the estuary. I actually think it's a world that most Alameda don't know anything about either. And and I think bringing housing to part of the Alameda Marina site would actually solidify the maritime tradition in this city. It would bring more people into the onto the marina. They would be able to live there. They would have interaction with the maritime uses that are there. And it probably would enhance and strengthen the economic viability of Alameda Marina. Ultimately, yes, there's a lot of development going on on the estuary, taking over areas that have been moribund. Yes, we need to preserve the recreational activities and the jobs that the maritime. Industry offers now and we can create new possibilities for it. We would be poorer without the maritime presence on that part of the estuary. The reason but we can't shut it off from the public and keep it as a museum. Of the past, adding housing won't detract from it. In fact, if you really like I said, if you want people to respect Almeida's maritime history, I think that people living in there among the docks, the cranes and the small sailing shops is a good way to really enhance people's interest in boating. If there are only two boatyards left in the city, it's not because housing pushed them out. It's because. Again if I have to get personal. My last marriage ended because of a boat. Because keeping up boats, paying slip payments is very expensive. And, you know, I think the fact that there are fewer boatyards is a lot to do with people's ability to maintain sailboats more than anything else. And if you have more people living near the waterfront, I bet there would be more people able to sail and maybe more people would have boats and maybe, maybe even we could offer affordable slips. That would be a good idea. So. Okay. I think it's educational and salubrious for people who work over computers all day to get down to the water and maybe even live near it. I think you can have your cake and eat it too. Here. Because the money from the housing will will enhance this area, will support the infrastructure. I also want to say that we've spoken renewed hope has spoken to the developer. We know that they're interested in a partnership with nonprofit, affordable housing people, which means we can get some low income housing there. We might even be able to get a higher proportion of housing than the 15% we usually get. Maybe we could get 20 or 25. Okay. And I guess that's it. That's all I have to say. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Aaron Bey and then Maggie Sabol, Rich Savage. Thank you. And then Mike O'Hara.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the city council and staff. I just wanted to start off by sharing some news that I thought was pretty exciting for the East Bay in general. One of the largest construction and engineering companies at AECOM is close to leasing 120,000 square feet at the Lakeside Tower. Kaiser They are going to be bringing over 600 new jobs. And these are.
Speaker 8: Construction.
Speaker 7: And engineering jobs. So that's.
Speaker 8: That's a big signal.
Speaker 7: That something exciting is happening in the East Bay and. I think we are uniquely positioned to take advantage of whatever is happening out there. Alameda The Northern Waterfronts is a great asset, and the Alameda Marina project, I think is is a great project from what I've been hearing. We have the potential of adding new jobs. Mix a mixture of uses. Let's see. The last time I read the marina village is about 80% leased. Harbor Bay is almost completely fail filled. Alameda Point is positioning itself for new jobs with a third ferry terminal. But it's important that we continue to create an environment to attract jobs. Housing is very a very important component of creating the environment. That's what employers are looking for. Are you creating the environment for me to move my company and move my employees here? If you start talking about no homes, we don't want any homes. That's a that's a flag. And so I invite you to be careful of the words that we speak. We want to continue to position ourselves to attract jobs in Alameda. Again, the northern waterfront is one of the greatest assets. And I'm telling you, we have a tremendous opportunity with mixed use development to serving the jobs that are there, adding new jobs, increasing improving our infrastructure and planning for the next ten, 20 years. That's what this is about. So I invite you to develop the northern waterfront, look at it as a tremendous asset, a tremendous opportunity for growth.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Maggie, survive it. And then Mike O'Hare.
Speaker 3: Mayor Spencer. City Council members. Staff. Here again this month representing the Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association, an association of 106 Bay Area Yacht Clubs. And we also sponsor recreational boaters of California, representing the individual interests of boaters up and down the coast. We are obviously in favor of the mixed use component approach. And I remember when we first had our meeting, the first meeting I came to in December and it was brought up that Alameda Marina was being considered by a developer or a site of 500 plus housing units. And we looked at the. Developers outline and you could see sort of a ghost outline of these boats. In the marina facility without parking for the owners of those boats. Without dry storage for those boats when they come out of the water and have to be painted and maintained by all the businesses there. And it was very clear to all of us, the developer historically has not been involved in maritime projects and had no ultimate. Desire to support the boating component. That's why we as see why eight representatives, delegates, members throughout California became very concerned because as others have mentioned, this is a primary resource for voters. In the San Francisco Bay area other than going to San Francisco that has one boatyard. And perhaps going all the way to Vallejo. And by the way, I'm a member of the Vallejo Yacht Club, as well as the Oakland Yacht Club. And right now, as far as money and revenue is concerned, the developer who has bought into that property is currently not really utilizing. The property effectively. I have had many friends and acquaintances who say to me, What is going on? We're being turned away at the Alameda Marina when we want to leave our boat there, because it's always been an excellent source of both services for boats. I want to bring my boat in. I want to have it serviced at Swenson's. I'm being refused. So as I understand it, and I don't know exactly the proportion the city derives income from the activity of the boatyard, and seemingly boaters are not being allowed to utilize the boat yard at this point in time. So I think we need to rethink and go back to the original usage. And perhaps, you know, I suggest in live work initially, if you have people in a normal development, they don't particularly like looking at cranes, they don't particularly like hearing loud welding noises all day long in spite of the fact that someone else considered that somewhat romantic.
Speaker 1: At any rate, I wind up.
Speaker 3: I think we need to maintain it as it is with live workspace and utilize it property and properly and also use monies that we may be able to access from the State Department of Boating and Waterways in addition to federal.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much, Mike O'Hara and then Brian Schumacher and Paul Mueller. And our last speaker is Alan Hebert.
Speaker 11: Leaving Mayor Spencer, members of the City Council and staff. My name is Mike O'Hara. I'm here. Creating quite a mood.
Speaker 0: Taimur apparently had no.
Speaker 8: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 11: I'm Mike O'Hare here from Tim Louis. Communities representing the internal terminal site. First of all, I wanted to thank you and commend you for your desire to make the most of of truly a tremendous asset that a lot of people have spoken to tonight. Your commitment to the Northern Waterfront exhibited by your tour last month is is commendable and I think was very helpful to you all to to see the challenges and the and the assets of each site firsthand and to see just how massive some of those opportunities would be. We're certainly glad to have you there. And we recognize and appreciate your desire to continue to guide the development of these sites. What you saw it and answered all terminals was really a blank canvas. Couple of vacant buildings. And really the opportunity is, as Andrew laid out, is is how best to make use of those 22 acres of upland property surrounded on three sides by water. How best to implement the the guiding principles already included in the Northern Waterfront Plan that dictate how it how it is to be developed? We've spent the last three years evaluating the costs, which are many. Similar to the Alameda Marina, site of $30 million in infrastructure, $12 million of which just to go to to fixing up the wharf. So we feel like we've we've we understand that quite well, but we also understand the opportunities. We spent the last eight months out in the public eye hosting site tours, hosting neighborhood meetings, giving the Alameda residents an opportunity to give us their feedback and their input as to how they want to see that we're we started our process with the planning board, had a workshop with them in January. We look forward to getting back with them next month using the Northern Waterfront plans and plan. And as the general plan policies is the guiding principles we're implementing, the feedback that we've received from the public into our master plan. As such, we're fully engaged in the process with with the city and engaged in the process of the general plan mandates for northern waterfront sites, which is to create a master plan. Our master plan then gets vetted fully through the planning board. Secret process is completed and it allows a full comprehensive review of all of the project elements, including benefits and potential impacts. For main points I wanted to make tonight. We value the iterative process that is part of the planning board process and working with you all. Each site is extremely unique as I think you you have seen to. Public input has told us that that all the sites don't need to provide all things to all people or all all aspects of society. We want to avoid redundancy and create unique opportunities that excite the general plan policies we think are a great framework for for the development of the site. There are a couple, as Andrew had mentioned, that that we look to engage the public in with regard to height and and and and density and how the density spread out there. But we we want to urge you to not necessarily direct changes, but embrace the general planning policies that already exist and allow us to to create the most of that mixed use hub that we've created at at the Domani warehouse, extend it further north and use the mixed use approach approach with a commitment to the public waterfront access that the Northern Waterfront Plan mandates for this site. So appreciate your time. Look forward to continuing our dialog through the approval process at the Install Tool site.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Brian Schumacher and then Paul and then Alan and then Gretchen. And if you'd like to speak on this item, please turn on your slip.
Speaker 11: I had a mayor and council members and staff. Thanks for all your work and for giving us each of us a few minutes tonight. To let you know what's important to us. I appreciate the work that Andrew and his staff have done with the S&D Group and with Anti Hurt, and I will leave all that technical material to them. I just wanted to give a little personal and historical comment tonight and I will be brief. Over 35 years ago, when my wife Kathy and I left San Francisco and moved to the island city for its charm and surrounding water. And we made it home here and we raised our family and have sailed small boats out of the boat clubs and marinas that dot the shoreline. Alameda Marina was one among many in the seventies and much more recently when the city identified Alameda Marina as a place for more housing. But it strikes me that today there are many places for housing remaining. But the marina is the last one with significant, substantial facilities, and without that, there would be little left of the boat sales and repair businesses that support or of Alameda. This maritime heritage that many have spoken about which was active until as late as the 1930s as the winter home of the Alaska Packers. Tall ships sailing fleet. I. Would close with the thought that if folks who aren't crazy about public speaking like myself, are willing to get up. If there's one of me, there are ten or 100 or maybe a thousand or more out there. We're kind of thinking these same things.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Paul.
Speaker 8: Well, one thing when it back in the forties and fifties when they were changing the waterfront from what it was during the war, they put the new pilings up in the new stuff. They didn't quite demolish the old ones. They left them hanging there. And when you guys look at the waterfront and take those pictures of the horrors, you are taking pictures in many cases of stuff that should have been removed 50 years ago and is of no significance. It's just ugly and pitiful. And I'm not saying that's not time to change things, but it's very easy to get an impression that it's much worse than it is because you're looking at garbage that should have been removed, but wasn't because nobody funded getting rid of it. Now I'm at a dry sale, though. I don't call myself having a I don't like to take my boats like a storage. I don't store my boat on the marina by the hoist. They sail it at it from the hoist. I've been doing that since the 1980s. There's a whole lot of people like me. I don't not live in Alameda. I live in Oakland, and I've been doing it since then. For a long time, I rented a shop on Clement Street and worked on boats there. A lot of the people I sailed with on Friday night in the races grew up in Alameda, but they moved to Walnut Creek. They moved to Concord. That's where they live now. But their boats are at the Alameda Marina. So don't take that figure and say 40 only 40 boats in the marina alone. Two people in Alameda just thrown the rest of us out. I mean, we are we are we are part of the life that's there. Now, look, when you look at the boats in the water sailing all around all the time, the ones you saying, a lot of us that were dropped in those big boats that are sitting in the water not to dry sailed. Once people get in those, they motor out to the end of yesterday. They pull up this house and they go sailing. The boats that give you this life in the marina are very often the dry seal boats that we are popping in the water every day or not every day, but every weekend. And that in the sailing, that's what it comes from. So keep that alive. I agree with you. You get rid of half of them. That. I agree with that. But that that's a cut. But keep plenty of room for the ones that are there. Now, the only other thing I'm going to add on quick is there's an opportunity for all of you. I'm at the Island Yacht Club and we're going to put on a memorial Day week on Memorial Day weekend on Saturday. We're going to have a open house normally with an open house to the clubs, so to get members in. But this time, we're going to try and throw it open to the marina, invite the community into the marina, and we could take them for a boat ride. There's a reason we do it on the Memorial Day weekend, on the Saturday on that Saturday afternoon. Every year, for as long as I can remember, the Master Mariner fleet sails into the Alameda after the whole day of having a regatta out in the bay. It's incredible to see. These are the master mariners and not old sailors. The old boats. These are the boats from before World War Two. They all come down the marina and tie up right by the snow basin. It's really something now. We applaud everybody we can find on boats and take them out and let them see the end of the race and have sail down into the marina. I invite you from the city to come and I invite everybody from the community to participate in that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Alan. Alan Heber and then Gretchen Lipo. And those are our last two speakers. If you want to speak on this item, please turn your slip.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Alan. He wrote, and I don't live in Alameda. I live in Menlo Park. I drove up here at rush hour. Why would I come from Menlo Park? Because for years, I had my boat in the Alameda Marina because the Alameda marina is not just another place to do this stuff. It actually is a unique community. There really is nothing quite like it. And it's important enough to me that I got in my truck after work and came up here to talk to you. The dry storage is my particular concern. Storage for ARVs is one thing. Storage for boats is something else. You can't just put a 25 ton gym. You want a 25 ton hoist in your backyard, maybe, you know, pick up some of the you don't want. Okay. It's not hard to put a 25 ton hoist on the ground. It's really hard to find a place where the water, the land, there isn't overhead. Power is really short. All that stuff that you need is there. It's just kind of not everywhere. There is there are several hoists around the Bay Area. There are two places in the San Francisco Bay Area where you don't have to be a member of the club to get to use the hoist. Richmond and Alameda. I was in Alameda for quite a while until I was evicted for doing something that well that some folks didn't like. So I was evicted and I moved up to Richmond. And so now instead of spending money at Chevron at the corner of Buena Vista and Park, instead of having breakfast at all lofts on Park, instead of spending another 20 bucks at Pagano Hardware because I need a tape measure all of that money I'm spending in Richmond because I'm not here anymore. In fact, I've been here once since I was asked to depart. One other time. This is the second time to talk to you. Because what's out there is not just another conglomeration of brown buildings. Right. It is a community. It's a unique resource. And it's just like. You ever been to a Giants game between Giants game? Yeah. You've been rejected. How could you possibly go to a Giants game? You don't live in San Francisco.
Speaker 2: I'm a San Francisco native, and I could take the ferry from Alameda to there.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Son of a gun. So I would. You've got a regional resource here. You know, it's not just Alameda. It's something kind of special enough to get a guy to get in this truck from Menlo Park to come up here to talk to you. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Gretchen and she's our last speaker.
Speaker 8: Hmm. I'm hungry. Folks.
Speaker 3: And Madam Mayor and council people. So isn't this wonderful to listen to this unique community of voters talk to you? And I kind of stepped in and was watching the process and reading over some of the documents, looking at the map and realizing that the northern half of Alameda Marina is Tidelands Truss. So you can't build anything. No residential there anyway. But looking at the big picture, what's happening on Clement and you know, it's all just wonderful to be able to live by the water, but there's always a price to pay when you overdo things. So I started looking at the numbers and I thought, Oh my God, look at this. In the boat works, you got 130. These are all on Clement and you have 52 coming in at 2100 Clement. Then you have the Alameda Clement. 2033 Clement, 240 units. I heard that might be 500. That's that's the instantly terminals 500. Then you have 400 at Del Monte and you have the Arch Whitman Marina Cove at 89 and the Corporation Yards at 41, Pennzoil 64. I mean, it goes on and on. So I'm saying, wait a minute, how are we going to get all these folks back and forth off the island at one end of the island here that we're creating a a freeway on? Clement So I like to look at numbers and see how they impact reality. The other piece of information I picked up in talking to the committee was that there's 84 businesses and the Army and Marine 84, and that represents about 200 workers. Oh, so those are numbers that tell you something. And you've got to numbers are good. They tell you things. They tell you how to think. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. All right. It's 10 minutes after ten. We are going to take a ten minute break and then we'll resume. Thank you. If everyone could please take your seats. We're going to resume. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Excellent.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. We're going to resume. And we've now heard all of the public comments, staff's presentation and counsel that it's time for our feedback. Vice Mayor. And it's Your Honor referral.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, I think there was a very good discussion, and I thank staff for the. Guidelines that they submitted to help us frame the discussion. A couple of things that I want to make sure that. Get considered as this goes, which I'm assuming will go for some action to the planning board, and then a recommendation to council. Is that one of the one of the reasons I put this referral in not just for Alameda Marina, but all Amex zoned parcels in the city is because there is a dynamic between commercial and residential and. We have I think there were three sites that were mentioned that are zoned but are vastly different. We have on one end of the spectrum aluminum arena, where there's a a fairly healthy commercial activity. We have at the other end of the spectrum internal terminals where there's no commercial activity. And then we have something in the middle. When you look at ship ways where there is some, I would say a not nothing spectacular minimum commercial activity. But all of these share. One thing is, at one time they were zoned commercial and now they have mixed use. So value has been added by this to the city, to property owners for this. And I think the considerations that come with that value added are to make sure that. We maintain jobs that are there and we create jobs there. And I think one of if we. I'd like the staff to look very carefully at what Sol put in on their edited guidelines because. They did highlight and this was my main point is for army and especially as maintain the jobs, not encourage I think we need to be stronger in the language and that we need to where there's commercial activity that's one of our guidelines is we need to maintain it. Where there's no commercial activity, you need to create it. And I think that's another policy statement that we have to elevate because and I just watched how the presentation went on the internal terminals and the end of the presentation. We, we do what often happens and I'm guilty of it myself. Not having been on the planning board and the council before is we end up talking about a residential and open space and these are mixed uses that in the final statement it was that the big discussions we were about around residential and open space and with almost 50,000 square feet of commercial activity, there's that's not going to be that should be a big discussion and there should be heavy discussion on what is in there and what kind of jobs it's going to create. And that's part of the ticket for being in a mixed use that used to be commercial. So I think that's a very important point that I'd like to underscore. Second is, I think we need to be more stringent on the compatibility of uses. Alameda Marina is an industrial site. It's not a light industry or commercial commercial site, so I don't want residents to be surprised or coming to council when. 6 a.m. rolls around and a tractor trailer runs in or there's sandblasting of the hull or there's other heavy industrial use. So I think the deed restriction idea and not just disclosure, but deed restriction is something that we should. Evaluate to protect the businesses that are there. The anecdotal discussion around Emeryville, where I worked for many years, was when the the. Residents came in, the businesses had to move out. We were the beneficiary of actually two of those businesses, semi Freddy's and Pete's coffee roasting because they were incompatible all with the residents that that moved in next to them. That was the anecdote. I want to make sure that we avoid that anecdote. We also, I think, have to consider the. In every mixed use setting the interface between residential and commercial so that we heard the complaints about lights at VF Outdoor. That's one of those one of those interface issues. We're going to have a project coming toward the council, the council at some point of Taylor and Webster Street. And there has have long been. And problems that have come up between people who live right next to restaurants or bars or wherever you are in the community commercial district . I think we have to do an enhanced set of policies that deal with that interface as well. The other point that was brought up, that's I think a step toward compatibility with the with a site like aluminum arena is the notion of work live, even though those don't count to our residential component. I think they provide. They might provide the market rate. Income that the developer needs to provide affordable housing or whatever other amenity is needed or whatever other infrastructure cost is going to be incurred in that property. I think those key points along with making sure that again we elevate the goal for the property go for the for Alameda marina is to make sure that we take advantage of the many mariners that are here and preserve and develop the maritime related businesses and a clean slate operation. I think one of the directions that I would like the planning board to consider in this council to consider is what what jobs are you delivering? As part of that discussion and not have it ended up being a question of just how much open space can we get. But you've got 50,000 square feet of commercial. How many jobs. And then I think we need to keep our eye on the ball on on as Mr. Thomas mentioned of. Allocating those numbers toward our regional housing needs allocation and looking at where we are. As we go through each side application. Those are my comments.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm going to. Member, Brody.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank everyone who came out. I thought this was a very interesting discussion. I really enjoyed hearing the various perspectives. So but just a couple of quick comments to begin with. I'm a little bit concerned when we use the word surplus when it comes to housing, because I don't know anyone who lives in the Bay Area who believes we have a surplus of housing. I mean, we do have an excess of what we've committed in our state arena numbers, and that gives us some wiggle room to play with. And, you know, we could reduce it here and there and, you know, we can eliminate some projects if we want to. We could down zone some projects if we want to. But, you know, 90,000 people moved to Alameda County last year I'm sorry, the Bay Area last year, 25,000 to Alameda County. So to say that we have a surplus, I think we have a shortage. And if anything, I think we all have the battle scars, you know, as one of the symptoms of that shortage in in what we did with rents. So we just went through that, that horrible process, you know, of hearing people's tragic stories and try to do the best we can to fix them. So but let's just be clear on the narrative that, you know, we do have a housing shortage when you think about it overall. And, you know, to hammer home that point, a couple of weeks ago, I had the honor of attending a meeting with the secretary of Housing, Mr. Castro. Congresswoman Barbara Lee was there. Mayor Libby Schaaf Council President McElhaney Our mayor was there are Spencer and she had the opportunity to speak. And, you know, she acknowledged, you know, that we do have an issue with housing. And, you know, she was able to at least bring some positive vibes to the room by saying that we in Alameda took steps to to address that with some of our rents. And I think, you know, we're kind of leading the way for other cities because Oakland did a moratorium. But I digress off that. So I you know, I encourage folks to look at the L.A. Report. I mean, the L.A. report came from the Legislative Analyst Office, the one from March 17, 2015, that talked about California's high housing cost and causes and consequences. And there was another one that didn't make it into the agenda. But when that came out just this year, February 9th, perspectives on Helping Low Income Californians Afford Housing. You know, and one of the things they talked about is that, you know, why do coastal areas not build enough housing? And, you know, one of the areas is community resistance and new housing. I mean, it's an issue we hear every day here. We hear it in our emails. You know, there's a difference of opinion on this council. There's a difference of opinion in this community. So, I mean, do we you know, do we step up, you know, and do our part, you know, and participate in the solution, you know, or do we continue to be you know, one of the reasons that they list is is why we don't build enough housing. So I think that's you know, that's a decision we as a council have to make and we as a community have to make. And I look forward to continuing to have that discussion as we go forward. So if I can just make some quick comments, I think these guidelines were, I think, really helpful as far as this discussion is concerned. I'd be hesitant to say whether, you know, we should adopt them or even reject them. I think as far as adopting, they're a little prescriptive. And I also think we have to be careful on exactly what we say and what we do like. For example, the application for internal terminals is already there. So for us to go and change that and prejudge that, you know, just like we had the issue with packet landing and I'd be a little hesitant to do that, but I will make some general comments about zoning because I think it's important, you know, that each of us communicate, you know, where we are on some of these things without getting in too much into the weeds on each of the individual projects. I mean, so if you look at a staff report, you know, the summary of them zoning says, you know, the required master plan can be customized to respond to the unique characteristics of each site and respond to current community expectations and objectives for each site. By providing few specific development standards, the district avoids a cookie cutter approach that would result in every site looking, operating and serving the community in very similar ways. The flexibility and the district allows for different community needs to be met at different sites. And I think that's kind of the message that we've heard today, that, you know, the needs of the terminal may be different than the needs at Alameda Marina may be different than the needs, you know, at Webster and Taylor. So. I really don't know if that really means to me that we need to relook at zoning, because what what we have in there is the flexibility that we need. If we have a situation like we do at Aluminum Arena or we have businesses, we have jobs that we want to protect, then the zoning gives us the ability and the flexibility to do that. So, I mean, if we have a situation like on Park Street or on Webster Street where it's the, you know, commercial zone, quote unquote, our main streets, you know, the zoning gives us the flexibility to do that. So I think guidelines are a little bit premature at this time. And I don't even know if listening from the speakers that we had today that we even have an agreement on that. You know, some people want multi-family housing, and that was in the guidelines. Some people think there should be no housing there. So, I mean, to adopt guidelines when we really haven't had a full community discussion on that might be a little bit premature in my mind. You know, I there was a question about the historical analysis and I know that's going to be part of the equation. I was out there yesterday at Aluminum Arena, thankfully not in the rain this time. You know, and when we saw the picture, you know, there's this beautiful big marina building, you know, that's amazing. That's something that we want to keep. That's something that we want to preserve. So I think as we go through that process, you know, all this will come out and the community will have an opportunity to see that. And, you know, I encourage saw and they had some very valuable comments and input and they've been engaged in this process. I mean, I don't know if it's from the beginning, but it's now since November. So I encourage them to keep being engaged in that process. Renewed hope, keep being engaged in the process. Work with the developers, work with planning staff and. Just you know, the vice mayor called it his goal for the property. You know, I kind of. See. Pretty much the same way that we kind of have a value statement. So what's my value statement? And, you know, I go out there and I see, yeah, we do need to keep our maritime business. You know, you go out there and that's the only hoist out there. I saw the painting spot where the boats are painted. Now, do we need all of that, that dry space? You know, I don't know if you have a boat and, you know, you have the catamaran and you fold it up because you start on the land and and it can be, you know, a lot less space than you would need it in the water. And some of those catamarans you don't store in the water. So, yeah, we need that there. If you I saw a boat that, you know, it had the shiniest hole in it. And I was told that they do that because they want to race really fast. And if they keep waxing the bottom of the hull and they're able to, you know, get through the water really fast. So we need that in there. Now, do we need an AC transit bus? I don't know. I don't think so. Do we need a dozen, two dozen shipping containers? I don't think so. We need RV's with flat tires. I don't think so. We need boats that are on trailers that haven't been registered since 2025. You know, maybe, maybe not. I mean, that's a question we have to think about. So, you know, my value for, you know, this particular property without pre-judging anything is to preserve, protect, maintain, expand to the extent we can, not only our existing maritime, but, you know, the new economy maritime. So I think that's that's an important thing. And, you know, as long as I'm here, you know, I'm going to work to do that and hope that any plan for the aluminum arena does that. Just kind of enclosing. One thing that I've noticed since I've been here is. We are an island city and we have a lot of, you know, docks and wharfs and terminals, Olina Bay, where the mayor and ships are docked, Alameda Landing, where there's controversy now over what we're going to build there. Alameda Marina Grande Marina took me on a tour, showed me where things are deteriorating. And there's a lot of infrastructure in our peers and our wharves that it just is deteriorating. It needs fix. So I don't know how we're going to afford all that. I guess we're going to have to wait to see on these individual projects, you know, how these developments pencil out. But you know, what I'd like to see us do more is trying to figure out a way that we can finance getting these things. One gentleman said some of them should have been replaced, I think a few 50 years ago. So we need to figure out a way we can you know, we can find a way to raise money to do that. So that's one of my big concerns. So. That's pretty much just make sure I got all my points and I realize, you know, development and housing is always going to be an issue. Traffic is going to be an issue. You know, I'm very hopeful that with I'm going to call another day slog, study the TDM plan that we adopted that we're going to start having results on in the next 18 months is really going to help us, you know, address these problems and help us step up and be leadership and just show some leadership on this housing issue. It's really important and we need to take care of it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Member.
Speaker 2: Ashcroft Thank you, Mayor Spencer, and thank you to all of the folks who came out and spoke to us and who have been all along the tours that were hosted in allowing us to come and visit your properties on the water. So I've said this more than once, but as a council member, I have to balance all of the different issues that come before me way, what often seem like competing interests. But it is a matter of balance, and I think in this particular case, balance can be achieved. At the outset, though, I want to say that I don't believe that we can examine local issues one at a time in a vacuum, because I think they're all interdependent. And so I'm thinking about housing and I want to I have a few themes that I picked out of the the staff report and the exhibits, the letter we got this morning from Bay West Development and if they've been repeated in the speakers but one of them is community objectives and your staff report talked about community objectives. And I note that I put in my my margin on my my staff report when I was making notes is that who speaks for the community when we talk about community objectives? And I would simply say to you, the community speaks with many voices and we heard representatives of that tonight. So we have let's talk about Alameda, meaning Alameda Marina, because I think that's the the project that has the most controversy because there are existing uses there now as opposed to in El Terminal, which is more of a blank slate. So we have a need to preserve the working waterfront, to preserve the maritime uses. I am awed by the work that Liz Taylor of Do our deep ocean exploration research and her folks do out there. They let us traipse through and gave us tours. And it's it truly is. It has an international reach. What they've what they've done and and all the others I've known this friends and family for a long time. But I also know, because I know this friends and family, that they do not believe they can continue to exist in as large a footprint and as large an operation as they have now. But the developer is working for them. So we need our working waterfront. We need to preserve it. But that working waterfront at Alameda Marina and in fact our other existing waterfront properties needs an infusion of capital. Everyone wants those jobs to stay there. They want the uses to stay there. But where is the money going to come from? Development is one answer. And and it's it's also possible. I mean, if we were if you went on the tour and you got to drive all the way around and maybe even got to look at an aerial photograph, you can see that the footprint is spread. It's sprawling. That footprint, footprint of maritime uses can be consolidated, preserving all the important uses and jobs that were talked about. And I want, you know, repeat what others have said, but. Yeah. RV storage. No. And. Anyway. It's possible to do that on a smaller footprint and still preserve those uses and yet also repair and renovate and restore that working waterfront. But Alameda needs housing, too, and I agree with what Councilmember Otis said. We hear about recent numbers, a regional housing needs allocation and that, you know, we've reached our our quotas. Are we we are on track to reach our quotas. And yet I don't think that anybody who's been paying attention to the hours and hours of testimony we've heard before this council in the last year, almost two years now , can think that we don't have a housing shortage. And, in fact, I, I was very pleased to see the Legislative Analyst's Office report included as one of our exhibits. And it's aptly titled California's High Housing Costs, Causes and Consequences. And just a few brief points that it touched on that they apply to Alameda and I think they're significant. The report describes how community resistance to new housing has led to less housing being built all over the state, which in turn leads to higher rents and higher home prices. Home ownership remains out of reach for many renters who aren't able to save for a down payment. I mean, we know from studies that more than 50% of our renters are paying more than 50% of their income on housing costs, which leaves especially seniors with choices to make hard choices to make, like whether to refill their prescription that month, pay the utilities, they've got to pay the rent. So, you know, let alone saving for a down payment. But save for a younger renter that's their homeownership goal is is remaining quite elusive. High housing costs also lead to longer commutes, and that has implications for all of us, for the quality of the air that we breathe. And and this was touched upon by one of our speakers, high housing costs, I think it was Karen Bay, maybe also make it difficult for employers to recruit employees and retain qualified employees because they can't find housing that they can afford near the jobs that they would like to have. And this will eventually impact our state's economy. But there's there's hope. It's not all bleak. The the study concludes by saying that local governments do have the ability to promote additional housing and construction and therefore slow down growth, the slowdown, the growth and increase in home prices and rents going forward. And I think this is very much what we have an opportunity to do with this project. So mixed use, it is mixed use for a reason. And it's of course that some uses are incompatible and oh, I don't know, maybe the e-commerce guy who's, you know, starts at six in the morning with the trailer trucks backing up because I'm not sure that was maritime related. Maybe that really is a use that would be better suited out somewhere in the far reaches of Alameda Point, I don't know. But there is also in some ways this is very much the new urban strategy that people are wanting to live and work closer to the sources. And so I would think that the people who choose to live in a place like Alameda Marina, especially Alameda Marina, because that's the working waterfront, would go in with their eyes wide open. And the fact that Laura Thomas of Renewed Hope spoke of her very positive interactions with the developer, the potential and I'm paying attention here for maybe more than 15% affordable, 20%. 25%. I know. I've heard the mayor say very similar things about wanting to see higher percentages of affordable housing in Alameda. I think that addresses some important needs that we have as well as providing market rate housing. It should be a mix of housing, a mix of uses, commercial, residential, industrial and a mix of housing types. The market rate pays for a lot of the infrastructure, and any housing we add is going to take pressure off the limited supply of housing stock we have now. And then I also wanted to talk a little bit about process, and I, I do come down in agreement with Bay with development. Mr. Murphy, who wrote us the letter this morning, it said and it was brought out in the staff report, there is already a process for. Making our application, bringing our proposal to the planning board, to the city council. It can be tweaked. I don't know what the problem is we're trying to solve now. It almost seems like we want to be preemptive and not even give. A project, a chance to show us what is possible. I will hasten to say, though, that I give credit to the save out me to working waterfront. I don't agree with the amendments you're suggesting, but that squeaky wheel did bring the developer around to many iterations of that plan. That got to be more, I think, more user friendly for all users. But. I don't I, I think that it's perfectly fine to let the process as is currently contained in our, our, you know, our what it is we do in it when a developer comes forward, others, those processes, they've worked for us so far. We tweak when necessary and otherwise. What's the message we're sending to developers that you came to us with certain expectations and willing to work with within the system and go back and back and.
Speaker 3: Back.
Speaker 2: Trying to refine your project. And now we're going to tie your hands even further. And bear in mind something else that the Legislative Analyst's Office report brought out, that the developer fees that developers in California pay are the highest in the nation. So we expect a lot from our developers and they do help us fund our affordable housing, our open space, well needed renovations to infrastructure. But I think we need to play fair at the same time. That's not to say that we throw up our hands and say whatever you want to do. Far from it. But I don't think we we changed the rules in the middle of the game. So just to reiterate, our community objectives are expressed by a wide variety of individuals, not just here tonight, but all the folks who've talked about the housing crisis, employers we've heard from, including at Alameda Marina, who have told me we have trouble attracting and retaining workers for good jobs, good technical jobs, because they can't afford to live in Alameda. So it's all interrelated. I say we stay the course and I appreciate all the input in the comments and I think we can get some good projects out of it just the way the regulations are fashioned now. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Amber de SAC.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I don't really have any ideological points of view tonight. My main concern is threefold. One is to voice my vision for the area, to make sure to articulate that whatever we do along the northern waterfront or not do is aligned well with our imminent. City wide transit plan. Also known as the transit point. Thank you, Mr. Modi. And three let residents and other stakeholders try to work things out. I mean, it's just those three points, that's all. I at the end of the day, I see a project I don't like. Not rocket science. Vote against. I voted against the DEL Project isn't convinced about the Trans Eden Plan. I also voted against the Clement Avenue Project right next to McKinley Park in Thompson Field. Likewise, if I see a project, I will. Certainly embrace the site, a project. Alameda. Partners project. Let me just go over those three points. Vision. My vision for the area is a viable working waterfront area here in the viable, working waterfront area. To me, that's as important as the ship anchor on the flag of Alameda. A city whose maritime traditions as far back as the day Alameda came into existence. 160 year 102 years ago to this day on April 19th, 1854. In terms of the citywide transit implementation and the emphasis is on the implementation. That's important. The reason why I like to cite a Alameda point was because Joe earned a contract, not just a policy commitment, not just some vague document that he could point to, but he made a contractual agreement to do a 15 minute shuttle that would come every 15 minutes in the peak hour mornings. What that meant is the typical commuter would only have to wait on average 7 minutes for the shuttle. 7 minutes b eight point. And so that, in essence, was a real e e touch. It was a type of solution. Likewise, you know. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hare. I appreciate all the efforts of TLC and everything, but I really wasn't too convinced by the team plan. But I think as a result of that, that we started this process of really putting together a transit strategy that that we can implement, and that's going to make a real dent. So whatever we do at the Northern Waterfront, particularly the aluminum arena site or the INS and out terminal site, you know, that's still a sticking point. I want to know that that and that it will result in real usage of alternative modes of transit. Finally, you know, my feeling is let the residents. I've met frequently with many of the residents that the residents and the stakeholders try to work things out. I have to believe that when I see the set of people coming to this issue, when I see is Freeman or Mr. Woodard or Ms. heard that these are people who can find common ground with the project proponents. It won't be easy. But, you know, let the process work itself out, because I am confident that at the end of the day, we'll have an outcome that we can all be proud of. So my encouragement is for people to get in there and. I think the question on the table tonight is whether we should change the guidelines that are in place with regard to the mixed use project. My sense is that. I like to see a palate, to speak with as many colors as possible so that we can paint the best possible pictures that Alameda can be proud of. If we begin to limit the type of colors, um. I wonder how that will affect. The picture that we're all striving for to require compromise in all. That's about it. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, if there's a project I don't like. Vote against it. In the day. I am. To people either. But a before. But I'm confident that we can have a process out of which, you know, everyone will. Something will will result that people will be proud of.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I also want to thank everyone who has spoken on this issue and emailed us and reached out to us in different forms. When I look at this, I have concerns about asking us to actually put something in writing and vote on something just like I did on the Harbor Bay Club issue. I think I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback. I think that is important. I think it's important to give feedback as early as possible because at the end of the day, I would prefer a project I would be able to support, and that's how we can communicate so that hopefully the developers out there have the opportunity. I think it's fair to give the developers an opportunity to hear from us and our priorities and regards the community objectives. When I look at that, we have had feedback and when it comes to voting on the project, I think that's what we are doing. We are voting on behalf of the community and that's how that works. My priority and I appreciate Andrew Thomas speaking about this, we also not only have and I'm going to say, a shortage of housing, of affordable housing and workforce housing. I do not think we have a shortage of market rate and housing. The people that come and complain and express their concerns and are being displaced and which I spoke to at the meeting that member already spoke, referred to, truly, it is people that have lived here forever and are being displaced, are being pushed out of our community. And the market rate housing that is being offered, unfortunately, is too high. They can't afford it. So when I talk about housing and the need that I see is actually affordable and what I'm going to call workforce mid level housing. And I and I really hope that when developers and, and I'll say the 10% or 15% of affordable and maybe no no middle housing. I don't think that solves the problem. I really do think we need developers interested in building housing that people in the.
Speaker 3: Middle can afford.
Speaker 1: And how. Okay. And in regards to the waterfront specifically, I would like us to look at a liveaboard. That is something that I hear that people actually cannot find a space to live aboard and they would like to have that. And that is another type of what could be more middle rate housing, smaller and it's multi-use, so that if someone can is interested in using a boat that possibly they could live on it. And I would like us to look at offering more liveaboard and and considering if there's a way to have that actually count towards our housing, that that's another thing we are encouraged to build or to have available the work live. I think that that should count towards our housing. I think that when we as a city are building housing, that doesn't count. That doesn't make any sense to me, and especially when we're looking at areas that have housing overlays and whatnot. I think all the housing where people are going to be living should count towards those numbers because at the same time, in regards to a balance, we are trying to offer jobs that are middle, mid-level and high level jobs where people can actually have a job here in town and be able to live here ideally. Which means to me, the low end, which is mostly retail, does not get us there. I think it is critical that we support the remaining waterfront working waterfront that we have and. And try to support it and actually enhance that. We are one of the few, as we've heard, areas in the area that have that in regards to being able to see the sailboats go by. We love that. We embrace that as our maidens. It is on our flag. I appreciate all those comments and it is something that anyone that's coming up with a plan for a big area, which some of these are one of these areas I think is for over 40 acres. Let's think about how do we protect those jobs and the maritime. That's that's what we like. And. Okay. I want to hit some other points real quick. The historical buildings, I think that is also very important. We figure out a way we we support the historical buildings. That's another important part of Alameda, the the height of buildings. Okay. As you're driving down climate right now are playing a vista more and more, you cannot see the water at all. We get to see these high buildings. That's to me not ideal. And hopefully some developer can figure out a way to make it so that we can actually see the water. We do live on an island and access for the community to the waterfront to actually be able to see it now. To me, that does not mean and I appreciate vice mayor's comments when you put residential right next to industrial. We get complaints, someone's going to get pushed out. And unfortunately, in this situation, I think it will be the industrial. And to me, that is the priority in that area. So it has to make sense. Any work with would have to be people that somehow know that there's going to be noise out there.
Speaker 0: The 11:00 and 11:00.
Speaker 1: AM, we need a motion to continue requiring three votes. Do we have a motion? Ocean all second. Okay. All those in favor. I like most officials, though, as far as I understand. Is that correct? Motor. Okay. It's 11:00, which means next time I'll try to go first.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Yeah, because I.
Speaker 1: Get cut off. So I appreciate working with a council that does this.
Speaker 6: And so.
Speaker 0: The direction that staff.
Speaker 1: Heard.
Speaker 3: Is.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 1: We are at the club, we are over.
Speaker 3: The developer.
Speaker 0: Will start the process at the planning board.
Speaker 2: Tomorrow. The manager.
Speaker 1: The mikes should be off this note this. | Regular Agenda Item | Provide Direction to Staff Regarding General Plan Policies, Municipal Code Requirements and Potential Amendments to the General Plan and Municipal Code to address Development Sites with Mixed Use (MX) Zoning. (Community Development 481005) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2724 | Speaker 1: Okay. So I had pulled this item. I have concerns about the way this is being implemented. And specifically, for instance, I attended one of the workshops for the tenants and it was during the day. And initially a concern of mine had been that there most of the workshops for tenants were in the day and not in the evening. And then I know workshops were added in the evening to which I think is to accommodate the tenants. The workshop I went to, which was a tenant workshop, had four people present, one from person from Echo, another person from the business industry, and then two tenants that were concerned about being evicted. And something that came out during the presentation was that there was no ability to meet with anyone in person that you could expect. You could leave, you could telephone and expect a return call within three days, which the tenants that were there said that that was what had happened to them. It had taken three days to get a return call, but I am concerned that I would like to. I think we should consider having the ability for a person to get in line somewhere and talk with a person or make an appointment to meet with a person. Yes.
Speaker 4: So are you objecting to spending the money to fund the work that has to be done? Because I think those comments are good comments for the execution of what has to be done. But I think our charges to allocate the money.
Speaker 1: So, yes, I am objecting if we are not including in-person contact. Yes, I will be objecting. So I think that that's critical for this. I think that tenants have serious concerns. And actually, if you go to the housing authority right now for an issue regarding affordable housing, there is a line that you weigh in and then you can get assistance. But that and also, if you go downstairs to the Planning Department, both departments which use this program, for instance, the Planning Department will be connected with the CHP there. There's a way to get in line and see a person. So I am concerned that we're not offering that at this point.
Speaker 8: Yes, sir. If I understand you to be making a motion.
Speaker 4: I just want to make a point first before making the motion, because I do think that's probably a valid critique, because tenants and housing providers, for that matter, should be able to talk to a person. But that won't happen if we don't allocate the money. So I, I would like to get the, the city manager's response, but I would also like to make the motion that we allocate the money as per item five I.
Speaker 8: And I'll second that. I do have a discussion point to make to after the city manager.
Speaker 0: And I'd just like to say that we will share those that critique with the housing authority and suggest ways that they can be more customer service oriented.
Speaker 5: And just to clarify one point from Debbie Porter, the city's community development director. And the housing authority is already set up to do phone phone appointments. So they are doing phone appointments. And they have agreed to reevaluate in 60 to 90 days once they have a sense of the volume of activity, the ability to set up in-person meetings at that time so that it's not that people can't meet, they're being done by the phone. And that's really to assess and understand the volume of activity under the new ordinance.
Speaker 1: Could you clarify, is a phone appointment mean that you still are talking on the phone, not in person. So you're still not allowed to make an appointment to meet with someone in person?
Speaker 5: It is set up to take phone appointments that's over the phone. And they have agreed in the next 60 to 90 days to evaluate capacity to do in-person meetings as well.
Speaker 1: All right, member Ashcraft.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the one comment I had from the staff report was from page three that says that. Starting on page two staff report. While RAC meetings at the Rent Review Advisory Committee meetings were previously held in the council chambers. They were not televised. The decision to relocate the meetings to the IPI community room that's in the.
Speaker 5: Independent's.
Speaker 8: Independence Plaza over adjacent to where the housing authorities offices are, was made to facilitate the mediation process and provide an informal setting that was more accessible to the mediating parties, particularly the tenants. There's some suggestion that given the increased awareness, it might be appropriate to relocate the RAC meetings back to the chambers and televise the meetings. I believe I was one of the motivating forces on getting the RAC meetings moved from this chambers to a more a setting that was more conducive to the mediation process because quite frankly, it was pretty awful when it was here and not the least bit user friendly. A mediation process for those who have participated should really have all the parties sitting around a table at eye level with each other, nobody looking down on one and not, you know, making landlord and tenant shuttled back and forth. And so I we also were going to consider some amendments to our Sunshine Ordinance this evening. And I know from reading that staff report that there are times when it's simply not possible or advisable to have a meeting someplace where we can have live streaming television. I don't think that's a necessity in this particular case, as long as we had an audio recording and accessibility to that. So again, I agree with the vice mayor that none of these changes and none of our ability to be more responsive to our especially our tenants in these cases. But landlords two is possible unless we vote for the funding. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And I personally prefer that the meetings be held here. The audio went there and I think it's important. Actually, I'd like us to consider televising it. The audio, if you playback the audio, it's very hard to tell who's speaking. It's really not a recording. And and I think it's actually critical for the success of REC that the meetings be held here where they are. I think this venue is is important. So I disagree with moving it well.
Speaker 8: In any way when we're not discussing that. So that was correct.
Speaker 1: Correct. So I appreciate that. So, all right. Do we have a motion.
Speaker 8: And we have a seconds that.
Speaker 1: Can be seconded?
Speaker 0: Can I ask one clarifying question? You said you were moving, appropriating the funds. Are you also approving the services agreement?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 8: On the second issue. Yes.
Speaker 1: All right. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Thank you. Motion carries 4 to 1. When when it was all right. And then a5k. And I pulled this one.
Speaker 0: Okay. I know you want to do the final passage of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with two tenure renewal options and an option to purchase with LME 2.3 developers for Building eight located at 2350 Saratoga Street, Alameda Point. This item requires four. Affirmative.
Speaker 1: All right. And this one staff has a presentation. I don't know if you wanted to go over it. We also have one speaker.
Speaker 8: Well, why are we having a staff presentation?
Speaker 1: There is a presentation on here. I don't know if Seth wanted to present.
Speaker 5: Any of it. Excuse me. Then that mechanic from the Community Development Department based.
Speaker 0: We use department staff would like.
Speaker 5: To wait to see what the questions are before we do the presentation. We may be able to respond to the questions without the presentation. | Consent Calendar Item | Recommendation to: 1) Approve a Nine-Month, $713,000 Services Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority Concerning Program Administrator Services for the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and
2) Appropriate $493,000 in General Fund Monies to Fully Fund the Agreement. (City Manager 2110) | AlamedaCC |
AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2730 | Speaker 5: To wait to see what the questions are before we do the presentation. We may be able to respond to the questions without the presentation.
Speaker 1: Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and call the speaker at this time. Michael McDonough.
Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor, and members of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I wanted to repeat our support for this project, the chamber's support for this project. In the last reading, I made the point that the formula for evaluation had been set by presidents, so that should not be an issue . But as one going on further than that, as one of the esteemed members of this council said after the last reading, and I paraphrase, It's not just the price for the land, but the cumulative value for Alameda after the project has been developed. And this project really is a tremendous value to Alameda, we believe. Number. Me tell.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: I know that last time.
Speaker 8: I think you're sitting in the corner.
Speaker 4: Number. Number one, it transforms a long, vacant space that no one else has stepped up with. Another offer that would make a better value to the city. It's also an opportunity to expand on the maker's movement that has sprung up in Alameda, but not only adult makers spaces. There's been one very interested tenant that will bring a kid's maker space there, and I think that's tremendous for the kids that we have. I've also spoken to the developer about making vocational educational opportunities available. Things that are now no longer available in our high schools. But I think an important part of the future employment of our kids who don't choose to go on to college and. Lastly, the project will bring about 480 permanent jobs. But don't forget the temporary construction jobs, which many of our local businesses will bid and receive those contracts for the construction. And I know several that are members of the chamber that I know personally who intend to build on those projects. So we do believe this. This continues to offer great value to Alameda. We believe the value to the city as far as the price of the land is fair based on the improvements that are going to go in. And also the fact that it's a work live space really does mitigate any kind of traffic issues that might come up as well. So I think it's a win win for all and we support it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I had pulled this item at the last meeting. It was discussed. I believe the developer was thinking about having up to 100 space, 100 of these work live units. And at that time, the valuation per my question did not consider or was not affected by whether or not it had work live units. And the concern of mine and another and another concern is that these units do not count as housing for the city's code, which means they do not impact the number of housing units that we're required to have as the city. By the state. And now with this report that it appears that actually there's another part of the city's code, so that the number, the maximum number of work live units is anywhere between 73 to 86. Now that there's the city's. Change the number of units from what the what was spoken last time. Can someone speak to that?
Speaker 4: Evening. Mr. Spencer members of the Council. In terms of the number of work live units allowed on the site, the city's work LIB ordinance sets a maximum number allowed on any particular piece of property. It's almost based on the size of the property. This 73 number is based on a the specific amount of land that is available to this project. Today, there is another small piece that we anticipate will become part of the project in the future when the Navy conveys it to the city. It's the reason why we expect it to be part of the project is because we know where the roads are and that peace is between the building and the road. So it's a natural addition. So if you do the calculation on how many work live units they can do on the property today, based on the actual land that we have from the Navy, it's 73. If you assume that that sliver of land that's adjacent, which is on their side of the road, comes to us from the Navy, which we fully expect it will, and that then becomes transferred to this project. And then when you do that math on the project, it goes up to I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe it's 86. So. And one last just. Just so I know I know the mayor understands this, but for the public, the way this process has to play out, of course, is they can't do a single unit without a conditional use permit issued by the city of Alameda. There has to be a review and approved by the city, the planning board, and then is subject to appeal or call up for review by the council. And it's that process where the city and the community can decide what the right number of units is. It might be less, but it cannot be more.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I think that the point of about the residential portion of our work, live spaces is is a good point. But as you point out, that question is not on the table at this point, though. It has to go through a use permit process. And I think we do need to have that discussion because that that option is available in commercially zoned areas, and there's other restrictions that are described in our code. But I think we need to have a broader discussion on that. But as far as the item that's on the agenda right now, I, I think it's very specific to the entitlements that go with the lease option to buy. And I'd like to call the question on that.
Speaker 2: Um.
Speaker 8: On this. This is it. This is doing the motion. Go ahead. I'll make that motion. I move. Final passage of the ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with 210 year renewal options and an option to purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopment LLC for Building eight located at 2350 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Street and Alameda Point.
Speaker 1: All those in favor. Oh, well. Okay. So then you can. Okay. All right. Because when you said call the question.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Oh, well, thank you. I just want to quickly say that, you know, with the building project, we're really getting into the, if you will, there and the hand combat portion where of of base reuse, where we're really getting into those buildings that are so decrepit and that that we need people who are willing to take that entrepreneurial risk as it is already. You know, several would be developers have already fallen by the wayside in attempting to tackle these really, really difficult buildings. In the case of Caruso, they wanted to do the E Oak or BQ and also another site. So, you know, I think we're making a decision with our eyes wide open on behalf of the residents of Alameda. And in terms of the the financials, I'm satisfied that that we've done our due diligence and I'm satisfied with with the capacity of this entity to do follow through. But it is a difficult situation. And and, you know, that's why I think on the matter of work live, I'm okay with whatever the number is. So that's going to go through the process for the decision that we have to make tonight. I think. Are I speaking of one off, I feel satisfied having exercised due diligence on behalf of the residents of Alameda.
Speaker 1: And Brody.
Speaker 2: Surely you have called the question. So that eliminates or is going to.
Speaker 8: Say it's time to.
Speaker 6: Vote, have anything more to add that hasn't been already said.
Speaker 8: So.
Speaker 1: All right, then. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose that motion passes 4 to 1. And next item. And when you say.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 4: So I'm very sure my apologies. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Now we go to the regular agenda item six, a.
Speaker 0: Response to a city council referral regarding a possible wetlands mitigation bank in Alameda Point.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor. Council members like. My name's Jennifer Bass, race director. Been here a couple other times. We're going to talk about wetlands mitigation banks in the Bay Area. When there there's development that occurs in the Bay Area, there are times when that development impacts or potentially impacts wetlands along the bay. And typically the regulators like the Army Corps and other folks try to essentially eliminate those impacts, if possible, or avoid them. But there are times when that there's reasons that coastal development, it's unavoidable to avoid impacts to wetlands. And so what the regulate the regulatory system in the Bay Area has allowed is that essentially if you impact mitigation or you impact wetlands, you have to essentially mitigate your impact. And so that that overall that there is kind of a no net new net no net loss of wetlands along the in the coastal areas and in | Consent Calendar Item | Final Passage of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building 8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099) | AlamedaCC |
Subsets and Splits