Datasets:

lytang

/

MeetingBank-transcript

like 13

AlamedaCC_12032019_2019-7447

Speaker 1: Nine eight considered directing staff to enact a policy to give all city employees the option to use any paid leave, such as sick vacation or other paid time off to supplement pay while out on paid family leave. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Vela. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 5: So my referral is really as stated, it's pretty simple. I think that the what I'd be looking for is to direct staff to look at this option as well as other options and look into whether or not this is possible and the pros and cons of it. This came up partially for me when I was out on leave, but also I started looking into this issue a little bit more. And not that I've even exhausted my leave or been able to take it, I think. Well, first of all, we don't get, uh, leave being on city council, so we're volunteers in this job. I basically make less than the minimum wage. So. Although it's still work. And I was back here, I think, what, ten days postpartum. I think, which is a bit. Uh. Bit extreme. But anyways, with California paid family leave, it's partial wage reimbursement, not all. And I think that there's an extremely high cost of living in the Bay Area. And so if you're taking time off to care for a sick family member, taking a wage reduction while you're doing so could be a lot. I know we have different policies on the books, depending our on our different employee groups. It's not that we don't allow them to supplement, but this would just be asking staff to look into, um, all of the types of leave that folks are allowed to take and run to supplement and seeing what we could do with that. Speaker 0: Okay. Are there any council questions or comments? Um. Vice Mayor. And do we have any speakers on that, please? Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Not quite sure you can. I mean, given the direction we to give you kind of calibration on how we would want it to be looked at or just come out with a variety of options. Speaker 0: QUESTIONER I think it. Speaker 5: I think it would be fairly open ended to have staff look into this in terms of the options I've laid out, the different I don't know, all the different types of leave that we have. I don't know what our contracts currently state for each bargaining unit group. But one thought is just to make sure that people are allowed to supplement with various types of leave. And the other would be, you know, what the benefit or cost of the city would be relative to that. Speaker 0: And I mean, the con the city manager did that. Vice Mayor Knox, why did you finish your remarks or your clarifying question? Speaker 2: I have no comment for me. I mean, you've been. Speaker 0: Doing conversations, right? And my my concern was with the wording, although the explanation I heard might have been a little different, but it says, consider directing staff to enact a policy. And I'm a little hesitant about directing staff, I think, you know, to to actually enact a policy. I think, you know, looking into it, coming back, we have bargaining units. But let's hear from the city manager. Speaker 8: All I was going to say is that our director and myself has talked to Councilmember Vella and the way she explained it just now, we're supportive of that concept of looking at the different options and bringing back proposals with options for the council's consideration. Speaker 0: Okay. That that that helps. Okay. Council, what's your pleasure? So it's so if I'm understanding the city manager correctly, he and our H.R. director, Nancy Bronstein, who's in the audience, are amenable to doing some some research on this and bring it back to us early next year, I would imagine, because we've got one more December meeting and we've already approved that agenda, so. Okay, so that's on the table. Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: Sure. I mean, I'll make just a few brief comments. Even though it's not that late, I think it's particularly poignant that we had this discussion today, given the person that advocated on the national level for six months family leave and our Senator Harris decided to end her presidential campaign. So I think a lot of us, you know, talk about how we want our national leaders and our state leaders to promote this type of policy. And this gives us a chance to actually do something locally and, you know, do our part, too. So I think it's a good idea and I'm glad that the referral is brought forward. And with the clarification, you know, I'd be willing to move move it forward. Make a motion to move it forward. Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion, but, um, do you want to hold the motion so we can go down and. Okay. I will come back to you for the motion. Councilor Villa. I was. Speaker 5: Yeah. If he makes a motion, we can suck it in, then we can discuss. Speaker 0: Yeah, we can do that too. Okay. Okay. Speaker 5: So I'll second. Okay. Speaker 0: We have a motion in the second. And so councilman days are going to be comments. Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 2: I was a member of the board, I think is an example of a time when we probably should have had more of a requirement and the time limit ongoing. I just encourage the staff as part of their expertize and then the work. Speaker 0: I'm okay. And I too, am agreeable to having the H.R. director and city manager bring this back to us with some details of how it might be implemented here. And I would just note for the record that we still have Senator Harris in the Senate. Right. And, yes, so that's his politicals. I mean, again, on the national level for now. Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second. And the motion is what what I stated to. Speaker 3: Move the item forward with the clarification that was discussed. Speaker 0: The city manager. Okay. And it's been seconded. All in favor. Oh. Wait, wait, wait, wait. To say we did so well. I think that's. Speaker 1: Not quite. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 1: Odie. Yes. I mayor. As the Ashcraft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Carries by. Speaker 0: Five days. All right. That passes unanimously. We move on to Council Communications. Council members, let's start with Councilmember Vela. Any communications?

Council Referral

Consider Directing Staff to Enact a Policy to Give All City Employees the Option to Use Any Paid Leave, such as Sick, Vacation, or Other Paid Time Off, to Supplement Pay while out on Paid Family Leave. (Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7357

Speaker 0: Okay. Vice Mayor. Item five. See? And do you want to. Do you want to explain why? And do we see whose this is? Do you want to start? Okay. Oh, this is on the. Do you? Okay. Why don't you come on back? Speaker 6: Sure. I'm happy to ask a couple of questions, and the city manager can have whoever he likes answer it. So this is. This is a purchase agreement for a computer aided dispatch reporting monitoring management system. And so I have two questions. I'm not overly concerned about this. I think it's actually a good idea. And the first question is, we are currently having some issues with our current CAD system polling data as it relates to everything, almost everything. Right. And so we are confident that this new system will actually fix that quickly. Speaker 8: Yes. Based on based on the tutorials that we've received. Yes. Speaker 6: Excellent. Okay. The second question is great, and I apologize that I didn't have a chance to look this up during the budget conversation. We talked about some of the money that's in the budget for these systems and the impact of possibly putting this money here and not towards license plate readers. And we have had a lot of interest in the community around license plate readers. I believe it was last year, but the last time it came forward, which is a year and a half ago. Speaker 8: Almost to February of 18. Speaker 6: Yeah, almost two years ago it was going to come back for for council discussion. I know that there were some privacy issues. We have some things coming forward in the next month and a half on that issue. How does our decision here approving this system impact our ability to move forward with that other piece? Speaker 8: So that's a good question. My personal opinion is it shouldn't have. It doesn't need to have an effect on it at all. Um, I, when I first approached the city manager about this particular cat, our project, um, I was aware that, you know, this was kind of a last minute request as we were heading into the budget . And I knew that the $500,000 that the Council had set aside for the technology, uh, could have been used for license plate readers or some other technology. So it really just out of an effort to try to keep us from having to spend new money. I just basically referred because the city manager wasn't on board when that discussion happened. So I alerted in to the fact that the $500,000 was there and that because at the time the license plate reader discussion was kind of dormant, for lack of a better term. And so I thought, well, let's just use that money and then we'll reappropriate some other money in our budget if if we go ahead and if you go ahead and approve this, we still have, unfortunately, salary savings because of our vacancies. I still think that there's enough money there that we could proceed with the license plate reader under a separate as a separate project standalone. Okay. Speaker 0: And the city manager, Mr. Leavitt. Speaker 5: Thinks to expand on that. So we would have to evaluate I think we had a million set aside for for this project based on that discussion in the budget. There's about 200,000, so we'd have to look at that in combination with other funds potentially would have to have a new appropriation from other funds. Speaker 6: Is there a plan to bring the license? I mean, if we approve this, is there a plan to bring the license plate reader? Speaker 0: So I'm just going to have to stop you right there, because we do need to stick to I think that's probably why the city attorney was grabbing his microphone. But yes, Mr.. Mr.. Chin, why don't you take it from here? Speaker 6: Yeah. So my advice to the council is that because license plate readers are not in front of the council, I recommend that we do not have that conversation as part of this item. Right. I was just going to ask if that issue would be coming back so that we know if in approving this, we can there's a there's a financial trade off and we're going to find that money. So just trying to make sure I know what we're voting on tonight and what we can what we're going to be funded in the future. But if you're saying we can't even clarify whether that issue might come forward, I think if the city manager. Speaker 0: I would say I think the issue is the least is the question I heard you ask is would there be any impact on the city's ability to get the license plate readers in the fixed locations if the council were to approve this CAT upgrade tonight and I heard the answer from the chief to be no. Speaker 5: Well, I want to definitely. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 5: I want to. Yeah. If I could. Speaker 0: Clarify, city man, you. Speaker 5: Would have to appropriate new money. I mean, there's 200,000 and you out appropriate new money. So it's not there isn't money there other than the 200,000. So I just want to make sure that's clear because I don't want to come back and have the council think, please misrepresent that. Speaker 8: I don't get to make the decision. I was just saying that it wasn't didn't have to be, in my opinion, an either or proposition. Speaker 0: But. Understood. Okay. Any further questions for the chief or any of the staff? Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I can't somebody. Speaker 7: I just want to move approval of the item. Speaker 0: Okay. I have a motion to have a second. I have a motion by Councilmember Ody, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. All in favor. I okay. That was unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So we have approved the consent calendar and we've approved item five C. So now we are going to move to item six D for those of you who might have come in afterwards, the council voted to bring that to the top of the agenda, because I know we have some little people in the room for this one. So who's presenting that item? Speaker 2: I am. Speaker 0: Okay. This is our assistant city manager, Jerry Bowden. I think we can still say new, but. Speaker 8: Yes, a few months venue. Speaker 0: Yeah, me too. Standard. Welcome. Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor. As he Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Knox White and members of the City Council. I am Jerry Bowden, serve as the assistant city manager with the city. I'm here making the presentation this evening. It's obviously a really complex and possibly broad topic. So also the chief of police who you've already heard from this evening is here on this topic, city attorney's office planning, building and transportation. If we were to look at land use alternatives, so we're able to basically support the discussion with a number of different areas this evening. Obviously, I want to make one other note. There's obviously a lot of members of the community here as well. And so that does offer opportunities for new ideas and for partnerships going through and looking at the options here this evening. So I'll start with the recommendation. We are recommending that the Council provide direction regarding potential next steps for the local gun safety measures following the gun safety townhall that was held at the Alameda Theater just a little over a month ago. You're all well aware of this, but I'll just state it for for the presentation this evening. The city is committed to the health, safety and welfare of all residents, employees and visitors. You're also aware that firearm related deaths are at an epidemic level in our country. There are over 40,000 lives lost every year in the United States. In 2018, we saw approximately 3000 deaths in California. And so far in 2019, at least 21 mass shootings have occurred in our state, leaving over 124 people dead. And those incidents just continue to happen. As recently as this this past week. So the city of Alameda, again, is committed to being part of the solution to address this this situation. On June 4th of 2018, Christ Episcopal Church hosted an event with city participation. Councilmember Vela was on the panel that day, as well as mayor as he Ashcraft was also present. We had our police chief there, high school students, and there were gun advocates and other members of the community there. Over 120 people attended that event this past summer. Mayor, as he Ashcraft, also sent a letter to the U.S. Senate calling for legislative action to be proactive regarding gun violence. And finally, I'd like to just note that the mayor and council have supported numerous state and federal bills aimed at better regulating firearms. And over the last year or so. In September, Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Oteh brought forward a council referral to convene a community conversation regarding gun violence. Council did unanimously support the referral, and that led to the Gun Safety Townhall, which was hosted at the Alameda Theater on October 14th. The meeting was facilitated by Vice Mayor Knox White. Councilmember O.D. also facilitated. And the there was a an impressive panel there that that evening covering legal perspectives, public safety, personal impacts associated with gun violence speakers for and against local gun control were there and a lot of different community perspectives were shared. There were about 65 members of the public in attendance. And again, just a wide range of options and concepts were discussed. Obviously, it's a multifaceted process. Our topic following the town hall meeting, we were looking for ways to group these these ideas into broad categories. Four of them were are put forward here this evening there. There are likely other ways to categorize these things. I just want to acknowledge that. But we looked at safety, safety training, reducing the potential for public violence or violence in public places. Now, ownership and storage and then responsibility and documentation. And again, there's there's a lot of breadth to this. We fully expect there to be other ideas or ways to correct ways to categorize things. But hopefully this helps get the conversation going this evening. I'm going to go through these pretty quickly. These are the same items that were listed in the staff report. The first category is safety training. There's just one option on the slide. We're looking at the possibility of certifying firearm training, requiring certified firearms training for registered gun owners in the city and proposed a timeline of every five years. Obviously, this is just a concept and putting things forward for four for discussion here this evening. The second is reducing the potential for violence in public. Three suggestions here all around. Limiting the the ability to either carry firearms in public places or carry less ammunition. So and also possibly limiting carrying firearms at public protests and other public spaces. The third broad category is ownership and storage. And again, requiring additional insurance, safe storage in your home. Safe storage and unattended vehicles could all be options that we could consider here at the local level. Yeah. All right. I missed. I just want to make sure that I. I'm on the right slide here. Fourth category in the staff report is responsibility and documentation or eight options on the slide focusing on gun sellers, taxation options, better education in the in in the community and different ways to educate. How are all things that are included on on this slide as options under the fourth and final category that we have for you this evening? So once again, our recommendation is to provide direction to staff regarding potential next steps following the gun safety townhall that might involve selecting from the list of items provided this evening. We fully expect to hear new ideas here this evening and then directing staff. And there's also the possibility of just directing staff to seek additional input coming out of this evening. If a specific direction isn't identified, if specific ideas do come forward from this evening, we would want the opportunity to assess the viability. Also look at the potential staff staffing and resource impacts associated with it, and then have the possibility of evaluating that and presenting it to council before any formal or informal actions are taken with respect to the items that are discussed this evening. So with that, I'll conclude staff's presentation and be available for any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. This is the time where if the Council has any clarifying questions to ask of the staff, we can do so at this time. And if you do, let's go ahead and ask them. If not, we'll go to our public speakers. Any clarifying questions on the presentation? Okay. Hearing none. Now, if you would like to speak tonight, just fill out a speaker slip or come up and speak and fill it out afterwards if we have some. Speaker 1: Okay. We only have three speakers. Speaker 0: Okay. We have three speakers. Okay. Did so. Only three people wanted to speak because I'm trying to put anybody who has children or is a child first. So the and but, you know, no one's compelled to speak. But I just I will offer that that opportunity. Um, so in the meantime, I. And then I'll just go over the ground rules that will help us move the meeting along and get everyone out. The same night we started the meeting, which is we don't do any applause, we don't do cheers, we don't do the waiver boo or jeer. We just listen respectfully and everybody's got something worthwhile to say. So with that, the city. Speaker 1: Cllr, we now have seven speakers. Okay? Speaker 0: So when we have more than six speakers, you get 2 minutes to speak. But 2 minutes is really quite a good long time. And so just be prepared. 2 minutes, there's a clock that will be moving along and I going to call our first speaker, in fact, maybe call the first three so you can be ready to slide out of your seat when it's time for you to speak. Speaker 1: Sherry Johansen, Jonathan So Glenn and Eleanor Wiley. Speaker 0: Okay, Mr. Hanson. Speaker 2: It's a long time since I've been a child, but it's nice to see so many kids in the audience I'm speaking. This is Shane Johansen and I'm on the steering committee for the Alamy Progressive Zone. I'm actually speaking for them tonight. So we have a statement. Basically, the alimony progressives are in support of the proposals to decrease gun violence in Alameda and to add protection for our children. In addition, we believe there's a wide support in the community. And that's kind of what I wanted to speak to you tonight. In 2018, the Alameda progressives were asked by the Reverend Stephen Mikhail at the Christ Episcopal Church in Alameda to join their efforts to ask Big Five Sports to remove their assault style style tactical weapons and to promote safety in their schools and against gun violence. The Alameda Progressives hosted a rally in protest in March of 2018. More than 500 people showed up for that march for our lives, including some people on this panel. And that was Saturday, March 24th. And we started at Park Street and Santa Clara, and we actually marched to Big Five and shopping center in Alameda showing their support for the children and expressing their wishes to see an end of gun violence in schools as well as to empower Big Five to remove their weapons. Two students addressed the crowd about their fears of going to school and being shot. The students from the Alameda High Schools had joined the national walkout to protest school violence. They staged a walkout the previous Wednesday. Students in Alameda joined students across the country to walk out of classes for 17 minutes at that time, one minute to honor each of the 7017 people killed in Florida. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Very much. Speaker 0: And our next speaker is. Speaker 1: Jonathan, Mr.. Speaker 0: Coughlin. Speaker 8: Good evening. Thank you, Madam Mayor and council members Jonathan Coughlin. I'm a 20 year resident of Alameda. Another 20 years and I'll be able to claim a long term resident. Speaker 0: You're a resident. That's all that you know. Speaker 8: I'm here to urge you to adopt the recommendation and and refer the matter to staff to consider the measures that were on the on the slide show and also the additional measures put to you by by safe all made a lot of really good, important safety measures to be considered there. Safety measures do work. We have a really good example of them. In 2016, there was a gentleman in Southern California who had a couple of DUIs, mental health issues. He was had a mental health evaluation. His guns were seized and they were destroyed. These systems do work in that sense and do save lives. However, that gentleman's son we know last week shot several classmates and himself. There were three deaths. So it's not enough. These measures are not enough. You have to do more. And we know that I'm going to throw some numbers out there. There are 120 guns per person in the United States. There are 220 gun thefts in Alameda alone. Thefts and loss in the last ten years. And. Another number that's really important. Californians can register a firearm, a handgun every 30 days. That's more than his constitution required and more that's necessary. So what I urge you to do, in addition to these measures, to make sure your referral includes two specific things. One, eliminate all ownership of assault weapons. And in Alameda, they are not all banned. There are exceptions and also limit individuals to one handgun per home and no grandfather clause. We need to do that. We need to get rid of and reduce the number of guns. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Sandlin. And our next and if any young people have turned in their. Speaker 1: Clips, received one from a young lady. Speaker 0: Gabby, are you a young person? Come on. That young. Speaker 2: People. Speaker 0: Will bump up to the head of the line here. Speaker 2: He just gave it. Hi. Speaker 0: Folks. And just make sure you pulled that microphone down to where we can hear you and we'd love to hear from you. Hi. Speaker 2: Hello. Board members today. We just want to stand in front of you as high school students. We are in support of the policies that were introduced today, and we'll continue to advocate for common sense gun reform locally as well as on a national level. And we believe it's time that our generation is heard for. We're the children that are going to school in the midst of this situation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah, you sure can. Speaker 2: I've been a couple rules high, so. Speaker 3: We're both internal high school students. Speaker 1: And something that I've been. Speaker 3: Noticing on our school campus and I'm sure. Speaker 4: At the other high schools in Alameda. Speaker 3: Is just a growing anxiety around. Speaker 4: These these. Speaker 3: Issues. So I would urge you guys to also consider like support groups and really directly talking to students who are affected by what they're seeing in the media and. Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: Sorry, not prepared. But I would I would. Speaker 0: Urge just fine. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for the suggestions. All right. Are you seniors? What grade are you right? No, no, no. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Um. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Who's next? Eleanor Wylie, then Krystal Lo, Pilotto and Kelly Cope. Speaker 2: Eleanor Whaley, 60 year resident of Alameda. And I've spoken many times in this council chamber, not necessarily to this council. And I want to urge the council to, yes, study what we need to do to get guns out of our community. I mean, I am just so heartened with these kids, and I think it's just disgusting that they have to come here and ask for mental health support because they're so afraid of what's going on in the world. But as you're looking at things, start with something. Don't study it to death. There's many good suggestions. And do it. Don't just talk about it. Speaker 0: Thank your next speaker is. Speaker 1: Krystal Lo Pilotto and Kelly Cope. Speaker 2: Hello. Hi. Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Krystal Lobato. I'm a parent here in Alameda and a volunteer leader with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense and a member of the newly formed group Save Alameda. Sorry, I'm a little sick. I'm here tonight to thank you for making gun violence prevention a priority and to encourage you to devote all necessary resources to continue identifying proactive steps that the city can take to keep the community safe. And as you can see, there's a lot of parents here. It matters to so many of us on on deep, deep levels, and in particular here in strong support of the city drafting and passing a local safe storage ordinance through my legislative advocacy work with Moms Demand Action. I'm happy to confirm that the list of cities that are passing these safe storage ordinances, it's growing week by week . But Alameda can do that and more and should do more. And I'm glad that you're considering a wide variety of. Speaker 9: Policies. Speaker 3: And I hope that you will adopt the recommendation for the city staff to look at and consider all of those as you're doing this work. You will inevitably hear that no single law is going to completely eliminate the risk of gun violence in our city. But I hope that you can all agree that that doesn't mean that we don't have a moral duty to try everything we can to reduce that risk in every way we can. So thank you again for putting this topic on the agenda, and I hope you'll. Speaker 9: Treat the issue with the. Speaker 3: Seriousness that it deserves. Our families and our friends are depending on you to take this action. Speaker 0: Thank you. Well said. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kelly Koop and Ms.. Coats and then Louise. Speaker 2: Okay. Hi. Hi. Speaker 3: My name is Kelly Cope. Speaker 9: I'm a resident over here. Speaker 0: Oh, friend. I said you're not a. Speaker 3: Resident of Alameda and leader of Safe Alameda. And I'm thankful that you guys have brought this up to city council. I'm urging you to. Speaker 2: Move forward. Speaker 3: With these recommendations that are council members have had. I also want to note that we should have funds for education, for safe storage and other measures. And also we need to reach out to the community so they know if there is somebody who is having thoughts of lying to hurt somebody else or others who they can speak to about that if they don't meet the criteria. Speaker 2: For 5150 but need. Speaker 3: Additional support. Speaker 2: Especially. Speaker 3: People who are younger. Speaker 2: We need to get them before it gets to a point where they're coming into school with a gun. Speaker 3: Or if they're using guns in their own home. We've already had four deaths of children, at least four deaths of children. Speaker 2: Or a parent because. Speaker 3: Of firearms that were gotten to the hands of children. And I also urge you to address the underlying causes of. Speaker 2: This violence, as well. Speaker 8: As. Speaker 3: Family, domestic violence and also suicidal. Speaker 2: Thoughts. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then you said. Speaker 1: And then Daniel Miller. Miller. Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. My name is Louise Reed. I am a 20 year resident of Alameda and I am a volunteer leader of Moms Demand Action, the East Bay Local Group. So we cover Alameda as well and we. Speaker 3: Are just thrilled that you guys are. Speaker 2: Taking this health epidemic seriously and really looking into the things that we can do to keep our communities safer through gun violence prevention ordinances. Thank you very much. I really just wanted to reiterate what everyone has said here tonight, so I won't take too much of your time. And I really. Speaker 4: Appreciate your understanding. Speaker 2: The seriousness of this and understanding that our children really need our help. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Danielle Miller, then Danielle Huizar. Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Danielle. I have four one and four year old boys and we choose to live raise our kids in Alameda because it's a safe, caring and gated community. But with the prospect as they begin to enter the public schools, the prospect of them being exposed to gun violence is is horrifying and very anxiety provoking for me, which is not the feeling that I want to have as they enter kindergarten. So I want to thank the Council for their leadership on this issue and really encourage you to address all of these issues. There is everyone has said there are these and so many more issues that we can take. And I understand, you know, for practical purposes, we may need to prioritize a few. Speaker 3: To start now and then. Speaker 2: I encourage you, once those are done to do the next ones and the next ones and the next ones until we can really address this epidemic. And this may also require partnerships at the state level and at the state and federal level, as I know you are already doing. So I just wanted to encourage you and also to consider not just gun safety measures, but really we do need to reduce the number of guns in homes in this community. I worry about those who face domestic violence. The prospect of having a gun in the home reduces the or increases the risk of a woman being killed by five times. It's extremely dangerous. And we know that, you know, many families have guns in the home and they may be kept unsafely, which is very dangerous for the for the children living in the home if they come across those those guns. So I just want to encourage you with as strongly as I can to to continue to move forward and to do as much as you can. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Speaker to then John Platt. Speaker 0: Hey. We have a twofer. Speaker 2: Hello. Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you so much for supporting. Speaker 4: These measures. Speaker 3: Thus far and the work that you have all put in just to get us here today. My name is Daniel Tesla. I am an Alameda mom property owner. I have a two year old and a five year old who recently started kindergarten at the Ruby Bridges Elementary School. We love the community. I've joined the PTA. I'm also a county of Alameda employee. So we're really invested here in our community and we just really want our children to be safe and all children to be safe. And I think the big three biggest priorities, you know, as I. Speaker 2: See them, would be safe. Speaker 3: Storage, reduction of guns and mental health services, which I know wasn't quite on sort of the four prongs there. But I think it's really important for our young people, especially. Speaker 4: As some of the young people who have been here. Speaker 3: Tonight have talked about. And so I just really want to thank you again. I'm also a member of Safe Alameda, so thank you again. Speaker 2: And please continue this work. Speaker 3: Don't let it fall. We won't let you. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Bye bye. Speaker 0: Q Hi, John. Speaker 1: Platt Yes, I'm back. Speaker 8: Hi, I'm John Platt. And first off, I'd like to apologize to Vice Mayor Knox White and Jim Giamatti because I questioned the value of your meeting at the theater. Obviously was fantastic and the measures you've got here are great. I just have one small suggestion and I'd be willing to contribute to it. Why don't we have a gun buyback program here in Alameda where we pay cash and get some guns off the street? Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Yeah. Olivia Petty. Speaker 0: Olivia Petty. There you are. Hi. Speaker 1: Hi. I'm Olivia Petty, and I'm a sophomore at Alameda. Speaker 3: High, and. Speaker 4: I'm not sure. Speaker 1: If you remember me, but, uh, last two years ago now. Speaker 3: I actually did a walk out, and I met you at a luncheon over on the. Speaker 2: Beach. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I do remember you. Speaker 0: You're a sophomore now. So you were a yes, I do remember that, yes. Speaker 1: But I just wanted to reiterate that. Speaker 3: I know we're talking a lot about, you know, the. The stigma around mass shootings in schools. Speaker 4: And I do. Speaker 3: Just want to remind that. Speaker 1: 90% of gun deaths in America are suicide. And just last year, we at Alameda High had a suicide. Jesse Lopez And out of respect, I don't want. Speaker 3: To give details or we don't know details about how it happened, but. Speaker 1: The presence of a gun in a home makes. Speaker 2: Someone who. Speaker 1: Is contemplating suicide five times more. Speaker 3: Likely to go through with it. And I just want to put out there that, yes. What people have been saying, that we need more mental health focus in schools and better education around the subject. And just a better I know we have a school based health center, but more resources, I think, just for students and for adults and anyone. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Olivia. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you all for speaking. This is a very important topic. And if we didn't know that to begin with. Oh, my God. The week we had last week, it just, you know, you can't make this stuff up, but let's let's start a discussion. I'm going to open it on the council, but I'm going to open it first to our vice mayor, Knox White and Councilmember Odie, because you did initiate the town hall that has led to this agenda item. Who wants to go first? Speaker 6: Me, me. Speaker 0: Me. Okay. You're both me. But this is me. Okay, Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. So thank you all for coming out. And I want to thank my council colleagues as well for, you know, really joining joining. I feel through this process, we've all joined together to show that we're very serious about this. I think that, you know, through a variety of different actions and activities that people have participated in, I think everybody up here has shown for the last few years that they are they take this seriously and they want to see this move forward. I just wanted to think before we go forward now, aside from staff agreeing to bring this forward as a regular agenda item so that we can have a not late at night conversation. You know, we got some great ideas when this was here in September, we reached out to the Christchurch folks who had organized the first panel hearing a year and a half ago and talked to them about their experience and where they saw things moving forward. And I feel we've we've helped to bring those forward as well. We've worked really closely with the Safe Alameda Group, with Moms Demand Action, with every Everytown USA and with the Giffords Law Center. And after all those conversations, which were many and will hopefully be continuing. We also worked with our city attorney's office who could really help give us some guidance on ideas that we feel can have some some impact and whatnot. We've brought forward these 20 because of the things that we heard from the community. We didn't want to keep adding every day before before we came forward. I think for me it was well, we brought these forward after after because we kind of made a commitment to the groups that we were working with, that we were going to do things that could have impact in our community, that showed leadership in our community, that could actually, in a few places take some steps forward that other communities have yet to do in the idea that if all communities start to work together and follow in each other, that there are benefits across the region. So I'm excited to be here and look forward to the conversation. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Odie. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to thank everyone for coming out today. We always have a lot of council referrals. And my my former colleague, Mr. Matarese, would always say a referral may start with one or two council members, but if it's passed by the council, then the whole council owns it. So I mean, that's my message today is that, you know, whatever comes out of today, whatever we put forward, you know, it's this entire council that will be doing that, working together. We have we have worked collaboratively together on many things in the past, you know, nine, ten, 11 months, things that people thought were unsolvable. So this is an issue that one of the speakers correctly said, you know, there's not, you know, one root cause of the problem. There's not one solution. But I'm looking forward to this conversation. I think we can all we've all shown an ability to work together. And I'm pretty confident we'll be able to do that today and bring forth, you know, an agenda that I think will help keep our citizens and our residents safe. It's multifaceted. There's things on here that came up in the town hall. There's items that came, you know, from other folks. You know, Johno brought up some. Mr. Coughlin. Sorry. So I'm having an open mind and I'd like to, you know, listen to any and all perspectives and hope. We will put together a good package of directions to our staff to come back. And, you know, then we can look these youngsters in the eye that, you know, interrupt meetings so we can hear them. They shouldn't have to do that and tell them, we've listened to you and all five of us are working together to keep you safe. And we're working together to respond to you. And we're working together, you know, to answer your call. Speaker 0: Thank you. Who wants to go next? Councilmember Vela, a young mom herself. Speaker 2: I'm a I'm a mom now. Speaker 0: So the of a young child, I should say she is. Speaker 3: But, you know, I think we started this conversation before I was mom. And it's not to say that my feelings have changed at all. I think that if anything, I feel like whatever more we can do, especially for those who really have, you know, no ability to to care for themselves, then we really do need to do it. You know, I was in high school when Columbine happened, and I still remember where I was when it happened. I still remember, you know, everything about that day, partially because my cousins all went to Columbine and it was right behind my my their their home. The high school is literally around the corner from their house. And the fact that we're still seeing school shootings and they're, they're frankly, um, are very few people that I know who haven't been impacted by gun violence of some sort tells me that we we can and should do more. And I think that this is a public health issue. I think it's a public health crisis. I think that we need to address it as such. And I think that we've addressed a number of different things. Similarly, sometimes the NRA likes to compare or say, you know, cars kill more people than guns and and we regulate cars . Right. And we do things in order to limit access to them and to regulate them. And we've been very successful, not 100% successful, but we're taking steps even on this council to try to make it more safe with, you know, the use of vehicles around town and regulate that. And I think we need to do the same for gun control. And I shouldn't say gun control, but gun safety, because that's really what this is about. It's not about control. It's about safety. I, I really think that the safe I like all of the suggestions. The only one that I'm really have would wonder what the process would be is the tax that's proposed. There's a proposed tax on the sale of guns and what that would be spent for. I think that's something very involved. There's we would have to put it on the ballot. So it's not something that could just we could just direct staff to do and have it go into place. I do really think that we need to like I said, I like all of the suggestions. In fact, I'm willing to say let's try to see if we can do all of them and prioritize them in different orders. But I definitely think that the safe storage ordinance is something that we have to do. I am very concerned about the mental health services, in particular with our youth. We're also seeing we saw the report from our school district. I would like us to have a conversation and to work with our school board on that issue more. I know that we've given it just to the audience knows we've given money to the school district specifically for mental health services because we saw because we saw an increase in depression, suicidal thoughts, anxiety. And a lot of it is also I, I would I think is very much tied to the overall environment that our students are exposed to. I was with a colleague of mine whose children are in Alameda schools and he says, you know, I was with him when we heard about the Santa Clarita shooting. And he said, you know, our students in Alameda, including his seven year old son, do active shooter drills. And that the fact that we are doing these sorts of things in order to prepare our students for this is just. Speaks volumes about where we are as a society, and it's not a good thing. So that's where I'm at. I'm happy to continue the conversation with my colleagues, but like I said, I'm happy to find some way to prioritize the list and and see what we can do. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Desai. Speaker 10: Well, great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much for bringing this item before us to Councilmember Odie and Vice Mayor Knox White. And also thank you very much to Mayor as he Ashcraft and Councilmember Vela for their and their participation in the meeting over at the Christ Episcopal earlier this year. I think for me, I think we're I think our efforts should be focused on is something as tangible as trying to reduce the amount of guns in our community. And I say that I come to that topic by referencing what Dick's, the national retailer, had done in deciding not to sell military assault style weapons at their stores and. Speaker 0: Then destroying. Speaker 10: Them and destroying them. I believe they still sell shotguns or other hunting type of weaponry, but they don't sell military style assault and assault weapons. And I think in Alameda, we need to encourage retailers if they're selling weaponry that they don't sell military and assault style weapons. And I think we need to encourage that through an ordinance, perhaps one way that we can get at that, because clearly federal rules trump how states and localities can regulate gun armament. Perhaps one way that we can get at that is by. So required something that if. If stores don't adopt stores that sell military and assault style weaponry, if they don't adopt the the approach that Dick's had had implemented, then they'll have to sell their weaponry in separate parts of the stores, or they'll have to sell their their weaponry in ways that kind of discourage sales of weaponry, much in the same way that we have in ordnance, you know, where there are certain types of certain types of published materials that if they're sold at at grocery stores or they're they're sold at convenience stores on the corner, that they have to be behind certain covering, so to speak. So we have ordinances in our books that discourage types of retail. And so we might want to contemplate that and apply that to to the sale of weaponry in retail in Alameda as a as a as is one way of trying to reduce. The number of weapons in the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Desai. So and again, just great comments by all our speakers and the council members this weekend. I had a houseguest. She was actually a college friend of mine. She's now a pediatrician. She's the director of an amazing clinic for underserved children and their families in Southern California. She was up here because on Monday she was in a meeting of a committee that our did you know the state has a surgeon general, Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, who's pretty amazing pediatrician. If you've never heard her or heard about her, heard her speak. But one of the things my friend was saying, because she's from southern California in the south, this shooting had just happened and she was saying this kid had all the addition of just a problem waiting to happen. He lived in a home with guns. They were his father's guns. His father had passed away the year before. Maybe his parents were divorced. His mom was a domestic violence survivor. One of the troubling aspects of the guns he used, at least something I've read, is that they were what's called ghost guns, which means they were put together from stolen parts and so they didn't even have a serial number. But someone said, and it's such a good point, just because there's no one law that will solve all your problems or, you know, we can't solve all problems of one man doesn't mean you don't do anything we do. But the point my friend was making is that there needs to be not only the screening, because apparently pediatricians today my kids are now 28. It's been a while since I've been at a pediatrician, but even then, my pediatrician used to tell me, you need to ask Marilyn. When your friends, your kids want to go to a friend's home, you need to ask that parent ahead of time, are there guns in your home? And then you have the child come to your house to play. But but they now ask or they're supposed to ask about all these different mental health indicators. My pediatrician, friends, frustration is, okay, great. We ask, we find out they have these markers. But if you don't have the services to to provide the mental health services, what what do we do? So we do need to focus on mental health. And as Councilmember Vela noted, this city put in money to the school district to help augment their mental health programs because there just isn't enough. And we'll continue to look at that situation. And I also want to be respectful of the school district. The city and the schools are separate entities, and we do not tell the school district what to do. But I would assume that all of you advocates are also speaking to the school board. But we will do what we can as as city elected officials. The laws are really important. There are certain things we can do at a local level. Other things bump up to the state level. We've got great state representation with Assemblymember Bonta State Senator Nadine and I as Nancy Skinner. I will say that I continue to be just frustrated and flabbergasted by the U.S. Senate that, for crying out loud, can't even agree to universal background checks that the majority of the United States population would agree to. But I don't control everything. I control very little, in fact. But what what struck me when I spoke at the ribbon cutting of the newly renovated Alameda High School, because that's my alma mater, and I said this in my remarks, that the school is beautiful and state of the art science labs. It never looked this good when we were going there. But at the same time, these kids going to school today are participating in active shooter drills. And that's just it just shouldn't be. So what can we do at the local level? I, I definitely like the idea of safe storage. If there's a way we can implement that, I would when we, I think, refer this back to our city staff to work with both the city attorney and also the police department and the police chief. They can they will let us know what what can and can't be done, practices that are advisable, that have had good results. I know Mr. Platt said, why don't we do a gun buyback that actually has been controversial, as I understand, because sometimes people use the money from selling the old gun to go buy a new one . But again, this is where I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I defer to folks who study this. What I do want you all to know, although I know in California we've had way too many shootings, but we do have some of the toughest laws in the in the country. And this is from the Giffords Law Center, a paper that they did so we in. California. You know, the term open carry in California. California law prohibits a person from carrying a loaded firearm, open or concealed on his or her person or in a motor vehicle in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city. And we're in incorporated city. Now, that assumes that people follow the law. Right. But there's also and there's an exception if you have a concealed weapon permit. But for instance, California law stops you, prohibits you from carrying an exposed and unloaded handgun in a public place or on a public street again in an incorporated city. You generally can't carry or possess a firearm in a state or local public building or at any public meeting. And the California state parks system, the state capital, a polling place. But again, those are the laws that have been on the books. And still these kinds of tragedies are happening. I, I agree with my colleagues that I would just like to see fewer guns, period. I think that gun safety training is important. But I what I really want is to focus on those people who would use the gun in the wrong way. And fortunately, the young man in Saugus seemed to know just how to operate that gun. But inspecting again so that we make sure there's trigger locks and that sort of thing that, you know, that makes sense so that we prevent those accidental shooting. So again, it will go back to staff and I presume it will come back to the council to say here are the things that can be done and here's what it takes, because everything takes a certain level of staffing and resources. And we don't just want to have laws on the books, we want them to be effective. So will someone make because I think what we're being asked to do is to provide direction to city staff. So does someone and I. And again, I would start with Councilmember Odie or Vice Mayor Knox White. But do you want to take a at first past that or something else? Speaker 7: Sure. Speaker 0: I mean, councilman. Speaker 7: I mean, my earlier comments, I just wanted to level set and hear what everyone else had to say before, you know, speaking so substantively. So. John. You want me to go over? Do you want to? Okay. So, I mean, a lot of this, there's not a need to reinvent the wheel. So depending on what type of direction we give you, I think Sunnyvale has a safe storage ordinance that survived courts and court scrutiny. I think San Francisco has some type of possession ordinance that that's survived courts through a court scrutiny. Councilmember De talked about, well, you know, you can't put a porn magazine right in front where kids are buying in a in a in a grocery store. Well, you said some things that the First Amendment protects, but I'll carry that one step forward. So, I mean, why do we have guns right there in Big Five where kids could see them? So I think the mayor brought up a good point about, you know, asking people how, you know, if there's if there's guns in your house. You know, the last thing we want besides a mass shooting is for some kid to go to somebody's house, pick up a gun that's not safely stored, and then they're dead. So how do you have that conversation? You know, I don't know how I would have that conversation, but I know there's groups out there that, you know , have literature that have educational pamphlets that have done this in other cities. I think Seattle is one of them where there's been some success. So we can we don't have to start from scratch. We have to reinvent the wheel. But just getting back to that safe storage thing, I mean, like people could need some guidance on how to have that conversation and then maybe you know how to talk to your children about it. I think the mayor brought this up, too. I mean, some of this stuff shouldn't be the new normal. When I was in the doctor's office a couple of weeks ago. I'm waiting for my my appointment. I'm reading you know, this is I think it was Forbes or one of those magazines, you know, stocks that you can, you know, make money in. And the first one was like. This this active shooter training class. Our company is like really, you know, we've come to a point where, you know, in our society where one of the biggest moneymaking companies and fastest growing companies in this country is is one that sells training for active shooters. To me, something's wrong in our country. I don't begrudge anyone the chance to make money, but, you know, our value system is pretty messed up if if that's a fast growing company and, you know, parents that are told, well, get your kid a bulletproof backpack, I don't have to think about that. When I was a kid, I don't think about that when my kids were growing up. And it's like this shouldn't be the new norm. So I hope that as you go forward, you can. I know. I'm sorry. I'm kind of rambling here, but, you know, San Jose is thinking about the strict liability. So, I mean, there's someplace that's actually done a lot of research I'm not it is took liability the liability insurance. So as we prioritize I hope that we can use some of the resources and I just want to add. I'm going to try to add. You know this story, I think, you know, the suicide thing is super critical. Mental health, completely underfunded. We all know that. No one's going to argue. You know, we as a council decided to step up. It was not in our area to assist the school. And we did. I think there's so much more we could do as a state, as a country, as a county. And, you know, I applaud my colleagues for supporting that. And some of that stuff is preventable, I think I don't know if it was one of the councilmembers and one of the speakers said, you know, when you have someone who is at risk, we should do whatever we can to make sure that person doesn't have access to a gun, because that's the leading the leading tool of suicide. I must try to spit this out. You know, I think we all have, you know, instances where we've been touched by by this situation. And, you know, when I was growing up, we moved when I was in fifth grade or sixth grade. Sorry. And, you know, adjusting to a new school at that age is not an easy thing. And, you know, I was able to meet a friend and, you know, a really good friend. And, you know, we stayed best friends for a long time. You know, we went to different junior high schools and we still were friends and played pickup baseball, you know, every day in the summer. And we had a different high schools still were best friends, you know, hung out all the time, chatted, did all that stuff. We, you know, I went to college. He went to the Navy. But still, you know, my first vacation I went to, you know, D.C. and, you know, not with my friend Joe. And, you know, a second vacation went to Hawaii because he was stationed at Pearl Harbor and. You know, we used to joke because we were born like 13 days apart from each other. And first time I got married, you know, we were married like two weeks apart from each other. And we joke that, well, we'll probably die two weeks apart from each other. So one of us thought the survivor should be careful, but that was not to be. Because, you know, ten years ago, his mom called me and said that on Christmas morning, he walked out of a mental facility, mental health facility in Virginia and then a bullet through his head. So he had mental health issues through serving in the military and PTSD and all the stuff he saw that I'll never see or never even understand or hope to see. So. From that day on. You know, I can't control military. I can't control PTSD. I you know, I made a vow to do whatever I can. And this is just a small thing I think that I can do to keep guns out of people who are who are thinking of committing suicide. And it could be as simple as, you know, sending out emails through the school channels or sending out a mail piece that, you know, talks about what to look for or putting a sign up at Big Five that says if you're suicidal, here's a help debt or here's some resources, anything, something to help. But, you know, I think that's something we should, you know, prioritize and work on. And I kind of had a conclusion, but I lost it right now. So, uh. Oh, yeah. No, that's the last thing I wanted to say. I mean. I remember working on this when we worked in the state, and we would we would go visit schools in Oakland and second and third grade. We would ask the students, how many of you been affected by gun violence and expecting to have a few hands raised, you know, in the upper grades, it's every hand. Every hand goes up. And in the lower grades, it's almost every hand. To me, that's not acceptable. And I applaud this council. I applaud this community. I applaud all of the volunteer workers, the staff, Alameda, the people that are, you know, taking a stand, the kids that are doing things that I would have never expected to do when I was your age. I just applaud all that. And we're listening to you. So keep holding us accountable. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Rudy. Vice Mayor. Not quite so. Speaker 6: I. Thanks for sharing that. Speaker 7: I haven't before. So sorry. Speaker 6: I'm in my in my list of people that we worked with that I just forgot one person. We worked we had a number of conversations in meetings with the police chief as well. And I just wanted to that was I apologize for for leaving that off my mental list. Thank you. I'm ready. Thank you. Speaker 0: Maybe repeat what I said. Speaker 6: We worked very closely with the police chief as well, and I wanted to acknowledge that. And I was apologizing for leaving them off. So and I will try to work better at being be better at microphones. You know, I if if and when we get ready for emotion, I think, you know, what I'm hearing is support for moving forward with going through the list. I think we've had some new ideas that have been put forward that I that I would look to add to those, which is includes council member Dave Suggs, kind of what I call sold separately. You know, if guns are going to be sold, they need to be sold separately. They need to be sold out of sight, not at the front desk, etc.. You know, I think we talked a lot about it, but we didn't put it on the list with the funds for, say, for education around safe, safe storage and GV Pro Education. And I would include in that mental health services as well. And then lastly, I think Mr. Coughlin's ban on grandfathered assault weapons, I think would be a very interesting thing for us to consider as well. For me, I think it sounds like there's a lot of interest on the Council for moving forward with prioritizing a safe some safe storage, the safe storage portion of this. And I know Giffords and a number of cities have done this. You know, that strikes me, as, you know, slightly low hanging fruit. And so I would like to see that be prioritized. I would like to see the training for gun ownership. If you're going to own a gun, you should be going through required recurring training. In our discussions with some of the groups that look into these things, they feel that that is something that can be there that probably would survive challenge if done properly. And that would be something that that nobody is doing right now. But again, we know that guns are we cannot get rid of guns right now. That is not within our city's purview. But what we can do is make sure that if you have a gun, you are doing everything you can to show that you are up to date on the law. As you're up to date on how to store it, you are up to date on what is required of you as a upstanding member of society in holding these holding these guns in our community. And then lastly, you know, we continue to hear concerns about Big Five. And I would like to I feel that there is some work we can do borrowing from other communities to make sure that as they are selling guns, they are legally allowed to do that we are videotaping them that they are keeping, you know, that they are open for audit and we can make sure that the sales that are happening are being done legally, etc.. That's under the fourth, fourth item. I'd like to see those three along with the funds for safe storage, which I don't think is something that goes to the Legal Council, but that goes probably to the city manager's office for consideration on how we might come back during the budget revised with with something like that. I will say that I have spoken to a number of the school board members to a number of their staff. I think we have very strong partners who are looking for partnership there. And the education that we're doing that that we would probably look to do would be done very done in partnership with that. So anyway, I'd, I'd like to make that a motion, but I'd like to see what people think about the prioritization before I do. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Avella. Speaker 3: And so I. Speaker 2: Have. Speaker 3: I'm in complete agreement. I would say it's not geared at Big Five, it's geared at anybody who would even apply to sell guns here. That that is a just a general rule, but certainly Big Five is operating right now. And I think the video recording, seeing if we can separate out or somehow address the display of the weapons, that sort of thing. Um, I do want to add on the, on the safe training. Not all training is the same. And there has been a lot of studies about what is addressed during training. And I want to be very clear that the training that I would like to see would include or should include and covered the risk of guns and alcohol. The risks of abuse with suicide and domestic violence and the need for safe storage. Because these things go hand in hand and not all trainings cover that. In fact, I've gone through several trainings back when I was in law school and working interning at the district attorney's office and none of our trainings and this was at a district attorney's office covered any of those items. And I'm in the legal profession, as are several of my colleagues. We have to get training regularly about substance abuse and the risks associated with it as it connects with our profession. And I think having something connected to the licensing around the potential for abuse because studies show that it is higher. I also have a concern and it's not I do want training to be a requirement, by the way. I want that to be very clear and regular training. And not just that they own it, but but actual proof that they've gone through it. But there was a study that was done that showed that like something like 90% of the trainings conducted that were conducted, actually, the trainers advocated for gun carrying and gun ownership and encouraged it. And so if there's some way that we can address that to, you know, in terms of. Not including that in the training, at least the trainings that are offered if there are trainings offered in Alameda. Or that the city puts on. And then I do think that there's we are not doing enough for mental health. We are not doing enough in terms of letting people know what resources are out there and tracking that. And I do think that we need to have more information available about what folks can do if they need help. And I think having that information available at any vendor for anybody who's selling guns in the city is very important. Speaker 0: Thank you. If I could just ask a clarifying question, Councilmember Villa. Speaker 2: Who? Speaker 0: I mean, this is to everyone who suggested. Speaker 2: Who do. Speaker 0: You contemplate conducting the training? Speaker 3: I'm not asking that our police conduct the training, but I do think that if there's a way for us to kind of if there's a list of like these are. You know, approved places for training or places that we can refer people to. I think if we're requiring training, we're going to need to provide people with places that they can actually go get trained. And I would like to vet what that training includes because like I said, I think that training that doesn't include the first three things is not going to be helpful for our purposes. Speaker 0: Okay. And so perhaps before I call on the vice mayor, perhaps that something the police chief I'm also not asking the department, but the police chief might be able to direct staff to. I mean, I don't know. But who who does that sort of training. But they'd be in a better. Do you want to come up and speak? Come on. It. What might be too strong a verb, but. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 8: Feel like I should have my name up there with 9 minutes because I've been up here so much. Um, so just briefly, we the training, I appreciate you saying not the police department, because I nodded my head. No. The training that we receive is is all geared towards law enforcement specific training. And I don't think that's what we're talking about here. And to your point, Mayor, there are lots of private entities that do it, some better than others. And as Councilmember pointed out, there are different levels of training. Some people think that gun safety involves being able to have good marksmanship, other people at safe storage, children, alcohol, mental health and whatnot. So, I mean, I'd be happy to try to support, um, you know, vetting maybe some trainers administratively. But I don't think that, that, that responsibility would really best lie with the police department. I think it would be somewhere else. Yeah. And then, um, and there's other things, you know, just briefly to, to consider. I mean, they're two former members of this council who sat at that day. Your dais in my career took their lives with guns. Mm hmm. Right. I mean, this is. This is an everybody problem. Um. Mental health, terminal illness. Criminal intent, domestic violence. It's it's an everybody problem. And most of the people in this room don't remember. But I do because I was here we actually had a shooting at Alameda High School when I was in the eighth grade. And fortunately, nobody was killed or seriously injured. But, um, it can happen anywhere. So, uh, I. We're happy to support that any way we can. I think the safe storage stuff I've met with Safe Alameda a few times and I'm happy to support that in every way we can. And, um, but I do think we will have to do some expectation setting because the enforcement of that piece would only really come to our attention after there was a problem. We can't just go into people's homes and make sure that they're storing their guns safely or even ask them if they have guns. Um, so there's, there's some issues there that we'd have to work out depending on which direction this all goes. So that's it. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Chief. I'm Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: So from from my standpoint, I've talked a little bit with with staff about this. So there are there are trainings currently that you must have in order to buy a gun. It's a fairly low bar. It's good for five years. And when you're done with it, you don't need to need to have it updated. My, my my assumption would be that in sending this back to staff, that they would identify a way for us to identify what is a meaningful training. I think we would give some I appreciate the guidance Councilmember Vela has spelled out specifically. I think that that's all very good. And also, I you know, I don't think we're going to be going in at least at the beginning. Who knows where we are 20 years from now. But I don't think we're going to go knocking on doors and asking people for that. I agree. It's probably at the end of the day after the fact, but there might be additional liability or something like that that's done. And I would expect that that would be kind of the in bringing something back that would be the job of staff to help us understand how to do it. Speaker 0: Okay. Um, no, I'm sorry. I've closed public comment. I'm no, I'm sorry, I've closed public comment. Now the council is is deliberating. Councilmember Odie. Speaker 7: I know my time is up, but can I just add a few more comments? So. I concur with pretty much everything that was said up here. You know, we did add that tax idea has as a as an option like an excise tax on anything sold here. I mean, granted, if people if they stop selling in Alameda, we won't have that that source of revenue. But, you know, that's something to think about as a funding source, whether we, you know, have staff members do it or bring in some outside person to do whatever any of these enforcement things. And I think there was a discussion about, you know, some type of nominal fee. So, I mean, those are things that, you know, I don't know if they're how legal they are. I don't know how feasible they are. I don't know how much money they would raise. But, you know, in an analysis, that would be something to come back with. And then to the other point, if some of these things turn out that were preempted, you know, like maybe some of these ideas about possession, you know, it would, I think, prioritizing, you know, lobbying the folks that can change the law that we're preempted from changing, you know, would also be something that I would like to see prioritize. If it's something we can't do and we all feel that there's a need for additional regulation in those areas. Speaker 0: So my and I do want to hear the motion fashioned. I, I would favor what we can do to focus strongly on the mental health aspect of letting people know. And it could be youth and adults that, you know, these are the resources that are out there. Don't use a gun. I think we have to we have to be pretty frank about discussing that. But again, I'm not sure what how how you would start that then the excise tax. And that's certainly a way to generate revenue. It would require a ballot measure because it's a tax and it would require a two thirds majority. And I'd say you wouldn't get it, but it's not instantaneous. But okay. Speaker 2: Who? Speaker 0: I feel like vice mayor and Councilmember Vela had sort of the the outlines of a motion. And so do you want to just articulate. Speaker 6: If you're okay, I'll I'll try to take notes while you were talking. So I would I would move that. We ask staff to begin work on bringing back actions for the council to adopt on the entire list that was presented to us tonight and and actions can be we recommend you don't do this because but but you know we need to but let's let's start working our way through this list that we add to the retail aspect of this the including a sold separately condition. If you're going to sell guns in here, you're going to you're going to sell them in a I don't want to call it family friendly, but less family threatening manner . You know, funds for identifying, funds for safe storage, grow education and mental health services. Speaker 0: Tell me again what the acronym stands for. Speaker 6: Gun Violence Restraining Order Words. Yes, I'm just going to so so making sure that people know what tools we have available and also doing the outreach to to help folks that we prioritize the strict liability insurance issue, but that we actually follow San Jose's lead because they are doing a lot of work. So we might be in touch with them and be ready to act when they are ready to act. But we don't need to duplicate efforts that are being done by a. Speaker 0: Question question under strict liability. Explain what that's meant to accomplish. I'm sure there are strict liability in life that they're doing two different things. Yeah. Are you talking about. I did. San Jose, I think San Jose. Speaker 7: They want to impose a rule that if you own a gun, you have to have additional liability insurance. So that's kind of kind of cutting edge. Cutting edge. I think the strict liability was that if a gun is later used in a crime and it was lost or stolen and the person that owned it didn't like reported within the required time frame, then they would be liable for damages. And if they you know, if they did report it like they're supposed to and a lot of people do, then, you know, they don't have that, you know, liability. Speaker 0: So on the liability insurance that San Jose is doing, what is that meant to prevent. Speaker 2: Or. Speaker 0: Is it maybe someone buying a gun to begin with? You know what the intent is. Oh. Speaker 7: This would be my speculation, but I would think if you think you're going to be on the hook for a financial penalty, you might be more responsible with, you know, your storage or ownership. Speaker 0: I mean, even if you were going to use that gun to end your own life. I mean, I have high regard for the city of San Jose. They're tackling a lot of challenging issues. I just want to make sure we're a smaller city, definitely a smaller staff. So but I guess staff can tell us where in the hierarchy that might fall. Speaker 7: Councilor Rudy, I'm sorry to interrupt, but to your point, I mean, that's why I think we were hoping to, you know, not really go out in front of San Jose, but just kind of see what what they do and protest. Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, exactly. Speaker 6: And then adding also for for staff, consider consideration the banning of grandfathered assault weapons. And then in terms of prioritizing, it would be prioritizing safe storage, prioritizing the training for and this would be in the order I would go in. Right. So I think there's kind of three legal ones and one funding and education, one which I see being done in different places. But of course, staff will break it out the way they like. Number two would be training for gun ownership recurring every five years. That includes the risk of guns and alcohol, the risk of guns related to suicide and domestic violence, and how you know, what the requirements are for safe storage and training on how to use those things so that people understand that. Lastly, would be the retailer sales component and then that the funding and education program as outlined. So my motion would be to move on those. Speaker 0: Councilmember Ody. Speaker 7: And I would add, you know, reaching out to the school district for potential partnership opportunities because there may be an opportunity for, you know, hypothetically for the city to, you know, pay for the production of some type of graphic. But the school district that has a distribution system electronically, too, it doesn't cost anything, you know, to be to assist with distributing that. Speaker 6: So that's I meant that is inferred, but yes, absolutely. Speaker 0: And my. Speaker 2: Motion. Speaker 0: Artist had a thought that on training that, you know, there's such a thing as webinars and videos and that I mean, it could we could run a whole gamut of possibilities, but that can be looked into. Councilmember Vela, anything to add? Okay. Councilmember de SAG. Speaker 10: I appreciate the comment that our Chief of police, Paul Woolery, in referencing the passing of former colleagues on council. And I think for that reason, I think there's a special imperative for the city of Alameda to pursue mental health matters as well. It was sad, for sure. Speaker 0: Thank you. So we have a motion by Vice Mayor Knox Waite, seconded by Councilmember Odie Flanagan. Okay. Okay. That's good to sign. Speaker 7: Off on this. Speaker 0: All right. Councilmember Vela, seconded. All in favor. I. Okay. Well, then, everyone, thank you all for coming and for your time. No, please. We respect our rule. We're going to try and move. We moved you all to the top of the agenda. But now I've got a few other items. But thank you all for coming. And this discussion is ongoing. You keep up your good work, too. Thank you, students, for coming. Okay, everybody, we are now going on to is the museum item ready? Do we have a speaker? Thank you, Amy. Okay. All right. We are going to. Thanks, everybody. We're going to move now to item six, a. Speaker 1: Recommendation to receive an annual report on the Alameda Museum archival on behalf of the city.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Purchase Agreement, or in the Alternative a Lease Agreement, and Service Provider Agreement with Sun Ridge Systems Inc. for the Acquisition, Support, and Maintenance of a Computer Aided Dispatch, Report Management Systems in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,137,825 for Five Years, including a First Year Purchase Price of $820,905 and Annual Support Cost of $79,230 per Year for Four Additional Years. (Police 3121)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7367

Speaker 0: Okay. Archival activities. Yes. Okay. And I believe that's being presented by Recreation and Parks director Amy Baldridge. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Amy Wooldridge. Record the museum first rate. Speaker 0: Oh yeah. Is it same person but different. Different presentation. Speaker 2: You could do that. Which I'm so. Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 2: Jumping ahead. Speaker 4: This is the Alameda Museum presentation. I am actually deferring to the president of the board of the Alameda Museum, Valerie Turpin. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 4: There she is. Speaker 0: All right, come on at Ms.. Turpin. I think I last saw you at the home tour. Speaker 9: Yes. Oh, right, right. See? So see if I can see if I know how to use this. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 9: Good evening, Council and mayor. I'm Valerie Turpin. I am currently president of the Alameda Museum, which I took that position earlier this year. I had previously served on the board as secretary and been involved for several years. So I wanted to tell you. Speaker 0: A brief. Speaker 9: History of the museum, but mostly about what we were doing at the museum. The Alameda Museum was started as the Alameda Historical Society in 1948 by Frank Kroll, longtime city assessor in 1951, with help from Yes, 1951, with help from the city and the library board, the museum was first housed in the basement of the Carnegie Library . The museum then moved to the former auto body shop at Alameda High School, where it remained until 1991. The museum moved to a larger space at the Masonic Lodge building on Alameda Avenue in 1991. Then this is where we reside today. The museum holds city records that the public can research. We have exhibits covering a variety of topics and people that lived here. We have a gift shop which features books and videos about Alameda and donated items that the public donate to our shop. And we use that as a fundraising effort. We manage the historic Maya's house and garden. Our exhibits shown in two halls and the archives we accept must be relevant to the city of Alameda. Our history begins with artifacts of the Allen Tribe, our first inhabitants, and proceed with displays on city departments, city schools, our industrial history factories and maritime transportation, and the famed Neptune Beach, as well as personal histories. Of course, we feature our city founders and leaders, but we also feature the stories of residents such as Harold Gonzalez, who was awarded the Medal of Honor in World War Two. Ida Clinton, an early African-American resident who attended Alameda High School. We have the tools of woodworker John Unkovic, who built furniture to fund his emigration to the U.S. and settle in Alameda. And we even have the history of a local mom whose name was Phyllis Diller. She lived in Alameda when she started her comedy career. She donated some of her personal items a few years ago to the museum. And I recently discovered that our museum display is featured on her Wikipedia page. That was a surprise. Many items are visible in displays, but what the public sees during a visit is only part of what is available. Our searchable records are in the warehouse at the back of the building. When an archive is received, a form is filled out explaining its history. Its physical description is cataloged with the number and it is stored in a protected manner. The museum also has artifacts restored in the case of the portrait of RR Thompson, who built our water system shown here. Mold had started to grow on the edge of the. Photo. And this is being professionally treated as commonplace. Speaker 2: Water because. Speaker 9: In the warehouse we have shelving and drawers specifically made for maps and large leather bound books. City Assessor Records Date from 1852. Our collection of leather bound newspapers date from MM first newspaper The Post started in 1869. These books are reaching 150 years in age, so they are starting to crumble. The bindings are starting to come apart from much use. So we're going to look into this restoration of those many physical objects in our collection are stored in acid free boxes as the fraternal sash shown here. Research is available in the warehouse on Saturdays from 11 to 4. Curator George Gunn or another volunteer assist in retrieving records of interest. We offer a space to look at documents and ask that you use a pencil only that we usually provide to write with. Local authors frequently visit the museum for information. Shown here are books produced from that research. The most popular books requested by visitors are those of our Victorian and Edwardian residences. Anyone interested in the history of their home starts here at the museum, which is something I immediately did when I bought my home here in 1998. I heard, Go to the museum. Look at these books. It will tell you all those secrets of your house. The museum receives numerous phone calls and emails each year from people doing research. I personally have responded to inquiries from Britain, Canada, other states and of course, our own town. I recently provided an image of the gas station which sat on Phillip NEARY School's garden site to the instructor there. Also, I have sent a list of city monuments to a local Montessori schoolteacher so she could take her kids on a tour. The museum's photographic archives are a major resource of visual history. Many of us have seen images of Park Street, Webster Street and Neptune Beach, but in our archives also are images of people, buildings and our museum. Quarterly features never before images of Alameda. Shown here is the high street water wells where Thompson Avenue is today and refugees after the 1906 earthquake. Living in tents at the Elks Camp on their property, it is our goal to fill the newsletter with interesting stories of local people, events and neighborhoods in hopes that our readers are always learning something new about the city they live in. The Myers House and Garden was the family home of noted Bay Area architect Henry Miers. The grounds contain the family home, a garage, architecture studio and the carriage house. His three daughters were successful women in their own right, and they lived at the home throughout their lives. Janette was the manager of the Dry Creek Ranch. Mildred was an architect, and Edith, a physician who had a hand in starting Girls Inc here in the city. The museum maintains the house and the grounds, and volunteers offer tours monthly. At the main museum, we offer tours for schools. Our past president, Dennis Evans, has continued to provide guidance for visiting classes. Groups have included retirement communities and museum groups from other cities. And we we've had various tours over the years for all of these. The museum has a lecture series which I've provided a hand out also for you to look at tonight. This year the Transcontinental Railroad was included, which is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its completion. Black military history and the Port Chicago tragedy was covered. Led by an NHS veteran who leads a black military reenactment group, Alamy, two sports legends focused on players from the Japanese Baseball League here in Alameda. We had a large turnout by the Japanese community, who had a really great time reminiscing, telling stories of their family and sharing memorabilia. The Museum and the Architectural Preservation Society hold the Legacy Home Tour in September. The event staffed by 140 volunteers of both organizations this year and the general public, raises awareness of Almeida's architectural heritage and promotes preservation efforts among homeowners. Over 800 people attended this year. And thank you, Mayor, for being a docent in the General Electric House. For the past three years, the museum has staffed a booth at San Francisco History Del. Days held at the old Mint. This has been a terrific opportunity to not only promote our museum, but the five museums we have here in town which are listed here. On this slide, we talk about Alameda. In general, people have lots of questions. It used to be, where's Alameda? But it has turned to. Yes, I've been there. I visited a certain location. We have a wonderful portable display and we pass out walking tour maps of the city, which we also have available at the museum for free. Patrons are donated, donating significant items to our collection lately. We've acquired a coastal scene by Hugo Melville Fisher, whose artistic family settled here in 1886. His works are held in the Oakland Museum and the DeYoung We've gained another piece by artist Edwin Siegfried, which included these Canadian geese shown here. And this just proves to me that they were at home here in the 1800s just as much as they are today. We received original portraits of the Cohens from their great granddaughter shown here. And dinnerware. That was from the Fern site estate, which had ended up in New Zealand. And this was returned to the museum. In 2019, our board retained longtime members and acquired new members with experience in historical research, internship programs and technology. We are currently in the process of electing five new board members for 2020. I was very excited to see the response we had from our ad in the Alameda Sun and on Facebook. We had really strong interest from the public and everyone we interviewed had great ideas and really strong candidates. It was hard to pick only five. So on our agenda for the future, we're hoping to create a rotating exhibit space to keep new exhibits happening for people to visit. Address Almeida's diverse population with topics showcasing cultures that contribute to our city history. Our photo archives have been scanned by a student from the College of Alameda, but we don't have a searchable database for that currently, and we also don't have a searchable database for our archive catalog. So that's something we're actually talking to someone about programs this week. We'd like to continue recording oral histories from the community and strengthen our internship program. We've had interns from the high school, the college and people doing master thesis, and we'd like to organize that more and continue with that. The Imelda Merlin book shown here, Alameda A Geographical History is out of print. This book was sold by the museum for many years and is carried in the reference section at the library. Although it was written in 1964 and is outdated in many ways, it still contains substantial historic content about the development of Alameda. We are almost finished with an e-book version and I'm guessing that may be up in the next couple of weeks on our website where we plan to post that. Our future plans are substantial and they are time consuming and will require funding. The museum has one paid employee, our curator George Glenn, and the museum mostly relies on many volunteers who devote their time to community outreach and making the museum an educational place to visit. The Alameda Museum has been preserving the past for the future since 1948. Tonight, I hope the City Council will continue to support us in making our history accessible to the public and sharing what has made Alameda a unique city in the Bay Area with others. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for your presentation. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Pyne? This man asked. Speaker 6: Me, so thank you. I want to thank Ms.. Turpin. She and I met yesterday morning and discussed a few things. I'm curious. I know we talked about this yesterday, but if you were able to get any more information about kind of accessing the archive and how many people are doing that every year. Speaker 9: Okay. And I do have our curator here with us. Do you have a number? Speaker 0: He can come on up to the microphone. Speaker 9: So, yes, generally Saturdays, because we like to have someone overseeing the work being done and be with the person in the archives and we get out the items for them. Some of them are they're heavy, they're on big rollers shelves. And so we don't expect people to just look around and find it themselves. Speaker 0: Come on, Mr. Guy, we just have a little more time for this item. Speaker 9: Do you have a number of people, do you think that come? Speaker 2: We have a lot of. Speaker 0: If you could speak into the microphone and everyone can hear you. Speaker 8: We have a lot of people that come in about their. Speaker 2: Homes and. Speaker 8: They want to restore them. They want to know the history behind it, which. Took me 15 years to produce a book chronicling these houses because we didn't have permits in Alameda until May of 1909. Before 1909, you just built, there was no rules. And when they did finally produce a building codes, they took up two pages in the newspaper. Speaker 0: So not to rush you, because it is always fascinating to listen to you. But the question the vice mayor posed was, I believe, do you know how many people at least approximately access the museum's archives each year to see the city's archives in the museum? Speaker 8: We have them sign a guestbook. So maybe we should start with the guestbook notating. Speaker 2: That's. Speaker 8: What they the purpose that they came to the museum for. The museum is the first introduction to Alameda history visually. And there's so much that we can cover in such a small area. But I'm always amazed at the things that are given. And again, as our president says, we don't accept things that don't have a connection to aluminum. Speaker 0: And just to thank you. Vice Mayor, anything further? Speaker 6: Well, I just want I want to thank you all for the work that you do. But at the same time, and I raise this concern yesterday, we live in one of the most diverse communities in the East Bay. And, you know, I would really like as as the city is 20 on funding, 25% of the budget of the museum on an annual basis. You know, and I believe this is the only community group that we are providing funding for. That's not a nonprofit that's providing direct services and whatever else. My hope is that as we do these annual things, we'll be able to start seeing kind of some change in our. You know, I'd like to see, you know, kind of how are we doing outreach to the communities of Alameda. We're 36% Asian American in Alameda. And I notice, you know, I appreciate the lecture series, but there is one out of the 17 lectures that have been given in the last three years that has somewhat of a focus on, you know, that part of our history, the history in Alameda of the way in which Japanese Americans were you know, I know you've had special. Speaker 8: Presentation. Speaker 6: Special presentations, etc., on those. But I worry because you're right, they are. I mean, a museum is the place where people get their introduction to Alameda. And I really do. I am I'm a little concerned that there's a good chunk and an important chunk of our of our history that is missing. Speaker 8: You're talking to somebody that agrees with you thoroughly. Great. But you cannot depict any subject if you don't have items in which to illustrate it. Speaker 0: I let him finish. And then. Speaker 2: This is what we're. Speaker 8: Trying to do. The average person my age don't think that they have a history and we're trying to train them to give things of their period rather than the 1800s, you know, the 19th century. Early 20th century. Yes. And when we get these items, we're we will display them. But it's training the public that the period in which they lived, lived is important. We do have two displays on this African-American family that came here in 1889, and they were allowed to buy property with no problem. And then we have a young man that was killed in in the war. Yeah. And what was it? About a week. Speaker 2: Before the war. Speaker 0: So and we appreciate that. And I just want to make sure I hear from our council members before we need to move on to the next item. Councilmember Vela, I want to hear from Heather. Speaker 3: So I am to echo the vice mayors point or to add on to it, I do know that there are a couple places in Alameda that do have a robust collection of items related to the Japanese-American internment. And I would love to make sure that you get connected with them. Reverend Yoshi at the United Methodist Church has facilitated the collection, and there's a number of members of his congregation who. You grew up in Alameda and were interned and who whose stories they have started to collect. And I think that would be a nice partnership. I would also recommend connecting with the Buddhist temple of Alameda. They also have a display and items. And I and I know that there are a number of families I've gone to see presentations there by folks. And I think it would be nice to, you know, find some way to partner together. I know that they both both places have a number of items that have been donated and both oral and written stories and histories from Alameda. Speaker 8: And we I have been talking to the the board and members of the Masonic Lodge because there is a building behind us that is now empty that they own, but they want $7,000 a month rent and it only take several hundred thousand dollars to improve the property. Speaker 0: But see, when that is actually not before us tonight, we're just accepting. Speaker 8: But I'm just telling you that we have we are trying to expand. Speaker 0: So you'd like more space. Speaker 2: Too, you know, and because we have. Speaker 8: Again, so many items. Speaker 2: Great. Speaker 0: So I want to hear from any councilmember. Is it still want to speak? Okay. Back to you, Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: So I wanted to thank you. I do understand, especially as a curator, you can only curate the things that you have. And I did want to just point out, though, I know you have a new board you have new board members coming in all the time. If you're going to, I think, build trust with the community to encourage them to bring the bring items in, making sure that members of those community are part of the leadership and a major part of the leadership is an extremely important thing. And I guess as we move forward, I would love to hear a little bit more about the proactive steps, not just ads in the paper or ads on Facebook with Proctor Steps going out and building that trust and communication. It would be would be very important because I think that, you know, the museum should tell the story of Alameda. The story of Alameda is very broad and very deep. And I think, you know, as I look at that, that great photos of the kids in the presentation, I don't see what is being presented to them as the Alameda history is reflecting the actual history of the kids that are in that in that thing. So it's just a comment. I'm not asking you to do anything, but. But I will be. Speaker 8: No, you know, I appreciate. Speaker 6: Thank you for your. Speaker 8: Observations. We need to know that. Speaker 0: And I'll just add that when I'm appointing members to the city's boards and commissions, I've tried to make sure as best I can. I mean, you can't always just handpick who you want, but I've had pretty good success making our boards and commissions look like our city. So we're not an all white city, and we are certainly a different city now than we were in the past. But I think to the vice mayor's point that I'm not trying to put words in his mouth. It would be nice going forward if you could make a point of reaching out. Speaker 8: If we can if we can. Speaker 2: Illustrate magic. Speaker 0: Yeah, well, even getting a more of an access, I shouldn't say that I don't know about your board, but you know what, everyone, I've got people in the audience waiting for a couple more agenda items. And we really appreciate your time. I encourage everyone to visit the museum. It's fascinating. What we're being asked to do is to accept the to receive the annual report on the museum activities on behalf of the city. Do we want a motion or is that just direction? No emotion. Okay. And so I. Okay, I do have come it. Speaker 2: Cause. Speaker 8: Me I've been I been the curator for 47 years. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm. Speaker 8: I'm not a beginner. Speaker 0: Okay. I have a motion from Councilmember de SAG to accept the report. Speaker 7: I'll second and I'll make an appointment. Speaker 0: And that's been seconded by Councilmember o.T. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed abstain and the report is accepted unanimously. Thank you so much for coming tonight. Speaker 8: Sure. Speaker 9: Thank you so much for letting us present. And thank you for your motion. And we are listening. We are listening, Mr. White. Absolutely. Speaker 0: I am sure you are. Thank you. Okay, counsel. Important decision to make. Do you want a quick break now or should we hear the study first? Because I do think we have a number of speakers in the audience, but I will defer to my colleagues. Speaker 3: I'm happy to continue. Speaker 0: Okay. Take this item and then do break. Okay. Okay. Come on back, Mr. Aldridge. Okay. So now, Madam Kirk, can you introduce the next item. Speaker 1: Please? Yes. A public hearing for me to consider adoption of resolution amending Master P resolution number 12191 to add and revise recreation and park fees. Speaker 0: So what we do is we'll hear the staff report first and then I believe we have public speakers and we'll hear public speakers and then the council will deliberate and take a vote. So this work, I guess yourself. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. Amy Aldridge, Recreation and Parks Director. So tonight you have before you the to the 2020 recreational park user fee schedule. This comes before you on a separate rotation from the rest of your citywide fees. They implement the fees implement for January 1st, 2020 except for fee for rentals, facility rentals generally be it picnics, club gym fields that are already reserved. So they implement throughout the year as as new bookings come up. So this recommendation comes before you. It was everything you see before you was recommended by the Recreation and Parks Commission. It was put together after looking at other comparable recreation programs in nearby cities, as well as, in some cases, local

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Receive an Annual Report on the Alameda Museum Archival Activities on Behalf of the City. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7366

Speaker 4: gym fields that are already reserved. So they implement throughout the year as as new bookings come up. So this recommendation comes before you. It was everything you see before you was recommended by the Recreation and Parks Commission. It was put together after looking at other comparable recreation programs in nearby cities, as well as, in some cases, local comparisons in Alameda. And it's also really considering the balance between budgets and attempting to keep affordability as well for a community. So for some quick background, some high level challenges that we're always often facing regarding that impact fees, as you know, the aluminum minimum wage increase from two $15 on July 1st 20 or will increase to 15 on July 2020. It's currently 1315 hour thanks to council. The budget includes an increase to the general fund transfer into the rec fund in part to offset some of those minimum wage increase impacts. The assumption, though, was that it was a partial subsidies subsidizing and that the rest of the difference would be made up an increase of fees. LAPD has over 150 part time staff, which is more than 90% of the city's part time workforce. So the minimum wage and fee, the minimum wage and impacted are our budget. And generally that is primarily in the programs of youth, teens and aquatics, which are all heavy in part time staff. We also have overall increasing staff costs and facilities and direct costs, janitorial and other contractual. We also have increasing overhead costs that now exceeds well over 25%, which is administrative staff office, as well as our cost allocation and our internal service fund fees, which are what are that we pay for other city services, whether it's facility improvements , facility maintenance, other city internal services? And are those internal fund charges increased for us last year from 860,000 to this year, 1.4 million. So that's a really big difference that we're trying to work with to then find ways to have a balanced recreation fund. So as I mentioned, we compare with neighboring cities. It's included in your packet that comparison cities like San Leandro, Emeryville, Fremont, Union City. We also do local comparisons, for example, with Girls Inc for our afterschool programs and then also with some of the large rental facilities with the auto club. And there's also some gym comparisons. We also have we always make sure and that was a focus this year is that nonresidents are paying at least 15 to 20% higher fees. We feel that it's important to really value our residents and ensure they're paying significantly lower fees. We do our fees based on a what I call the LAPD cost recovery model. What this triangle represents is really the top of the triangle is the higher cost, the higher fee programs that are expected to have a net profit that really are individual benefit things that people have a choice to do. People can choose to sign up for adult softball or adult volleyball or specialty camps, or to rent the old club or a large picnic area for a birthday party. The group benefit in the middle is generally covering its cost or making a small net profit. Those are things that are kind of our core recreation services in terms of summer camps, afterschool programs, tiny tots, things that benefit quite a few people, and we want to keep them affordable. And then there's the high community benefit at the bottom, which are all of our free or low cost programs. We have free parks and playgrounds, free summer baseball, free and low cost programs at Mastic. I'm proud to say that Empties really is one of the few remaining recreation departments. It offers absolutely free programing to elementary school age youth at six parks every day after school in five parks all day in the summer. We are offering free drop in. Anybody can come hang out with us and hang out with the leader for an activity at no cost in these days. It's really unique and unusual. I think something special that really happens because of the support of the community in this council last year, five years. We've also had the Free Park Baseball program with over 250 kids participating annually thanks to the sport of the Elks. And then we also have scholarships for all of our youth programs. Also, we have ensured that every single park where there's picnic rentals, there's we hold one aside as non-removable. So there's always at least one free first come, first serve picnic area. So overall what this triangles representing that we do have some fees that are higher for those high benefit and the net profit of those helps offset the high community benefit for the programs that are free or low cost. In reverse in regards to the fees that are being revised increased for 2020. We're increasing the field for Alameda youth organizations to $6 an hour. It's been going up and up a dollar an hour a year for the past several years after a significant fee restructuring in 2013. We're increasing recommending increasing the Alameda Point gym for Alameda organizations and schools to four practices to $35 an hour for games to $40 an hour and for tournaments for $45 an hour. We've not increased the gym fees since 2013, but since then, staff costs, admin costs, contractual costs, janitorial. Everything I've mentioned earlier has been increasing. We separated this year. The game and the tournament costs from a fee cost structure from the from the practice, because there is a higher impact, there's higher number of people coming, which is a larger impact on the facility, higher janitorial costs, more toilet paper, that kind of thing. It's also not uncommon. It's quite common actually for cities, including our own school district in their rental structures when there's a revenue generating activity to have a higher fee structure for that activity. So for example, the Alameda Unified School District, our high schools charge $40 an hour for their high school gym use, plus custodial costs, and it's $90 an hour plus custodial costs if you are doing a revenue generating activity like a tournament. We also want to make sure practices and games stayed lower because really that's the core of youth sports in our opinion. Really, the value is to make sure kids are playing and we see tournaments as more of an optional activity. I also have heard recently a lot of comparison in terms of the gym versus the field fees because on first flush it looks very different. So I want to give you a quick breakdown. So when if an organization like the soccer club decides to do a tournament at one of our fields, there are a dish or even a game. There are additional fees. So it's not just the $6 an hour. There's also $25 an hour for lights. There's $40 an hour for game prep. So our staff is going out and lining and prepping the field. It's $40 a game for that. Sometimes they'll even have us come out twice a day to line it in the middle of a tournament, and then it's $250 per day for a tournament. So if, again, a group like Alameda Soccer comes out and decides to do a one day tournament, we'll call it an eight hour tournament at a field. If you take those costs of $6 an hour, plus the game prep, $40 game prep plus the $250, it actually I amortize it out to about to $42.25 per hour. So it's just a different type of fee structure. And yeah, so it's just different how the fee is structured. We also have increased our rentals specifically in our focus really this year was on nonresident rates, so we increased nonresident rates for our picnics and for our club. We also added a Saturday 15% surcharge. So what that is, is it's essentially our Saturdays. The club are booked out for a year. We're currently booked out to September 20, 2020, but we really are going to be trying to encourage people to try a Friday night, try Sunday afternoon, and that really maximizes our capacity and rental ability at the club. We also added set up fees for the garden because people want to have their wedding out in the garden. We didn't have a setup fee for that and we made some changes such as deleting. We used to say setup fee was only for 150 people or more, but people found the loophole and said, Well , it's actually our events, 140 people and now I don't have to pay the fee. And they actually had 150 plus at the event. Right. So we just started really looking at some of those details like that. I want to be clear that on rentals we kept the Alameda resident for Picnic and Club the same. We also increased our youth program fees for afterschool summer camp day camp. And again, this is to help us offset really to offset our part time minimum wage costs. We had a higher increase for our group swim lessons and that really was because we have waitlists that are teed up on those. And it we're trying to add more, but we're also trying to build a new city aquatic center, which would help a lot with that demand, but with our current facilities were very limited. However, we also again looked at other comparables and our costs, even with the new rate, is half that of Aqua Aquatic and still a good $10 per lesson under even Harbor Bay Club. So we really looked at local compare and comparisons for that. In terms of new fees for 2020. There's two rooms at the gym ones. They're about 750 ish square feet. And we recently cleaned them out. They used to be exercise rooms for the Navy. They've been sitting vacant, unused for four years. And so we cleaned them out. We're looking to give them a fresh coat of paint, some flooring, and then we can use that not only for if someone wants to use it for a tournament as an add on, as a side space, but more specifically also for our PD classes. But also we've had interest from martial arts groups, dance groups, because there's mirrors on all the walls to potentially do long term rentals as well. For that, we also are adding an electricity use for inflatables for picnics. This actually I feel like falls under the Carp Climate Action Resiliency Plan because if I want to go rent Sweeney Park, say, and bring a jumper. What I currently do is pay $85 to the jumper company for a rental that's a gas powered rental, and now it's spewing gas out, fumes out and and and the subsequent pollution . So what we're trying to do is to be piloted at Franklin Park. We created a lockbox with an electrical outlet that we then can open for people so they can instead plug in their inflatable. They pay us $20 to help us recoup the electrical costs they're still saving money from. Normally they would have to pay for the generator, which they now don't have to. And it's a cleaner way to run this program. So we piloted it at Franklin and we're looking at it at a number of other parks, and then we have some other things, such as adding a security deposit for equipment. We have PaaS tables, chairs, things like that, that sometimes local Alameda nonprofits want to borrow. And so this is simply a security deposit. We're still doing it at no charge to the local organizations. We only do it for Alameda nonprofits. But we just want to make sure if it gets damaged, we have a way to to offset that. We're also adding marketing discounts, which we haven't done before, and we just want to have the flexibility to be able to implement these. So whether it's a Earlybird, 10% off, say we're advertising for camp, that helps us know our numbers and know how to staff if we know better what our registration is earlier in the season or bring a friend, vouchers, things like that to really encourage more registration. So with that, I'm open to any questions. Speaker 0: I counsel any questions about the staff report. Councilman Brody. Speaker 7: Thank you. Just a few. Maybe we can go back to page four. So on the gym, what do we charge now? Speaker 2: Oops. Speaker 4: Too far. It's currently $30 per hour. Speaker 7: $30. Okay. So. I mean, if you have a tournament, you pretty much have to book the whole gym, right? I mean, all four courts. Speaker 4: That's what they do. Yeah. If someone holds a camp or something like that, we used to have an all facility fee. Now we're doing it per court. So provides more flexibility for us to maximize the space. So someone could rent two courts or three courts instead of the whole facility, and then we could rent out the other court. Speaker 7: Okay. So that 15 that's going up from 30 to 45, which is like a 50% increase, right? Speaker 4: Yeah, right. Speaker 7: Okay. So and then if you're doing an all you have to do all four courts, that's going from 120 to 180. Right. So that that's $60, right? Correct. Okay. So and then on the. I appreciate the explanation on the soccer field. So you said that was an average of 40 to 25 an hour. Right. Speaker 4: For a tournament. Speaker 7: And how much is that going up? It's just a dollar. Speaker 4: Right. Okay. Speaker 7: All right. So we're they've. Speaker 4: Been doing incremental increases, which we haven't done on the gym. Speaker 7: Okay. And do you know where they were on the soccer fields like six years ago, where. Speaker 4: When I started in 2012, they were at $500 per season for as much time as they wanted. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 4: And now and now it's a set fee of $6 per hour. So the problem with the structure before not only in being way too low, it also meant that someone, an organization like soccer club, that you could use a ton of fields and so they would amortize out. I did the math back in the time this was seven years ago to like $0.50 an hour. But then you had a group like lacrosse that that only used a little bit of field, and so they were like $20 an hour. So it was really unfair system in that way. Speaker 7: So do we really use a lot more toilet paper at a tournament to justify a 50% increase? I mean. Speaker 4: Well, it's certainly not just toilet paper. It's also the all of the overhead increasing costs of our budget. Speaker 7: So, I mean, what additional services do we provide at tournaments that we don't provide, say, at games when someone's renting out the whole gym? Or practice. Speaker 4: Yeah. It's just a heavier use of the facility. Speaker 7: But we don't have any additional like personnel cost or. Speaker 4: No, we're not. Speaker 7: Adding security car or any of that stuff. Okay. And do we know, like the breakdown of the youth basketball between like boys and girls? Speaker 4: I don't have that information directly in front of me. We abide by the Fair Play Act. And so the way we schedule, we schedule to ensure all of the girls are scheduled first. So we have up to 50% girls. If we don't reach 50% girls because we didn't have enough requests for it, then we'll start filling in the rest. Speaker 7: And if suddenly we lost like all of those some of these nonprofits that provide an opportunity for young girls to play basketball, I mean, you think they would have an opportunity to play or what do you think would happen? I know that's kind of hypothetical speculation, but would they just not play where they go to Oakland? I mean, what would happen? Speaker 4: I don't know. They could play at the high schools. They. That's so hypothetical. It's a bit hard for me to answer. Speaker 7: But we don't really have organized basketball until you get to high school. I think that's my understanding. Right. Speaker 4: There's the Alameda Education Foundation does a middle school basketball as well. Speaker 7: Okay. Okay. Thanks. Speaker 0: Any other questions about the staff report before we go to public comment? Councilmember Vela. Speaker 3: Um, Director, you had mentioned in your presentation that there's plans for updates to the Alameda Point Gym. Can you comment on when those updates are are going to be happening? Speaker 4: Yes, I've been working with public works on the restroom, adding a restroom that's a pre-fabricated restroom on the exterior of the gym with three of each gender and additional toilets on the other side for the skate park in public. We're in the middle of design now and I just met with them today. So hoping to move that forward as quickly as possible and keep. Speaker 3: We talking about like a year from now. Speaker 4: I hope not. I'd like it to be sooner than that with us within the year. Absolutely. Speaker 3: In terms of getting a plan approved or. Speaker 4: No, in terms of construction, we're we're in the middle of design. Speaker 3: And in terms of the floors. Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Speaker 3: On the courts. Do we have any plans for improving or, you know, fixing those? Speaker 4: We actually been starting to get quotes a couple of years ago. They were as low as 65,000 and they've been inching up. So we are currently trying to find ways to to fund that. The recreation fund doesn't have the capacity to fund capital projects like that. That's really operating. You know, these are operating costs versus the capital costs. So we're trying to find a way to fund that. We recognize the need for the flooring redo. Speaker 3: Okay. And what's the what do we it's you said it's gone up. Speaker 4: So it's gone up to it's getting closer to 100,000. Speaker 3: But it's none of that is none of those capital improvements are funded by these proposed fee increases. Speaker 4: They're not. These are for operational costs. Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: Anyone else? Okay. Thanks. Director Woolsey. Let's go to our public speakers. How many do we have? Speaker 1: We have two speakers. Okay. Speaker 0: Sorry. Speakers. When you're called, you'll each have up to 3 minutes to speak. Speaker 1: Marion Carter and Tracy Jensen. Speaker 0: Okay, Miss Carter, you're up first. And if I could ask you to please not approach the Council, but to go to the city clerk and she will distribute whatever whatever materials you got there. Thank you. Speaker 8: I probably wasn't. Speaker 2: Going to put it on the other. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and all the council people. My name is Marianne Carter, reside at 408 Fairhaven Road. I've been a resident of Alameda for over 19 years. I love this town. I love living here. I also love. Speaker 8: Helping youth do sports here. Speaker 2: I've been a part of the Alameda Youth Basketball Board for 12 years. I've been a coach and a referee for that group. I've been a part of the Alameda Vipers Basketball Club for ten years. I'm on the board. I've been a coach and I'm now director of the entire operation. Those are both nonprofit organizations. Speaker 7: I'm here today to speak. Speaker 8: About the proposed gym rental fees for Alameda Point. Speaker 2: I love Alameda Point. Speaker 7: As do many of my. Speaker 8: Coaches and players. We're very invested in it. We spend a. Speaker 2: Lot of time there. I've never seen Director Amy at the gym in the ten years that I've been there. She may be there, but not during the evening for practices, and I haven't seen. Speaker 7: Her at a tournament. Speaker 2: It's it's an asset, but it's starting to be in really bad shape. I have pictures on my phone. Speaker 10: From this weekend's. Speaker 2: Restrooms that were not tended to, and I'm happy to show those to you. Speaker 10: But that's really ugly in the water and the urine was draining. Speaker 2: Down the drain. So those are not the responsibility of the people who are running the gym. Allow me to. Speaker 7: Vipers. Speaker 2: Before Alameda Vipers. Speaker 8: No one played basketball from a public school off the island. Speaker 2: Until they were in high school. So part of. Speaker 10: The reason we formed it is I'm from. Speaker 2: Indiana. I love basketball, I want people to play it. And we gave kids an opportunity who wanted to play basketball. Speaker 10: To get on a team and go play in Oakland, go across the bridge, toughen up and come back as. Speaker 8: A result of that. I think indirectly, at least. Speaker 11: Alameda High School men's. Speaker 8: Basketball. Speaker 2: Team won the NorCal championship. Speaker 8: With 66%. Speaker 2: Of the team. Speaker 8: Having played for the Alameda Vipers. Speaker 2: And three of the starters on the Alameda Vipers. In addition to that, every high school here now has some Alameda Viper players. Speaker 10: And they are in demand. Three girls from. Speaker 2: Saint Joe were on the cover of a magazine recently. Those three girls came through the Alameda Viper program before they went to high school. I'm not here to say don't increase the fees, but I am here to say let's. Speaker 10: Be reasonable about the increase in the. Speaker 2: Fees. These fees are going to hit the Alameda Vipers program very hard. Now we are talking about tournaments, but the Alameda Viper program. Speaker 8: Produces a lot of other things. Let me get to this. Speaker 4: The tournament income. Speaker 10: That we receive is in. Speaker 2: Your thing. It's on page five. We make 300 to $400 a tournament. That's it. Speaker 8: That's all we make. We put that to scholarships. Without that, we will not be able to fund 20 to 30% of our kids to be on scholarship. Speaker 2: The other thing is the comparisons are incorrect and those are also on page six. Speaker 7: And I. Speaker 2: Apologize, I had some other. Speaker 8: Points, but I'm out of time. Thank you. Speaker 0: You had 25 seconds. Speaker 2: But I did. Yeah. Oh, I thought I keep talking. Okay, 24 seconds. I'll get back to this. I just ask that the fees not be increased that much. They can be increased over time. Speaker 8: It's just a big burden to hit us all at once with that fees. Speaker 2: We like I said, we'll go from making a little bit on the tournaments. And yes, I know money comes in, but guess what? We pay referees the most of anybody. We pay Alameda minimum wage. Some people who put on those tournaments, they don't pay that. And we want to keep coach card. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Traci Jensen. Speaker 2: To the evening. Speaker 11: Mayors Ashcroft and members of the council. My name is Tracy Johnson. And like Coach Carter, I consider myself an advocate for our youth in Alameda, although with much less patience. And I'm not a coach, but I am also on the board of the Omni Youth Basketball Association. And what I wanted to point out to you is I read the resolution and part of the resolution and one of the where I says the Alameda Recreation and Park District strives to offer high quality recreation programing. That is recreation programing. And that is certainly my experience here in Alameda that programs allow me to parks and rec have benefited myself and my family and many families in alameda. I i alameda has it's also true and it's not in the resolution. But allow me to have as as Coach Carter mentioned, a tremendous, often overlooked resource, which is our nonprofit youth sports organization, that majority of these youth sports organizations, including lacrosse, is represented here. Soccer club that that I see someone from the soccer club here as well. There are these flag football across country, including the soccer club and AYP have been founded in the last 30 years and up until the 1980s, most field and court activities were provided for to kids in Alameda for free at through Alameda Parks and Rec Department. So that's something to be considered. And I and I wanted you to know and I think you all do know that historically and a councilmember district of the city news sports organizations have worked in partnership as in 2009, when the city worked with the Army, the soccer club, to address the inequity in allocation of soccer fields to non Alameda organizations. And John, our vice mayor worked closely on on that initiative. So these partnerships, in my opinion, are what makes me the best place in the world to raise a family. And what I would say is, rather than instead of considering nonprofit volunteer youth leagues to be fee generators, as is provided in the staff report , that you maintain the fees or at least increase them just slightly in order to avoid the increased cost to youth and families. As Coach Carter mentioned that many, many families have the opportunity to see the variety of parks and gyms in Alameda only when their child plays in youth league. Those parents and their children will grow up to love our open space, as I did when I played softball at Lincoln Cruzi or in other fields through PD. And finally, I want to also address another subject, but I want to commend the Council for your adoption of the Vision Zero Policy to address pedestrian and bicycle safety. And when I was 16, a few years ago, I survived a skull fracture after being hit by a truck on Island Drive in Alameda. I survived thanks to the immediate response from FDA paramedics and the excellent care I received at Army Hospital. Seeing the recent number of traffic versus bicycle incidents brings back that experience to me, and I applaud your commitment to appropriate traffic solutions. Our community will recognize the hard work on this road to ensure they remain bikeable and. Speaker 0: Make you happy. All right. I'm no further public speakers, no further. So I'm closing public comment and opening it up to council discussion. Who's going first? Speaker 2: I'll go. Speaker 7: Councilmember Ody So thank you, Madam Mayor, and thanks, Coach Carter, and thanks, Tracy, for coming out. I did have a chance to meet with Coach Carter yesterday. Right. So. I'm okay with this except for the issue of the gym fees. And I am concerned because I think it does impact our non-profits really significantly when you bump a fee up for a tournament by 50%. So I would propose that we, you know, keep them all the same or at least keep the tournament. What is it now, like, around $40 an hour or $35 an hour instead of bumping it all the way up to $45 an hour. And the reason is this, you know, these these nonprofits operate on a very thin margin. And they Coach Carter said, especially for the Vipers, if they make any money at all, it goes to scholarships. And what a scholarships do. They help people, kids that may not otherwise be able to play play basketball. So I realize not everyone's going to be I'm going to date myself here, Sheryl Miller. But, you know, we probably have some girl that's growing up that wouldn't be able to play if she didn't get a scholarship, you know, or she wouldn't be able to play if, you know, because her family can't afford it. So and if groups like the Vipers go away, then she'll have no option to play. So those are the things that worry me. And I think that it was telling to see the impact of the fee on the financial statements of the tournament. And those things just won't happen then. So that's the thing that concerns me and that for, you know, what to me is a small amount to the city is a big amount to some of these non-profits. And there's a whole list of them in here. I mean, you could you could go through them. And I'm glad we heard from two more. And there was another email we got earlier today from another gentleman who let me just try to from Max Langford, you know, and he puts on a camp and it's pretty low cost camp. He doesn't charge that much. And, you know, it it helps out youth Alameda youth and you know this type of of increase would make his camp almost cost prohibitive would put it at the range of you know, 4 to $500, which is what the Warriors charge, according to him. So his he's not competing with the gold standard of basketball camps and the Golden State Warriors. He's trying to provide opportunity to kids that might not otherwise have an opportunity. So I think we can do better for our nonprofits. We can do better for our young people, you know, better for our girls who want to play basketball by, you know, minimizing these fees, not reducing them so high. You know, my personal preference is, you know, we keep the gym fee at 140 for the total gym, which is, what, 75, 70, 35. But if any of my colleagues would prefer something more gradual, I mean, I'd be open to that. But, you know, I just think it's a big chunk to bite off for our nonprofits. Speaker 0: So we got in line. Councilman Rudy, so. Speaker 10: Well, thank you very much for the presentation. It seems as though perhaps this year, more than ever since we've been having these presentations, there seems to be a heightened discussion around them, largely because I think to use the phrase, you know, frankly, the economic and financial chickens are coming home to roost. And what I mean by that is when you increase the minimum wage to $15, uh, a were the responsibility that cities ought to do when you increase the minimum wage to $15, when you have a large amount of your general fund budget going towards public safety and not as much that leaves so little room for services like Alameda Parks and RECs. So what that means is. Our Parks and Rec Department has to deal with these increasing costs on the one hand and dwindling amount of money available to it. On the other hand. And so how do you make that up? Unfortunately, you make it up by, you know, these user fees. And I think if we're going to have a discussion about the Alameda Point gym, I think we need to look at this systematically because we won't be we wouldn't be addressing the underlying issue as to why we're here in the first place. Because we're here in the first place. That economic chicken is coming home to roost because there is there are these larger financial policy discussions that are kind of the backdrop against which this whole issue about the fees perhaps being too high for Alameda Point, Jim, are occurring. So I would recommend that we continue with that. We support the recommendation put forward by our director because believe you me, it's not like she wants to raise fees. You know, if she had if she had her druthers, she wouldn't do that or her staff wouldn't do that. That's not what they're here for. But unfortunately. Some people are feeling the brunt of these fee increases. So I would recommend that we go move forward with the recommendation from staff with regard to the fees. And if we want to have a larger conversation about, you know, how we deal with cost increases as a result of policy decisions or how we distribute our expenses, general fund expenses, again, as a result of policy decisions. That's a decision that's a discussion that we ought to have, because out of that discussion, we can then say, how much more are we to be funding APD? You know, at the end of the day, I would love to have APD funded bet. Like, you know, back in the days when Tracy Jensen and I were a part of our PDS in the seventies and the eighties, but every year, you know, whether it's Mayor, Bizzaro Mayor or Beverly Johnson or Mayor Mary Gilmore or Spenser or or now Mayor Maryland as the Ashcraft, you know, we're forced to make these kinds of tough decisions as to where do we find the money to provide for these great, you know, neighborhood park services. And unfortunately, in this day and age, you know, directors like Amy Woolridge are forced to look at look look out for increased fees Speaker 0: . Thank you. Councilmember de SA Just going down the line if I may. Vice Mayor Not quite. Speaker 6: So I have a couple of questions. I don't think they'll be surprising, but I wanted to wait until we had the speakers before I asked them. I did want to thank Director Aldridge from for taking some time to talk to me about this issue. Also, I just, uh, I listened to the Rec and park commission meeting and I just wanted to give them kudos as well. It was a good conversation. I think they they actually found some came to some compromises already for us on this. But I appreciated not just the recommendation that they made, but actually some of the direction they gave for future consideration. So, uh, you know, I well, one question is, and it almost gets a little bit too Councilmember de SACS point, but do we have a policy for how we determine what we're charging for a facility in terms of. Cost to maintain it versus what we know, how much we're trying to capture back through fees, etc., at this point in time. Speaker 4: Right. I mean, we're generally generally trying. It depends on the facility. If it's picnic or club, then we're trying to actually back to the triangle make a profit to then offset the free parks and playgrounds programs for these facilities. We're trying more to break even. There might be a small net profit, but really it's to help offset. Not just our direct costs for the facility attendant who's there and the janitorial costs, but the staff who are doing the scheduling, the staff who are overseeing the projects, the every you know, the office, the fees we have to transfer the departments, all of that. So it's really all of the admin. And so our goal is to get to 100% cost recovery on these types of. Speaker 6: Programs and all programs, whether it be soccer or. Speaker 4: These titles. Yeah, thank you. In terms of fields and gym rentals. Speaker 6: And I think that could actually be an interesting conversation at some point in time to bring back to to us, because there may be places where we want to toy around with that a little bit in terms of providing direction to the to the Commission for the Future discussion. When we talked, I had suggested maybe we look at what what might a more smooth ride. So so you know, what I've heard is not don't raise anything what I've heard is the one year jump is is killing us. And I know that we've gone through some issues whereby we had to rescind our bar fees a few years ago, etc.. So I know I know that that, you know, there were six years or so where we didn't actually increase our gym fees and that that's a problem we had. We had that conversation around rent control, right? Sometimes if you're not ever and then you go to a big one, it has an impact on on folks. So I was curious, you know, Councilmember Ortiz suggested that we just kind of keep it where it is and whatever else. What would the for for staff, what would the cost in making that decision? But my my question really is, is there a way for us to smooth out this current proposal, 44 knowing that you had asked for, I think 60% so, so smooth out the 44% and kind of identify how we're going to move forward so that we catch up to where we want to be. But also, don't, you know, maybe go up quite so fast in the first year, right. Speaker 4: Understood. So I think there's a couple options. One is to bring the tournament fee down to the same as the gave game fee to practices at 35, you know, games and tournaments at 40. Another is to do what you're indicating Vice Mayor Knox White is to amortize across several years. I looked at options for that. We could, for example, we could, but I would tend to do them with both get practice and games tournaments and just again, keep game tournament on the same fee structure. And in 2022 practices at 35 game tournaments at 38, 21 to 37, at practice 44 game tournament, 22 to 38 for practice and 45 for game tournament. So that's a way to more slowly ramp up. Speaker 8: Right. Speaker 6: Okay. And from the from a budget standpoint, would there be a concern about, you know, obviously that means you gonna have a hole at some point in time. Do is that mean we're going to you know we have we this year we expanded how much money we're giving for parks. Right. We dipped into the general fund and were giving maintenance funds for the first time ever, etc.. Right. Just so people know, we're we're not starving parks, but they're always looking for money. Right. Would that are we going to start eating into that maintenance fund? Speaker 4: Are we going to know the maintenance fund is a cap? So it's a totally different fund. And that maintenance fund is for more of the capital projects. Capital maintenance projects it will potentially eat into. And I'll just be being I'll just end up being creative with the budget and we're always very careful in how we expend our funds. So really being careful in that the rec fund is already in a net deficit for this year, almost $100,000. So it's something we're already looking at this year, all of our staff and trying to see what we can do to make that net zero by the end of the year instead by not by reducing our expenditures . So and really that net deficit is due to this really significant increase we experienced in our transfer out to other funds. So it's it's a it's a balancing act that we're trying to find. But so it's it's hard to say the exact dollar amount that it will put us behind, but I think that this could be a good way to go. Speaker 6: Okay. And then just lastly, and I know we can't go there tonight exactly. But at the rec and park, there was a conversation around partnerships. So some organizations are called rec partners and they get a lower fee, etc., you know, and nobody's asked me to ask you this, right? So Miriam might be like, don't do that. But we have a lot. But it does seem that the Vipers actually provide some junior basketball time, etc., that is not available anywhere else. Right. They're the only ones who are really doing that. And there might be some opportunities for us to look at making them partners for some of those projects that would allow them to drop some of their costs, other places to kind of offset some of the increases that we're going to be asking them to make over the years for the tournament and whatever else. You know, not everything they do has to be a partnership. I'm not sure how we determine partners, but I just I think if we can be creative with that as well, I think it would be a worthwhile thing. Yeah. Speaker 4: Understood. Thank you. Speaker 0: Has Mirabella. Speaker 3: I think I heard one of my colleagues say that he opposes the minimum wage or that the minimum wage is somehow causing all of this. And I think that there's a number of factors that went into it that were not necessarily related to the minimum wage. Namely, the fact that we didn't increase for many, many years and now we're trying to play catch up all of a sudden. I do think, you know, it's a it's a big increase to two level levy at one time. I do think ramping up as Director Aldridge proposed makes sense. But I also think that increasing the costs to use the facility without improving the facility is problematic. And I you know, my husband plays, you know, and has played in the league out there. And I was out there when I was pregnant and I literally had to get in my car and drive somewhere else to go pee. As pregnant women have to go to the restroom quite often because the restrooms were out of order and frankly, I didn't want to have to wade through what was there in order to even see if there was something that was working and that that's just not acceptable. And I know that we have problems out there, but I think that we need to as we have the fees increasing, we need to lay out a plan for making sure that the facility is as nice as our fields, as nice as are other facilities. And I think the Council needs to be working on that with our parks director to make sure it goes hand in hand. I like the vice mayors, I suppose. Well, I guess you could say about finding a way to partner. I was going to say, I know Mike, my colleague, referenced a different female basketball player. I was going to say not every girl is going to grow up to be Lisa Leslie or Sue Bird. But but I certainly think that we have a lot of talent here on Island, and that talent will continue to grow if we nurture it. And part of nurturing it is making sure that we're partnering and making sure things our programs are accessible and also making sure that our facilities are usable. The other thing that I think could be helpful out there is there is no real concessions area. And that is something if we are thinking of increasing the fees, having some sort of concession area, whether it be outside of the facility and then we limit, we can still say you can't bring food in or something like that. And when we're looking at some of these exterior updates to the building that we also try to see if we can build in ways for our partners to fundraise at the facility. And I think we could also find ways to use that in our in our favor, and that might help us bridge the gap. So I'm willing to move forward on this tonight, with the exception of I think there was a proposal put out or supposedly put out there about ramping up, and I would be in favor of that. Speaker 0: In the merits to like to speak. Thanks, everyone, for your comments. And, you know, my colleagues have said a lot of what I was thinking. Some things that stand out to me is that part of the problem we have with the steep increase in the gym fee is the fees, as has been stated, haven't been increased since 2013. So I would be extremely reluctant to support not doing any fee increase this year. I do think council member Vella makes a good point that and I do know the condition of the gym a little bit. It's amazing my kids now 28, but my daughter used to play actually in the United Methodist Church basketball team and they had their practices in their games and a lot of their tournaments there. And yeah, the restrooms weren't too great back then and I'm sure they haven't improved with time. So I'm glad to hear about these plans to do the ones outside. But I, I just don't think we we can't kid ourselves in saying that we want to do all these things but not increase the fees. And I also I appreciate that the vice mayor actually listened to the recreation part commission meeting. I didn't. I know our Recreation and Park Commission. They're a really competent, thoughtful group. And they unanimously approved this and, you know, with some some modifications. So I always like to respect and give great deference to the recommendations of our boards and commissions because they put a lot of thought and time and effort into it before they come to us. I a and I don't know. Accounts Director Wooldridge, if you even know what the impact, I mean, it troubles me to hear that the recreation fund is already $100,000 in in arrears. Know it has a deficit of $800,000. So that's certainly going to grow. I could. And then the other thing I just want to throw out is I think and I think, you know, the Vipers are doing a great job. I think youth sports are so important. And I think in some ways they're even more important for girls just because historically girls have had fewer opportunities. And it's just such great preparation for going out into life and trying to level the playing field literally and figuratively as you move into the working world. So we want to encourage that, but we also have needs to meet as a city. But I do think there may be possibilities to help the Vipers with some scholarship opportunities and not seen from the city. But just as I sit here, I'm kind of formulating some ideas about people. I'd like to talk to you. I will connect with you later, Coach Carter. So the I really like the recommendations that have come to us. I would be willing to entertain the idea of ramping up a little more slowly, but not to have no increase in the the gym fees. And again, the there also is a comparison of other facilities around the area. So what I'm sorry, I'm just pulling my notes back up again that I think. Vice Mayor, you were saying. Speaker 2: Uh hmm. Speaker 0: What? So, are you saying a smaller incremental raise? Speaker 6: Yeah. So from my standpoint, we could either we could have direct or Reuters. I couldn't I couldn't. Speaker 2: Come up with. Speaker 6: Quote, your proposed up. The other thing would be we we approve all the fees except this one and ask her to bring back the the the phased proposal on consent at our next meeting. I you know, we could just kind of continue that that way everybody would have a chance to look at it. Speaker 5: And you could do the phase if you wanted to. You could do the phase now. Right. Speaker 0: Can you speak more into your microphone? Speaker 5: So can you, if you wanted to, you could do the phase two. Speaker 6: Now, if Director Woolridge has won that she's come. Speaker 0: To do you. So so let me just get a sense of if we were to, to, uh, propose that, would we have a majority that I guess you want to see what the specific phasing is, but. Okay. I think so. So. So then yeah. Can you take a minute and tell us what that might look like or do you need. Speaker 4: Absolutely. I'll tell you my proposal, then you can tweak it from there. So I'll start with the practice fee, 20, 20, 35, which is what was already proposed 21, 37 and 2238. Speaker 0: About can you do that again? You were doing years, right? Speaker 4: Sorry, 20, 20. Speaker 0: 20, 2035. Speaker 4: Which is what's. Speaker 2: Proposed. Speaker 0: 35 for games. Right. Speaker 2: In general. Practice. Speaker 0: Practice. Sorry. For a practice OC 2020 137. Speaker 4: 2022, $38. Four games tournaments. 2020. $38. 2021 $40 and 2020 245. And again, I'm open to any suggestions. Speaker 0: What do you think, counsel? Speaker 2: Can I. Speaker 0: Counselor? Rudy. Speaker 7: So I thank you for for that quick math. So right now we're just thinking of 2020 and the practice is going to 35, right? Speaker 4: So correct. I mean, today we would only be approving I assume you would only be approving 2020 fees. So but I would take this as guidance to next year's fees. Speaker 7: Okay. And then your proposal is to sink the league in the tournament at the same number, correct. And do 38, 40, 45. I mean, I think that works for me. I just want to add one quick comment, and I think my colleague, Ms.. Isabella talked about it as well. I mean, nobody here was against raising the fees. I think that even the Vipers agreed that there was some need to raise the fees and, you know, the 32, 35 and we did do the minimum wage funding through the budget. So the difference, there was no minimum wage impact of making the tournament fee 45 versus the practice 35. So to say that that difference was due to minimum wage I think is not quite accurate. So that's why I make sure that I clear the record on that one. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other comments? Oh, the city attorney would like to comment. We're always happy to hear from you. Speaker 6: The city the city manager and I have been talking a bit about this. So because the fees tonight, our agenda this is 2020 fees as Director Wooldridge have said, any fees beyond 2020 we would have to take as direction instead of adoption. Speaker 8: As fees beyond 2020. Speaker 0: Yes, always. Always good when our titles match, right. Yes. Understood. So we can we can vote on the 2020 fee schedule and you can take it as direction going forward to come back to us at, you know, in the future. But this would at least get you through what you what you need to get your fees set up so you can start doing your summer programing and all that. Speaker 4: Yeah. And it gives a clear path for the community and sets expectations. Speaker 2: Okay. Can I make a motion? Speaker 0: Okay. Yes, I'll entertain a motion. Speaker 7: So I'll move to approve the item. With the adjustments for 2020 that director Woolverton spelled. Speaker 0: Out just for the gym fees. Correct. Speaker 7: For the for the fees. And just remind us that we gave you direction for the future. If we balk at it next year. Speaker 0: Let's get it seconded and then we'll have discussions. Okay. Seconded by Councilmember. Right. Speaker 6: Where did you have it? Well, I'm not sure why we can't just do all the fees. Plus this. Speaker 7: Yeah, we. Speaker 2: Did. We did. Speaker 6: Just. Speaker 7: That with the exception of. Speaker 2: The. Speaker 7: Placement, whatever. Substitution. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: Adjusting the 2022. Speaker 0: All right. Very good. All right. We've had a motion. We have a second. All in favor. That sounds unanimous to me. Right? Okay. Thank you, everyone. Counsel, we are going to take an eight minute break. Can you be back at ten? Ten because we have a couple more items still to cover. But you doing really well and I appreciate it. Thank you. Are you ready for us? I missed you, city manager. You wanted to join the party? Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: We're. We're going to get started because it is 1030. Remind me how many items to work with. Speaker 1: Two more regular items. And then two or four. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. So now we are moving on to where are we? Speaker 1: Madam Clerk, which is introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or his designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Pacific shops for the Tidelands property located along Clements Street between Aluminum Marina Drive and William Street, generally known as Alameda Marina. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 9: City. Me Mayor and City Council member. Speaker 0: Wait a minute. Yes. Speaker 2: Councilor. Speaker 5: Yes. As it was craft, since this item would require four votes, do you want to flip the two items? Since Councilmember Vela will be coming back. Speaker 2: I think we. Speaker 0: We could we could do that. She will be coming back, but she might want to hear the discussion. I'm sorry, Miss Makana. Sorry. Don't go far. All right. Yeah, that's a good point. All right, so then. Matt. Matt and clear? Yes. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance. Amending the municipal code by amending various provisions of section three, dash 61 transient occupancy tax of does Division nine, taxes of Article two, taxation of Chapter two, Finance and taxation clarifying and restating hosting platforms. Responsibility to collect and remit transient occupancy taxes.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Recreation and Park Fees. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7385

Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And who is presenting that? That's the city attorney, right? Speaker 6: Mayor, I have a very short report for you this year. Speaker 0: Favorite kind. Speaker 6: Yes, Madam Mayor, members of the. Speaker 0: Council this year. Speaker 6: The this ordinance before you is a very limited surgical ordinance that essentially does one thing. It restates and reinforces existing law. It does not create new law. It makes clear that hosting platforms who host online transactions for short term rentals are required to remit transient occupancy taxes to the city just like any other operator of a hotel Speaker 8: . We believe that existing law. Speaker 6: Already achieves this. Speaker 8: Purpose. Speaker 6: And the finance director already receives total taxes for short term rental transactions. However, in the excess of caution and in conversations with short term rental. Speaker 5: Operators. Speaker 6: And in light of our review of recent judicial decisions on short term rental local regulations, we're bringing this to you to reinforce, clarify and restate existing law. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions on the staff report? For those who aren't eating. Yeah. And do we have any speakers on this? Speaker 1: But we do have seven speakers on the other item, just so that will take some time on another item. Speaker 0: Yeah. No, that's fine. Oh, Councilor. Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: If we have no speakers, I'll move. Speaker 0: Well, actually, I had a few things, too. I had a couple of things I wanted to say. Thank you for the staff report. I am looking at the email I sent to the city manager or the, uh, city attorney earlier today. So I am happy to note in this staff report you mentioned that the, and the whole issue of short term rentals, as they're called, these Airbnb vacation bay rentals will in the near future. Planning the Planning Department Building and transportation staff anticipate working on a forthcoming ordinance to more comprehensively regulate units offered up as short term rentals or home sharing. And this is important to me because of all the work I do at the local, regional and state level on our housing crisis and homelessness. And one of the concerns, well, that I have and I, I articulated to the city attorney is, first of all, I don't think we really have a good idea as we sit here today, how many residents in Alameda are used as short term rentals? It isn't the same as you'd know when you've got a hotel or a motel that that particular address should be remitting. They're transient occupancy taxes. So, you know, that's that's something that will be addressed. And then the so but but now I mean they do exist. They're here. And so we want to make sure that the city is collecting the revenue that they're due. But when we were a number of us for at the League of Californians these annual conference in Long Beach and maybe in September, October this year, and I know the city attorney, city manager and I attended an excellent session on short term rentals. And so I do want this to come back to us and to to even look at things that other cities are looking at, like limiting the number of those. There's rentals in the city, but that's not. Speaker 2: What we're. Speaker 0: We're here to do today. Speaker 2: And so. Speaker 0: Uh, yeah, with that, I think. Does anyone else want to comment? Speaker 10: Councilmember Jason Well, great. Yeah, I'm very elated to see this being adopted. Back in 2015, I had brought forward a council referral on getting the TOTY from these entities at the time. My interpretation, my reading of the ordinance was that if you read the ordinance, it seems to capture Airbnbs, which is odd because this I don't even think the ordinance was written at a time when that was even it just, just the plain, simple interpretation of it. So to memorialize this officially, I think it's a long time coming. But so I certainly appreciate this. And I will second this. Speaker 0: Did we did we have a guest? Was that a motion you made? Speaker 10: No, I think yes. Yes. Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Well, they're. Speaker 0: Quick as ever. Okay. So we have had let's see, we what this is is a motion to adopt the proposed amendments. And so we've had a motion we've had a second all in favor of discussion. We have a. Speaker 7: This is just this is not the end of this. This is just the beginning. Right? There's more to come. Speaker 6: That's okay. Speaker 0: To be continued. All right. All in favor, I. Okay. That passes unanimously. Four to nothing. Um, we now move on to our next item, and we'll just, you know, do our best. And I think our council colleague. Speaker 2: Will be back. Speaker 1: Okay, this one is six. The introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Pacific shops for the Tidelands property located along Clement Street between Alameda Marine Drive and Willow Street, generally known as Alameda Marina.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Provisions of Section 3-61 (Transient Occupancy Tax) of Division IX (Taxes) of Article II (Taxation) of Chapter II (Finance and Taxation), Clarifying and Restating Hosting Platforms’ Responsibility to Collect and Remit Transient Occupancy Taxes. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7395

Speaker 1: Okay, this one is six. The introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Pacific shops for the Tidelands property located along Clement Street between Alameda Marine Drive and Willow Street, generally known as Alameda Marina. Speaker 0: Deja vu all over again. Speaker 2: I got a. Speaker 9: Groundhog's. Speaker 2: Day. Yeah, right. Speaker 9: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Nanette Mchunu in the Community Development Department. So in May of 2012, the city entered into a lease with Pacific. Speaker 2: Shops. Speaker 9: And the structure of the lease was for 66 years total. The first portion was a 25 year option and with three conditions precedent. One satisfied the the tenant would be able to exercise its option for 41 years and thus have the total 66 year lease. The three conditions precedent of the three that applicant has satisfied. Two. The third one has not been satisfied from. No. No. Not because of them, but because of extraneous circumstances with outside agencies. The tenant and the lease provides that if they do not meet the the the conditions precedent that the lease would automatically terminate. Instead, the tenant has asked that we would give them an extension to meet as a third condition. And and we have tonight the staff is recommending that you do give them a one year option, an extension with a six month extension administratively offered. If they if they're still holed up from the outside agencies, if the city manager could offer them for a total of an 18 month extension. And and then if if in that 18 months, they do not meet those the three conditions or that third condition, the lease again could automatically terminate in exchange for the extension. The amendment to the lease staff has negotiated a few things. One is related to the Boatyard Project and there has been a lot of work done on the boatyard and RFP and interviews with with boatyard operators and under the direction of the council. We've said try again, try again, harder. And working with our planning department, there will be another RFP process with a third party managing it and try it with a goal of getting a great boatyard operator in place. So that was a negotiated as and in exchange for the the extension of the amendment. The other thing that we negotiated was related to compliance with our Climate Action and resiliency plan. We are requiring the tenant to to to offer charging stations in in the public lot. And in addition, they will not have gas gas appliances in in their in their residences. There will be some ancillary gas activities or options related in the residential, but it won't be inside of the units. We think that this is a good exchange for the extension, this 18 month extension, and we hope that you'll consider it tonight. The one thing that I would like to call your attention to is there the agreement and the staff report and audience were not in agreement, and we noticed it this morning. And so the agreement refers to a two year extension and council gave staff the direction for one year with that six month option. It has been we've edited it and there are copies outside for people. The second reading will include the revised version, but the version will reflect what the staff report is recommending. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: So just read us the correct language. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 9: It's okay. It's in section 23.4 is hereby added to the lease as follows Land Use Entitlements Tenant hereby covenants to obtain all other permits, approvals and land use entitlements required by all governmental agencies exercising jurisdiction over the development project collectively regulatory permits on or before the end of this year. Nine. Formally it said ten for avoidance of for avoidance of doubt and end of leave. Year nine is December 31st, 2020, the regulatory permits deadline. If tenant fails to obtain the regulatory permits by the end of year lease year nine, subject to any extension of tenants performance due to a period of delay caused by force majeure event as provided in section 2521. Landlord should have the right to revoke tenant's option notice by providing written notice to the tenant, and this lease shall expire on the expiration of the initial term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, tenant may request in writing from landlord a six month extension of the regulatory permits deadline, which may be granted by landlord in the sole discretion of the city manager. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 0: Okay. So, counsel, any questions about the staff report? Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: Question Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 10: Is it correct that at some point in time, Bishop in York was interested as being the operator of that ship area, but they just couldn't come to reach some kind of a negotiated discussion, negotiation with Pacific shops. Speaker 9: So Bishop China bought us a portion of the Swenson's operations, which included the boatyard, but they decided to to combine the boatyard operations with their Richmond boatyard because they felt that the space at the Swenson's location was small and not viable for what they wanted to do. And and I can provide you with a letter from Allen Cameron where he talks about the fact that there's diminishing shipyards and that there was it was a better option for them to combine with their with their operations in Richmond. So that I mean, I had seen your question earlier from later today. But that's exactly that's what happened. So they should have not considered it, but instead they combined it and they moved some of the operations of suspensions to their main street operations. But the the sentiment of the correspondence from patient and that was that there is a diminishing number of boatyards in the in the region. And it's better to have a larger space because there's a lot of environmental concerns with boatyards and things. And it could be better served in a larger a larger space with more units or more occupants within. And so that was their decision. Speaker 10: Okay. So what was conveyed to me was that there was some difficulty in in the discussions. Negotiations, I don't know what between bishop in yachts and Pacific Marine's and as a result that's why bay shipping out left for Richmond. So it was more they were discouraged away. So what? Speaker 9: So what I can tell you is this I actually wasn't too much involved in the whole boatyard discussion. However, when Alan Cameron was writing the correspondence to the city, he actually called me and he said, You know, we really feel like it's better that we do this set up where we move our operations to Richmond. But I don't want to cause any waves with anybody. What do you think I should do? And I recommended it. He tell his truth to the council because we're not experts in boatyard operations. So just tell us what the real story is. And so that is what his email and correspondence says, is that, you know, they thought about it. They thought it was best to combine their operations with their Richmond operations. I actually have a copy of that correspondence with me right now, if you'd like to see it. I think I have five so I can give it to the council to look at. But that's what happened. Speaker 10: And was that correspondence sent this afternoon? Speaker 9: No, no. It was a long time ago. It was. And it was real time when that was happening. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions for Miss Mchunu before we hear speakers? Councilor Rody, just briefly. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So we're kind of doing a do over on the, um, on the on the boatyard, right? As I understand. Speaker 9: It, we're going to do a do over and hopefully we'll get an operator available. Operator. If they, if that's not possible, then they're going to look to the, the, the plan the and go back to the planning board, I believe, and figure out what their other options could be for the use of that area. Speaker 7: But our planning staff and our our planning department will be working on trying to. So hopefully the effort will be stronger than the effort that was last year. Speaker 5: I would. Speaker 2: I would think and I know. Speaker 7: Your offense, the developer. Speaker 9: Right. I believe that the staff we. We're involved a little bit in that process. I attended a focus a little a couple of meetings to talk about boatyards, because we do have experience of having a boatyard as a tenant before you all remember Nelson Marine, which cost the city over $1,000,000 to clean up. And so we don't want that to happen to us again. And so we were we we talked a lot about that. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Um. Did I see your hand? No optical illusions. Okay, so then. Speaker 2: What? Speaker 0: I have another question from Councilmember De. So why don't you give Ms.. Marcano just a moment to get back to the podium? Speaker 10: Now there's. From the outset, there's always been community concerns of preserving maritime industry in the area. And I think the way that this whole process has unfolded, I think there has been an effort by the owners to do just that. But at the same time, there's some concern that from what I'm hearing and my talks with residents, there are some concerns that that we still might be at risk of losing maritime businesses, especially if two things occur or don't occur. One is that we make a concerted effort, particularly with regard to Building 19, I think, where Dore was making a concerted effort to attract some of the maritime businesses that are there right now but located elsewhere and potentially have them locate relocate to Building 19. So the thought that I want to kind of raise is, you know, what what consideration has been given to prioritizing Building 19 for commercial uses generally, but prioritizing the redevelopment of that ahead of of other parts because there are certainly some parts of the of this project where, you know, they were apartments want to be built, but there's also building 19. So what consideration has been given to prioritizing, you know, commercial development? Ahead of you residential development. Speaker 9: So I'm just I'm going to answer part of this, but then I might turn I might turn over to the planning director, Andrew Thomas, a little bit of this. But what I can assure you that if a property is in our tidelands, it must be a maritime use. And so you always have that guarantee that on the land that is ours, you will have a maritime use. But as you. Speaker 10: Know, the commercial. Speaker 2: Will have to have a. Speaker 9: To be maritime first. It's Highland. So, I mean, you could do a short term, less than five year nonconforming use. But that's I mean, you have to I mean, that has to be maritime use. So you will be guaranteed that. So related to the the the parcels that are not ours that are on feet title of the of the tenant. Andrew Thomas Guinness. Speaker 0: Wanted to make it worth your while to be here. Speaker 8: Oh, it's been fascinating. Speaker 2: Oh, I hope. Yeah. Speaker 8: The the entire commercial core, which includes Building 19, the entire commercial area on the land portion is in phase one of the project and the master plan has phasing requirements. You can't move to phase two to finish phase one. So that was our way back a year ago when we got down to the master plan to make sure that the commercial portion of the project got built early. I think right now and for the next couple of years is going to be the toughest time for the commercial because from a development perspective, you know, they're putting in all new infrastructure for not just the housing, but also for the commercial core. So there's this going to be this tough transition period where existing businesses in older buildings are going to have to move out. The good news is we're so that they can take those buildings down, put in new infrastructure. The good news is the main building, Building 19 is in the commercial core. The commercial core is as part of phase one and approximately half of Building 19 is in the Tidelands property that that that was talking about. And a good portion of the commercial core as well is in the, you know, overlaps the Tidelands property. So we think there is a future for maritime uses at Alameda Marina. Obviously, the 530 boat slips are not going anywhere. I think we all believe there will always be some boat services, you know, rigging services, navigation services, people around who can help work on your boat. The key issue with the boatyard, that is still the question that's still sort of out for discussion. Is there is there an operator who wants to come in and who can run a profitable business for the part of the work that the on your boat that has to occur on land, the scraping of the hull, the repainting, that also is the type of work that generates the hazardous materials and a lot of the regulatory hurdles that any future operator is going to have to to jump over. I think in terms of this this next second try at the RFP, the RFQ, the first one was not successful is the introduction of this third party to help us evaluate what is really going on out there in the market. Why did was the first effort so unsuccessful? And what can we do or adjust in the second effort to try to be successful? And if we're not, we come back to the council at the end and we explain to the council, here's why we believe we are still unsuccessful and here's what we think is the path forward that does it. And if we're unsuccessful on the boatyard, it doesn't mean the commercial core goes away. The land for commercial that's devoted to commercial for maritime purposes stays. The question is, if it's not a boat yard, what? Where, where does Pacific shops think we should go? You know where it is, where the city staff think we should go from here. Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks. Any further questions before we go to public comment? Let's go to Pepper Summit. And how many do we have? Speaker 1: We have seven. Speaker 0: Okay, so with seven speakers, you each get 2 minutes. Okay. Listen for your name and come on up. Speaker 1: Dorothy Freeman, then Chris Nicholas, then Nancy Hurd. Speaker 2: Good. And good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman, a member of SOAR. And this is what you did to my speech. Speaker 0: When the city of Alameda placed the Alameda Marina. Speaker 2: On the. Speaker 0: Housing element in 2012. Speaker 2: It did not envision a loss of the maritime industry to Alameda and the entire. Speaker 0: Bay Area boating community, both recreation. Speaker 2: And commercial. Several of the main businesses are already gone. Speaker 0: Presently, many of the remaining. Speaker 2: Businesses are being forced into a smaller, inconvenient space where. Speaker 0: They thought they would be able to move into a renovated building. 19. Several of the remaining. Speaker 2: Businesses are choosing not to. Speaker 0: Have their business. Speaker 2: Disrupted by small spaces. Speaker 0: Two Relocations and a future future at Alameda Marina. Speaker 2: That is not very predictive. Speaker 0: So many of them are now leasing leaving town. Another issue with the marina. Speaker 2: Development is. Speaker 0: The efforts to retain the operator for the. Speaker 2: Very much needed boatyard. So understands that two prospective boatyard operators have shown interest in managing a boatyard at the marina. Unfortunately, their interact interactions with Pacific shops was very discouraging. Bay West and Pacific Shops. Speaker 0: Has been reminded evidently. Speaker 2: About how important the boatyard return of a boatyard to the city of Alameda is. Speaker 0: To the boating community and to the Greater Bay Area. Speaker 2: I'm pleased to hear that there is increased effort for the boatyard. Sau is also asking for the City Council to make maritime tenant retention a priority by completing the commercial space at the marina so the remaining businesses can move into more permanent business locations. So understands the time element for the start of construction and what it means for the bulkhead improvements. But Alameda Maritime Business is also an important asset to Alameda. What's going on. Speaker 0: In the next speaker is. Speaker 1: Chris Nicholas and Nancy heard. Speaker 0: Mr. Nicholas and then misheard. Speaker 12: Tell me when. Speaker 6: Hi, my name is Chris Nicholas. I am Commodore at Island Yacht Club. Speaker 8: I've said it before and I'll. Speaker 6: Say it again. The guy, I'm a 33 year resident of Alameda, the guy who taught me to sail. Speaker 8: Second wave in Normandy. Speaker 6: Said An honest job in sailing after work is what we won the war for. We're going to have 500 we have 500 slips there. Island Yacht Club is going to be celebrating its 50th anniversary there. And we've been running races there as an all volunteer organization since our inception. Speaker 8: It's more than just a sterile. Speaker 6: Scenic environment. It's a integral part of the fabric of this community going back to the beginning of recreational boating. When you see all the sailboats out there as part. Speaker 8: Of the picture, that's us and our community and. Our challenge is we are in building 14, which, as per the Historical Board has been deemed unsalvageable. Speaker 6: So our challenge and we are in dialog with Marine is to find a workable transition plan. Speaker 8: We understand the realities of. Real estate in the Bay Area. But Alameda marina has will have a unique asset in the boat hoist and. Speaker 6: The small boat program. Speaker 8: Which is a result which was not in the original plan. So as of asset that has come through these dialogs. What we're asking you is to ensure that there is a workable. Speaker 6: Transition plan and. Speaker 8: No gaps so that we will continue into the future. Speaker 0: Perfect timing. Thank you. I Nancy heard. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Nancy Hurd and I'm representing save Alameda is working waterfront or. I was pleased to hear that there is some movement and having a third party come in to do the RFP for for the boatyard. I'm going to sort of throw out the mike speech that he's going to say and try and speak. My main focus right now is then saving the maritime businesses that are there now when and I think the way to do that is that when they need to move a business because they need to to do whatever they need to do to to go in and build what they need to build. They cannot be moving these businesses into unworkable spaces and telling them that they can't that they aren't going to have these spaces for potentially a couple months. These these businesses need to have the assurance that they're going to be there for, you know, long term and they're going to have the space that they need. So I would really like to see Bay Building 19 get developed sooner rather than later, sooner than the apartment building, even though they're both in phase one. I'd like to see Building Number 19 done before the apartment building so that the businesses can stay there. We are in the process of of potentially losing some of these businesses. And once they lose the island and moved to someplace like Vallejo or Mer Islands, we're not going to see them again. And it's not going to be that easy to get other businesses to move in there. So I really want everybody to be thinking in terms of say, you know, keeping retaining our maritime businesses here in Alameda Marina. And that means having space and and preferably the permanent space, because this is very disruptive to a business to have to move two or three times because of the at the convenience of the developer. That needs to be more to the convenience of. Speaker 0: The next company. Speaker 1: Janet Franco, then Jamie Camacho, then Paul Mueller. Speaker 0: Or any of the speakers. We've driven them away. Okay. Speaker 1: So Jamie. Speaker 0: And the next one is. Speaker 1: Paul Miller. Okay. Speaker 8: Hi. Hello. My name is Jaime Camacho. I am the vice commander of Island Yacht Club. I'm here to remind you that we are a little bit scared of our future. It's under threat. We serve the community at large, including the Marine community. Speaker 6: We have been. Speaker 8: Sponsoring a Sea Scout troop, Sea Fox, for 28 years now. That. Ah. We're very proud of them. They're considered the ranked second best in the nation. And six months ago, they saved a drowning man in the middle of the bay. They received that training at Building 14 OC. We serve the community and we need your protection for our continuation there. And we need to, of course, talk with the developers. But I am concerned and I'm worried and I do have a mandate of my membership for the continuation of Island Yacht Club. So I would appreciate the consideration of this board at sea to secure the businesses and marine operations that still exist at the marina to continue and not be under threat like they are currently. It's it's tough. It's tough over there. It's hurting the club because our pool for people to join the club has been just hammered. It's empty. Okay. How can your club survive if we don't have a community there? If we don't have boats, if we don't have activities, it's basically pretty well closed down right now. And it's hurting our ability to bring members into the club to to make the club strong, to continue. So we're kind of weak right now because of this. So this development is seriously affecting us. And let alone that our club 14, our building is going to go. Speaker 6: Be torn down. Speaker 8: So we need a future. Help us. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Parties don't want to speak. So the next one is Trevor Yamamoto and then Sean Murphy. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Mr. Yamamoto. Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Trevor Yamamoto. I'm also a member of Island Yacht Club. I've been the Treasurer there for several years now and everybody who's spoken so far from the city planner on to the members of the community have said basically the same thing, that from a business perspective, the uncertainty as well as the the need for a workable transition plan to establish continuity for the businesses, the maritime businesses that have been there, like in our case for 50 years, can go on. We need to have something workable because we understand the exigencies of business that permits get delayed, financing gets delayed. That's just part of development and development will go on. However, the businesses there need the assurances from with the working with the developer, working with the council here that we can have something that's workable, not just conceptual, a workable plan going forward to ensure that the businesses can survive there during the transition. If it involves a move that such a move is practical, it's economically feasible that the businesses remain viable. So that's essentially what I think what the speakers here have been talking about and what we are asking for tonight is that rather than just conceptually, that we have a clear plan that establishes a workable continuity and workable transition for the maritime businesses that I think we're an asset to the community of Alameda as well as the Greater Bay Area, especially in terms of both in terms of the business, the yacht club, the boatyard, etc.. So that's why we asked you for that tonight. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And do we have a. Speaker 1: Murphy. Speaker 0: Question? Murphy. Okay. Speaker 8: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Fellow City Council member Sean Murphy, Aluminum Marine Civic Shops. So we're excited to have this important tightly and lease item in front of you tonight. Just a brief recap. In September, we got units approval from a third meeting from the historic advisory board, which is that commercial maritime core. We've been working very diligently on every aspect of this project, and last month we had, you know, approval on the first residential project, 360 units from planning board. So there's we've been working on this project for essentially eight years. We're very committed to this boatyard, and we look forward to working with the city and third party EPS to push that boatyard, RFQ, through again so that we can find a qualified operator. Electrification, absolutely. A big component of the Karp plan is implemented with this master plan and then the regulatory approvals. We've been working diligently since last summer with all of the agencies, Army Corps Bccdc, and we're making great progress there. And then really the most important component here is the tidal lease, because it allows for us to finance this project. This project, the the real focus of this project is our sea level rise that we must deal with. And there are failing sea wall. And it's with this lease extension that allows us to amortize that, to then pay for this massive infrastructure costs. And so this project is an important one for us. It's an important one for the city as our partner, because it really addresses a number of issues. Yes. The critical housing shortage. Yes. The job creation that we have for that maritime core. Speaker 0: Okay. And this is the applicant, is it? Well, actually, I am. I might call you back because I have a few questions and I am going to start first. Thank you, everybody, Miss Mercado, for your presentation. There you are. And all the speakers. Um, I would like to know and staff Mr. Thomas or Ms.. Mercado, if you can answer this. Otherwise I'll look to the Pacific Marina folks. But, um, so we've heard some concerns about the existing maritime businesses that are at the Alameda Marina now. We've heard from the Island Yacht Club concerned about their future. I'm aware of that Sea Scout troop. I was just helping with scouting for food this past Saturday, and they came in to the the church. That was one of the collection points. And somebody said, hey, that says he's got a group and there's some of the fellows who are on that rescue were there. So that was kind of cool to see them. But anyway, what, what, if anything, is is the city doing can the city do to see that these existing maritime uses have this? I think it was I think Mr. Yamamoto phrased it quite well. He said they want a clear plan that establishes a workable continuity and a workable transition. Anybody want to take a stab at that. Speaker 8: Under the terms? I mean, this is a project, this redevelopment project, two thirds of the land is privately owned by Pacific shops. The Tidelands is obviously leased to them. There's no provisions in that lease or the master plan for their property that basically inserts the city into their leasing decisions. They're obviously limited by the Tidelands lease in terms of the types of businesses, the maritime issues we were talking about with Councilmember Desai, but we are not involved in their conversations with their tenants. Speaker 0: Okay. So then I will ask Mr. Murphy to come back. Please. I'll give you a summary. So I understand from Mr. Thomas that the city doesn't have a role in. In relocating businesses or finding new locations. But, um, can you tell us what you are doing to make the transition smooth? If you're doing anything to make the transition smooth for folks who are out there now, especially the maritime uses? Because we very much I think we understand the idea that this is the maritime based side. And so we want maritime businesses out there. But what what are you doing for the folks say that we've heard from tonight. Speaker 8: Happy to discuss. So for instance in that first phase, really executing on the city council's approved master plan, it does focus on the maritime core and then the housing component. And so for the first phase of tenants that were maritime, those are accommodated in the balance of the property in phase two. And so we have transitioned those tenants over to the eastern part of the property with this project. Building 19 is a is a it's a great building that sits in the center. We need to be reminding ourselves that a project like this has to deal with sea level rise. We have to bring the whole portion of that project three and a half feet up in sea level rise. And so there is absolutely a transition with the renovation of those buildings. We're making the maritime core a priority. As I mentioned, three separate historic advisory boards, which then in September got unanimous approval, which allows us to then start working with staff and the building department to start implementing the renovations of those buildings to the Secretary of Interior Standard, because three of them, and principally Building 19, is a historic structure. And so there's absolutely a transition for existing maritime tenancy. Uh, and, but there, you know, these are big projects to take on and three and a half feet of sea level rise will not be able to happen overnight. And so the seawall, construction, all of the agency work that we've been doing it, it does take a tremendous amount of work and capital. So. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: Um, okay. So you're you're saying I think if I understand you correctly, that you are moving some of these tenants to phase two phase two areas in the eastern part of the project. But then you're tackling this core that includes 19 and that's going to take some time and a lot of money. Speaker 8: It is. I mean, one of our major elements beyond the sea level rise is the environmental remediation. We have a very dirty site related to the boat repair. We want to get a new clean boat repair operator. It's part of this, you know, this rescue effort, 2.0. But we must remediate from prior actions. And so we cannot fill the site until we clean the site. And there's absolutely activities that we're embarking on with the county, with here the city to start remediating those 50 years of. You know, environmental contamination. And frankly, a lot of it is on the city property. And it's it's important that we understand, you know, the complications and timeline that are associated with that history. And so we're embarking on it right now. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for the questions. Councilmember De. Speaker 10: Thanks for answering questions. So a comment was raised that possibly. Building 19 and whatever uses happened there. While in phase one comment was raised by a resident having that prioritized above the apartment that were to occur were the family that to occur in phase one or as a demonstration of that, you're aggressively going to, you know, create the space to save the businesses, some of the businesses that are being moved to the eastern side. What was your response to that? If we can prioritize building 19. Speaker 0: I'm sure you'll excuse the interruption. I have a housekeeping item. It is. I don't know how I got to be this late, but it is 1057 and we have to make a motion and pass. It was for affirmative votes to consider remaining items past 11 p.m.. So we have two council referrals after item one is on the code enforcement. We have three speakers and the other is on diaper changing stations. So Council, what's your pleasure? Speaker 6: I move that we extend the meeting to 1130. I think those two items go pretty fast. Speaker 0: Okay. What do you think we have second. Speaker 3: I'll second that. Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion to extend the meeting to 1130 and and presumably to fit in as to council referrals. So moved and seconded any discussion. Speaker 7: Councilmember Odie if we're at 1125 and we're not there yet, can we extend it longer? Speaker 0: We'll cross that bridge him to. Speaker 2: Make sure we're an island. Speaker 3: Yes, we can. Speaker 7: Are we allowed to consider that? Speaker 0: Yeah, we can consider it even. Yeah. Okay. It's been moved. It's been seconded out in favor. I, I was there about five guys. Yeah, look at that. Okay, please continue. Strive for Delta. Speaker 8: Member de sog to try and be concise because you still have action here. And so since ah you announced approval, the master plan with the city council, which we took place in in July of last year, our first effort was that maritime core in in so much as that we went to historic advisory board three times and just in September we got units approval for those buildings as proposed by our architecture team. That was the first approval that we sought. And then last month, yes, the apartments absolutely. The apartments really are the financial mechanism to pay for this 20 plus million dollars seawall. But the apartments were our second unit has approval that we achieved last month. So the maritime core is it is a critical focus for us and I think that we have a track record of going through these approvals with that focus. Speaker 10: So last question. Would you have a problem if we prioritized pulling building permits or whatever for Building 19 when it gets all finished, that ahead of allowing for building permits being pulled for the residential. Speaker 8: I yeah. Speaker 0: I know what I'm going to choose to ask the city attorney to offer some advice or opinion or anything we should be mindful of at this point. Speaker 6: Obviously, we want to stay on the agenda items that's before you, members of the council. And so to the extent possible, the matter before you is the lease extension. So I would advise that we as much as possible, stay on that point. Speaker 10: We'll take in. Speaker 0: Okay. Was that your last question? Okay. Um, does anyone else want to ask Mr. Murphy? Anything? Speaker 10: Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay, counsel. So, um. Right, we've. We've heard this side and we've heard our speakers. We have a decision to make. Who wants to lead the discussion or make a motion? Speaker 6: I'm happy to do both. Speaker 0: We multitask. Take it. Speaker 6: Away. Yeah. So I just want to. I want to thank a members of SA who met with me. I did follow up on the questions. I got a lot of you know, but the staff report clearly laid out that we have we have an RFP. So I think those concerns around the in a process to to make it as effective as is humanly possible which I appreciate staff working really diligently on that. So that's good. And I do believe we have a transition plan that is going to work to the best possible. We have proved a master plan that to me that the key thing is here. It saves the city $20 million that we don't have to come up with on the seawall and whatnot. I don't want to get into dickering around trying to renegotiate the master plan in the phase in at this point in time, we need to move this thing forward. My hope is that that the Pacific shops have heard from us for now, almost two years, that the Maritime Corps is very important to us and our our local community organizations are also very important to us. And I have strong confidence that we will move forward with that and in great haste. I'm not moving forward. This lease stops the entire thing. It stops the Maritime Corps. It does not save anybody anything. It just causes risk to the city. So with that, I would like to move that. We approved the staff recommendation as written. Speaker 0: Let's get a second. Think we can have discussions. Speaker 9: Going to. Speaker 0: Second Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Vela. Speaker 3: So I and I'm going to be supporting this and I do want to say a few things. First, there is a substantial benefit to the city and it's directly related to our goals, related to addressing climate change and sea level rise, which is a priority of this Council. I am not interested in increasing any more costs to that than are necessary because I think the cost is already substantial. I would also add that we have also stated that another priority of this council is housing. And so I am very troubled to hear that, you know, I don't want to lose sight of that. And I think that putting forward, you know, subsidizing for profit businesses when there's a, you know, a plan in place to try to work with them while also addressing our need for that seawall and getting the housing that we need. I think that's really important. And frankly, I just I don't like the direction that. I want to make sure that that's not a direction that people think we're open to because. Speaker 0: Not before. Speaker 3: It's not before us today. And I think it also undermines what our priorities are as a council. You know, we just heard an agenda item where we were talking about the number of our meetings when we were talking about fees. And one of the things, the number of meetings that were actually using the facility and I think the scouting scouting program is great. But I also think that when we're looking at some of these things, we're looking at how many Alameda those are going to be impacted and and that sort of thing. And and what is the cost to them? And I do not want to increase the cost of housing any further. I appreciate the electrification and all of that. Again, we're getting a lot of things that are in line with our goals, and I think we need to be supportive of that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments, Councilmember? Speaker 7: Thank you. Just real brief. I will associate like with the comments made by my two colleagues. I mean, we get a second bite at the apple at the boatyard, so that's good. Gives us a chance. And, you know, whatever complaints somebody may had about the last process, you know, we're having a third party. We're having our staff. So I'm hopeful that we'll have a more positive outcome. You know, electrification, that's kind of exciting, too, because now for the first time since we passed our our climate action plan, we have an opportunity to implement it. So, yeah, you know, I was catching up with Madeleine from the chamber today and you know, she mentioned they had a maritime some type of forum or event where they were talking about attracting maritime business. So I think that remains a priority of of this council of of our staff, of our chamber. I mean, if there's some issue I mean, I'm not going to I can't really dictate from up here. But if there's some concerns from some tenants that it's not a workable transition plan, I would encourage everyone to keep talking and see if you can figure out something that that meets that definition for those that are impacted. But I mean, I'm ready to to vote in favor of this at this point. Speaker 0: Mr.. JASON So did you want to add this? Speaker 10: Well, thank you very much. We're here tonight because, uh, Pacific shops would like to get a one year extension in order to make sure they get its approvals as well as they would like to exercise the, the 41 year trigger. So. But in pursuing these items, they had not satisfactorily fulfilled at least one of the three items. So to me, that gives me an an opportunity, frankly, to pursue the concerns raised that I'm hearing from constituents in my discussions with constituents. I know we all represent different constituents, which is the way that each and each of us on city council represent our different truth. And but we do our best to to speak our truth. And what I'm seeing, frankly, when I'm hearing from the residents, even tonight, is that the effort to save the maritime businesses needs to be . Better than what we're seeing. And so I'm just not seeing that. And when I hear that we have to go to a second RFP and I'm glad that we're going to a second half, but better than not going not doing that. But it kind of makes you wonder, you know, why was the first one so bad? There's something in the air, I believe, that is being discouraging of maritime businesses, comments provided notwithstanding. And so what I'm seeking to do is basically pursue the second bullet points on the alternatives section, which is basically the second bullet points was to direct staff to renegotiate specific lease terms. Speaker 0: So. Mr. Day, so I appreciate your comments. It's 1107 and we have a motion in a second. Speaker 10: But it. Speaker 0: Is, of course. Speaker 10: So that's what I'm trying to pursue. And I obviously I don't have enough votes for that tonight, but I would say it will be a sad day, though, if we begin to lose a lot of the maritime businesses, not just the people who showed up tonight, but some of the people who are there operating right now. It'd be a sad day. I mean, because these are the businesses that help give the city of Alameda an island, its identity. I mean, at the end of the day, let's not forget that, you know, our flag, the symbol of the flag, is an anchor, you know, obviously reflective of of of our maritime tradition and history. And honestly, I just don't see I see a rush to build more housing. And even there, you know, I mean, the housing is needed, but sometimes there's just too much housing. And so I think, you know, we need to give a better effort. And I hope to have seen a better effort at saving the maritime industry, which I don't see tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. de seismic. My comments brief. Well, as far as housing, I don't think we can build it fast enough. And there are a lot of things that keep me up at night. I don't like the thought of losing maritime businesses, but there are also it's always a balancing act. I'm also mindful of the cost to maintain and restore the seawall and shoreline to make them adequate to address the anticipated sea level rise would cost between 15 and $17 million, and 80% of that needed work is on city property. And as far as the boatyard operator, I like the approach the way that it is being done this time around. I will also share that I think it was maybe two weeks ago, a few of us were at the Wheat Board meeting, the Water Emergency Transit Authority, because we were supporting the New Sea Plan, the ferry terminal and one service. But when the executive director was giving her report, she mentioned that one of the things because we did water transit around the Bay Area is expanding, which is wonderful. We're on the water. We should use that water transit. But she mentioned that they are finding it increasingly difficult to find maintenance facilities to maintain their boats. Now, granted, these are ferries, so they're bigger than sailboats. But the the gist of what she was saying was that this is just one of those fields where there are fewer and fewer people doing these jobs, which means you get creative about the way you do it, and sometimes you bring the workers to them. But be that as it may, I think this is a very important measure for our city and I am prepared to support it too. So we've had a motion, we've had a second all in favor. I opposed abstained. Those opposed. Okay. So that motion passes with four affirmative votes and one in opposition. Thank you. Okay. Now we are going to rush on to the next item.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Execute an Amendment to the Lease with Pacific Shops, Inc. for the Tidelands Property Located along Clement Street between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow Street, Generally Known as Alameda Marina. (Community Development 216)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7443

Speaker 1: Consider directing staff to create an autonomous code enforcement to. Isn't to enforce all building code and health and safety laws. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Vela. Speaker 0: So go ahead. Councilmember development. You take this one. Speaker 3: I'll keep it short. So we've heard from constituents on a number of different issues, whether it's smoking in public concerns about after hours, construction issues related to other health and safety issues. And oftentimes, we're referring them to code enforcement. And then code enforcement is saying, you know, that's not something that we do. And so really, this is just about seeing collectively and we've talked about this tangentially related to other issues, but it often comes up relative to tenants issues where where we've heard from folks saying that they were reporting things. There was nobody to report them to or there was no record of it. Or our own building staff basically saying, you know, we focus on building inspections and not not we're not capable or trained in in the general breadth of code enforcement. And so several other cities were part of the LED abatement. JPA and several other cities are also in the taking steps to create their own autonomous code enforcement units. Oakland has one. Berkeley has one that they are making a little more robust. Emeryville will be putting or is considering a special ballot measure to fund a new code enforcement division. So I'm asking that council give direction to staff to put a proposal together about what that would look like. And also, I was told that there was some sort of past policy that we were not enforcing commercial. Commercial construction violations. The way that we were residential, that there was some sort of council policy to be a little not that we weren't enforcing them, but to be more lax. And so if that's the case, if there's some sort of existing policy that that come back to council for consideration. Speaker 0: Um. Thank you. I actually would like to just ask Mr. Thomas to address that last the reference to. Or do. Speaker 5: You. Yeah. If Andrew wants to address the last reference and then I can address the rest of the. Speaker 0: Okay. And just if you could, is. Speaker 8: There there is an existing council policy about code enforcement priorities for planning and building, and we will definitely bring that back when we bring it back. Eric will talk a little bit about that. It does not prioritize residential over commercial, but it does set priorities of some things over others. But that will be part of our report. Speaker 0: Okay, thanks. Any other council comments before we hear from the city manager or should we hear from the city manager? Why don't we hear from the city manager? Mr. Levitt, I don't see its time. Speaker 5: I have no idea why that went on. It was not on purpose. But Mayor Maras, Craft and City Council Andrew Thomas and myself are working on a report to come back to council. First quarter of 2020. And in that one is to go through the history and tell you what the priorities are. I think those priorities were set, as I understand it, 10 to 15 years ago. So to at least lay out what the priorities are and then also bring forward a plan of how we can move forward, how we could prioritize in a budget, a potential budget that would go with that. Speaker 0: Sounds good in city attorney Did you want to add anything about code enforcement? Speaker 6: I certainly echo my colleague's view that it is, you know, and I'm looking forward to working with both of my colleagues, both the city manager and the planning director on bringing back to the council a robust report. And I as I've indicated to the council previously, laws that are not in force are not laws that are effective and effectual. And so I look forward to working with the Council and my colleagues to ensure that we have adequate enforcement of our laws. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other clarifying questions or should we hear from our speakers? Councilmember Rudy. Speaker 7: I'll wait till. Speaker 0: After your time. Thank you. Okay. How many do we have? Speaker 1: Three speakers. Speaker 0: Okay, so three speakers. You can each have 3 minutes. Speaker 1: Toni Grim, Nelson, Lag and Holly Lim. Speaker 0: Eric. Okay. Graham. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm here to ask the council to approve this referral. I'm speaking as a member of an advocacy group, a well-known advocacy group. Speaker 9: The seniors and disabled renters. Speaker 2: And we have noticed an increasing problem of habitability lately. This is not surprising because we have. Speaker 9: So many older buildings in our. Speaker 0: City. Speaker 2: But I also like to speak to the quality of life problems that all residents have in all buildings, whether they be commercial or residential. When codes are not enforced, it's not just problems of smoking and noise codes that are being violated, but also accessibility problems, which especially does impact seniors and disabled people. So I ask the Council to approve this referral. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Graham. Next in. Speaker 1: Line. Speaker 0: Hello. Speaker 8: Hello. Good evening, Mayor and and council members. My name is Nelson League. I'm the Alameda resident and I'm also the president of the board of directors of Filipino Advocates for Justice, also known as FHA, as a representative of an organization serving Alameda Communities for the past several years, I'm speaking to express our support for Council members vela's Council referral to strengthen core code enforcement. FHA has been supporting Alameda residents through a multitude of housing issues since the attempted mass eviction and for some of the Central Avenue when tenants landlords ordered construction during illegal hours as a harassment tactic. When we surveyed Alameda renters recently in a large scale research project earlier this year, we observed that it was actually not uncommon to see renters lived through shockingly poor living conditions ranging from burnt out parts of their buildings to falling plasters to holes in the floor enough to see the downstairs unit. Well, we have always advised tenants to report these problems through through the usual means. Many of the community members have expressed discouragement due to in part of their what seemingly is a lack of response from code enforcement and other agencies. The recent complaint was made by the residents near and above the clubhouse bar and spinning bones reflect the types of concerns we've seen from vulnerable community members living in uninhabitable conditions. In Alameda, Councilmember Member Vela's proposal to transition building inspections into a new unit for universal code enforcement will significantly increase the city's ability to enforce existing laws in a timely and effective manner. I am confident that it will also have an outstanding impact on Alameda, tenants health, living conditions and overall well-being. Our organization applauds and supports this council applauds the support this council has demonstrated for renters this year, and we hope that will continue through. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Holly. Speaker 0: Lynn Holley them. Okay. Good evening. Speaker 1: My name is Holly, and I'm an Alameda and living in a mixed use building on Park Street. I've talked to many of you about. Speaker 9: The. Speaker 2: Situation. Speaker 1: That my neighbors and I. Speaker 3: Have been going through for the past year. Speaker 1: I'd like to offer my support for the council referral. Speaker 3: To create an autonomous code enforcement division. There have been. Speaker 2: Multiple times. Speaker 1: Throughout this year. Speaker 3: When the construction downstairs for an upcoming restaurant has really affected the health. Speaker 1: And just the. Speaker 3: Quality of life and well-being of. Speaker 1: Myself and my neighbors. Speaker 3: Especially when the construction went after hours. So I just kind of. Speaker 2: If you can. Oh, shoot. Speaker 3: I was going to play something. Speaker 1: For you that happened on a Sunday from 9 a.m. to 10. Speaker 3: P.m.. This was what? The noises. All day on a Sunday. My neighbors, I had filed five code enforcement. Speaker 2: Complaints about. Speaker 3: After hours construction at another a neighbor next door who filed code enforcement complaints. Nothing was really done, except we'll just talk to the owners. And so we felt like we were not only experiencing construction noise six days a week, nearly nine months, but we were also, you know, when the time was for us. Speaker 1: To rest, we couldn't rest. And not only that, over the past decade. Speaker 3: Residential tenants in my area. Speaker 1: Have made numerous attempts. Speaker 3: To report code violations related to the noise, nuisance, unsafe behavior and illegal actions of our commercial neighbors, particularly from the clubhouse bar, from smoking to noise nuisances like disposing of glass bottles loudly during their closing at 2 a.m.. Unfortunately, all of our reports have not been given the responsiveness needed to enforce the laws. Speaker 2: As such, residents. Speaker 3: Help right to quiet enjoyment and quality of life have been impacted. Most currently I'm impacted by the restaurant noise. The noise cleaning goes till 12 sometimes. They woke me up at midnight. Speaker 2: Last night and at. Speaker 3: Times the noise wakes me up at 530. So through the last month I've been kind of on very little sleep. And so because of the situation with the construction, I just feel like it kind of landed nowhere. So why should I even talk to people about anymore? Being raised without remedy. I think a lot of the residents feel like. Speaker 2: We're headed to a place of partial, constructive eviction. Speaker 3: In our near future. Many of us can't live like this. Speaker 2: Lack of sleep. Just all. Speaker 3: Of this stuff isn't really healthy. Speaker 1: For a. Speaker 2: Lot of us. Speaker 3: And it's been going almost a year now. So please. Speaker 2: Support this. Speaker 3: Council referral. For me personally, my health depends on it, and we'd like to keep Alameda residents like me and my neighbors safely in our homes. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. That's the last of our speakers. Yeah. Okay. So, um, council, we've heard from the city manager and the city attorney. What direction do you want to give? Speaker 7: Can I say my question. Speaker 2: That you may not share to the. Speaker 7: Author? So I think I heard the city manager and the I've got to get this title right. Planning, building and transportation, direct your proposal. I mean, is that an acceptable. Or is there something more you want besides that? Or is that acceptable? Speaker 8: Or. Speaker 3: Well, I'd like a proposal to come back about specifically addressing the creation of the separate unit and also to hear back on this specific policy of council priorities. And then with that proposal, funding mechanisms, because if we just hear about here's a proposal and we don't have the cost estimates and funding with it, it's going to just delay implementation. Speaker 7: And again, through the chair, I mean, is that something that you guys. Speaker 5: That's consistent with what we're planning for? Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: And Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm not quite understanding the need for a completely new part. Speaker 5: I can't, can I? I mean. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 5: That makes a lot of sense. So what we're talking about, we haven't decided this for sure, is that it would be a separate division of planning, building and transportation. There were reports specifically to Andrew that that's my concept that I'm that we've been working on even before this referral. I tend to have in other organizations had code enforcement separate. So it's not through a building official, it's through actually their own supervisor that would report to Andrew. They would take on a lot of the complaints and then the the code enforcement officials would report through that individual to Andrew, I see that as autonomous. Speaker 10: I don't know. I just think that if there's something broken with the current regime, then we fix it. If they need more funding for more staff to to respond to all the concerns, if there is a order of magnitude increase, and then we fix that. But that's a separate question from performance. Performance means how did we respond to problems as they arose and did we satisfactorily. And even there, I'm not convinced that. I mean, you know, it's your professional judgment. The thing that I'm concerned, though, is I don't want to see an entity whose. Whose reason for existence is to go after small mom and pop landlords. I don't want to see that. I want to see I want to make sure that tenants are treated fairly as well as landlords. But the tenure that I'm hearing here is, is that they're seeing this as something to go after those guys. So that's a concern of mine. Speaker 0: Okay, so hold that thought. I actually like. That's fine. But I still need to make a motion because it is now 1126 and we voted to go to 1130. We've got the rest of this and one more council referral to go. Who wants to make a motion? Speaker 6: I move again. Sorry. Speaker 7: 1158 I was going to say 1145. Speaker 0: I think 11 4511. Speaker 3: 1145 yeah. Speaker 7: That's my motion. Speaker 0: Okay. Secondly, okay. Motion second four 1145 all in favor, I. Okay, five. Let's go quickly. So, Mr. Thomas, I mean, can you just talk briefly, briefly about I'm are we going after mom and pop landlords with. Speaker 2: This. Speaker 0: Permit. Speaker 3: But the response because it's my referral. Speaker 0: Uh, it is your referral. I would go to him, but sure you can. Speaker 2: Okay, go ahead. Speaker 3: So the intent of this is not to go after mom and pop landlords. The intent is to make sure that there is that there are habitable units and that when there are habitability issues or health and safety issues, that there is a mechanism for addressing it. Right now, we have we're under the old model where we have a building official who is trained in very specific things. That does not necessarily extend to all of the health and safety issues that may exist. And right now, it means that we're directing people to call the police department when it's not necessarily under their purview, and that might not be their best use or we're directing them to building inspections. Who where our inspectors do not feel that they are properly trained or in a position to address this. And most cities have therefore created an independent and separate unit that also trains staff to do this. And Mr. Thomas, you can chime in, but that's what I'm looking for. Speaker 8: I first of all, I think this is we we've been talking about this report before your referral came. From my perspective, I'm relatively new to this role with this big long title, but my feeling being in this role for this last year is we have a code enforcement division in the planning building and transportation division, which was designed, shaped and funded, and the funding is key 15 to 20 years ago. You are adopting new laws. We are being asked to do different kinds of code enforcement. It 15 years ago it was very much designed as a small little unit that deals basically with building code violations. What I'm sensing is this council is saying, hey, we've got more than just building code violations. We have other kinds of violations. We have to rethink how we how we design our code enforcement unit, how we fund it. And that's, I think, where we want to kind of come back with is some some ideas, some thoughts, some adjustments. I kind of agree with you, Councilmember de Salgado, though, I think there is a question like I mean, every we just dealt with two code enforcement issues just today where we enforce code and immediately the call went to the mayor and, you know. Speaker 0: To fix it, spent. Speaker 8: A bunch of time on the phone. I mean, the more code enforcement we do, the more complaints and issues. I mean, yes, some people are going to be happy. Other people are not going to be happy. So it's a delicate balance. Speaker 0: Yeah. Vice Mayor Nuts. Right. Speaker 6: Okay. So I would like to thank Councilmember Vella for bringing this forward. My understanding from talking to staff is actually just something that I think everybody's been talking about with staff. On some level, I am uncomfortable with the council directing the the form that this takes. I would I think it and maybe this aligns a little bit with Councilmember de SAC. It sounds like there's a conversation around the policy that exists about what we do, code enforcement, and then we should have a we have a direct report whose job it is is to structure the city and be accountable for making sure that they're following through on the on the on the and on the implementation of that policy. It clearly it's not being implemented, right? Well, it may be implemented right. It may be that we just have a terrible policy or a policy that's not right for today. My proposal would be would be that we ask for that policy to come back. And then once the policy is adopted, that the city manager, you know, just come back with a report on how he is going to ensure that that policy is implemented in the way that the majority of the council is asking for it to be enforced. Speaker 2: So. Yes. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Councilmember Valley, did you have some of that? Well. Speaker 3: I think that that just delays what's already been worked on. And it sounds like staff already has something that. Speaker 0: They're working. Speaker 3: On in line with what the proposal is. So I don't want to add an extra step or an extra council meeting when we don't have to. Speaker 7: Councilman Brody, thank you. I guess maybe I heard a different discussion than my colleague here, because I think when Mrs. Vela presented the item, I think her concern was I mean, later, Andrew, you talked about it was that commercial was was not getting enforced and residential was so it to me if residential was then we would already have enforcement against quote unquote small mom and pop landlords. And what I think we did with our tenant protection in our just cause is kind of remove the fear that tenants have to actually speak to their landlord about it. So in my mind, that would kind of reduces code enforcement because instead of being afraid of being evicted for complaining about a broken window, you're not going to code enforcement. You are actually not having the fear to talk to your landlord. And I think the story we heard from Holly was a commercial landlord that was doing construction or a commercial tenant doing construction, not a mom and pop small property owner. So I'm not sure I got the same, you know, the same reaction. I mean, I think that given that the author of the referral is okay with the direction or the, the, the, the proposal that staff has put together on how to respond to this, I would be willing to to move forward the the referral based on the expectation of the report that our planning director and our city manager said they would provide. Speaker 0: So let me jump in here, if I might. Speaker 7: That's okay with the. Speaker 0: So so we've heard from the city manager that he and planning director and all the other titles are working on a report with the city manager, city attorney to come back to the council in the first quarter of 2020. That will look at the history of code enforcement and bring forward a plan in the budget to be able to to revamp it, to bring it up to the needs of today's residents and businesses. Speaker 3: And I think, Madam Mayor, also making sure that whatever we do, that there's consideration given to the city attorney to make sure that whatever what what's being structured is, in fact, going to make us better at enforcement, especially with the creation of the new prosecutorial. Speaker 0: Because he also mentioned that having a code that of course it is. Speaker 5: Disagree with that. Speaker 0: Disagree. Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm a strong believer that the enforcement arm and you you work together but there should be a separation between prosecute. Speaker 0: Well we're we're waiting for the report to come forward. Let's not let's not get too much. I want to say one thing, though, and I've met with Mr. Muslim and her neighbors. I think something that we have to be careful of is achieving that balance. When you're talking about a mixed use building, that is a mixed use and there is a zoning and it allows restaurant. And we've also if you've been on social media lately, you've seen a lot of talk about businesses that are going out of business on Park Street. And we and we heard about the need for small businesses and supporting mom and pop and independently owned businesses locally. So let's make sure we achieve that balance. And I want to make sure that we also hear from the business owner, because I have met with the owner of Spinning Bones and and this is a new restaurant and it deserves a chance and shouldn't have to pay for the transgressions of the clubhouse bar. That sounds like it should have been dealt with more effectively with code enforcement. But I just want to make sure that we don't this isn't all or nothing. And, you know, no side has the corner on the market of of truth and justice. We need if we truly want a vibrant community and a downtown district and walkable, you know, homes and businesses and all that, we've got to we've got to address that and not just say, you know, businesses bad anyway. But I like I like what's been brought forward. I think there's a good plan in place. I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention. So have we got that motion to do? You made that? Yes. Okay. So that was you who moved, right? Councilmember is the move by Councilmember Odie? What is the motion, Madam Clerk? Speaker 2: I said. Speaker 0: That's okay. It is to essentially adopt what the city manager had put forward and with the assurance that. Speaker 3: Yes. The council prioritization. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 8: Move the move the move the referral. Speaker 7: With the plan that the director of transportation building and. Speaker 0: Whatever. Yes, let me. Speaker 7: Right, Andrew. I'll call you. Andrew had 1135. Speaker 0: And your name. Speaker 7: Is manager together with. Speaker 3: Along with the city. Speaker 7: With city with Councilmember Vela's addition at the end after I asked her the question. Speaker 0: Okay. So it's been moved. It's been seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor. I opposed. Abstained. Okay. So that passes with four affirmative in one abstention. Okay. Now we are moving on to council referral nine be. Speaker 1: Consider requiring new construction or renovation of publicly accessible buildings with at least one public restroom to provide at least one safe, sanitary, convenient and publicly accessible baby diaper changing station. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Phillips.

Council Referral

Consider Directing Staff to Create an Autonomous Code Enforcement Division to Enforce All Building Code and Health and Safety Laws. (Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7356

Speaker 0: Took the words right out of my mouth in a second. It's been moved by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Vela. All in favor. I. That was five. Okay. All right. So then we agreed that we would first hear five m correct. Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution establishing a vision zero policy to work towards zero traffic deaths and severe injuries. Speaker 6: Good evening. Hello, Mayor Ashcraft, members of the city council, members of the public here tonight. I'm Andrew Thomas, planning director, and I'm here with Lisa Foster from the transportation staff. Lisa and I are going to introduce the item for you tonight, and we're available to answer any questions, along with Richelle Wheeler, who also helped put this together for us tonight. Speaker 0: And if I might just interrupt you and counsel, you tell me how you feel about this. But I'm thinking that perhaps we would take our public speakers first just because we have a lot with children. Or do you want to hear staff report first? Speaker 8: We're fine with hearing this from the speakers. Speaker 0: First that be okay. Okay. If you don't mind, Mr. Thomas, we're going to go ahead because I try to defer when families have children, because I know that the hour gets late quickly. So. Speaker 1: Seven speakers. So don't get. Okay. Speaker 0: So when we have seven speakers, it means you each get 2 minutes. But 2 minutes is really quite a bit of time. So the city clerk will call your names, just listen for your names and come on up and so that everybody can hear you, including those who are watching on television. Be sure you're getting close enough to that microphone up there. You can bring it down or up to your level as needed. Okay. Take it away. Speaker 1: Suzy Hofstetter, Britney and Mia Schrag and Jennifer. I'm sorry. I'm having trouble reading. Your last name starts with a t t. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Suzi Hofstetter. I'm advocacy manager with Bike East Bay, member of Bike Walk Alameda and a resident of here in Alameda. While I don't have kids in our school district, I'm really proud of everyone who's been outside tonight. And I really applaud our school communities for standing up for traffic safety here in Alameda. I'm just here to speak in wholehearted support of the Vision Zero program. And I'd like to encourage everyone who's here to participate in the outreach process for the active transportation plan in Alameda. This is an opportunity to really envision how our city can be safe and accessible for people biking and walking. And I also hope that parents will keep having your kids bike and walk to school. There is safety in numbers and the fewer parents have cars out there, the safer it will be for everyone. So keep keep biking and walking. And if you're driving out there, just slow down and please be more careful while we advocate for more systemic change. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Who's your next speaker? Speaker 1: Brittany and Mia Schrag. Speaker 0: Come on up. Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. My name is Brittany Schrag, and this is my daughter, Mia. Unfortunately, she is one of the statistics in our city. The very first week of school, she and a vehicle collided right outside of Wood Middle School. We've lived here for approximately a year and we came from northwest Arkansas, where we were working really heavily on a Vision Zero. So this is definitely a passion that I have. And one thing I will definitely applaud the city is the changing in the wording of Vision Zero, not just deaths and injuries, serious injuries, but life changing injuries because even though she was not seriously hurt, she only had some minor physical injuries. Even myself, I felt injured because my safety, my ability to protect my 12 year old daughter on her path to school was completely shaken and felt like the rug was pulled out from under my feet. I know there are a lot of families that walk with their children and and have expressed, you know, near-misses and close calls. And so this Vision Zero really is a bold move for the city. I think it'll help us shine in this area. And to whatever extent that we can push the envelope and really help us shine, I think will make us better for it. Help. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you both. Speaker 1: Jennifer Teague, then Jill Deer, come and cut her. Speaker 0: Hi. Come on. I remember the microphone. Okay. Yeah, my name is. Speaker 1: Nicholas, and I was one of the kids. Speaker 3: Who got hit. Speaker 1: And I just want to say that this bike safety, bike safety. Speaker 3: Car awareness thing needs to happen because now every time every time when I go to the go to the place where I got hit, I on my way to school, I feel paranoid that I'm just going to get hit again. And I don't want that parent paranoia to happen. And I just I just really, really need this thing to happen for my four kids safety, my safety and all other people's safety and how and how and how other people feel about what happens when people get hurt. Speaker 0: Thank you very much for sharing that. Mom, did you want to say anything? He said it all. Thank you so much. Thank you. And you know what, everybody? I have a rule in our meetings and it is my goal is always to get us out the same day that we started and we've got a bunch more items so we don't apply. We don't Bill, we don't do the wave. We just speak and listen. We're really good, respectful listeners and then I'll get you all home on time. So our next speaker is. Speaker 3: Jill de Giacomo Alameda resident. My two sons are back there, third lot too shy to come up, but my oldest son, Paul, is 11. A couple of years ago, he was almost hit by a car in an intersection. I was with him at events and all and Burnside. And the thing that really struck me about what happened was that when we were on the sidewalk, there was not a car on the other side. It was only when we were in the crosswalk that a car approached the intersection and clearly somehow did not see him and only stopped because I stepped in front of the car and put my hand up and screamed, stop at the top of my lungs. So that was a pretty scary occurrence and my kids do not bike to school. I'm too fearful. I don't know if an intersection like that could have all reds when there are pedestrians in the crosswalk. But that was the first thing that came to mind for me. Having experienced that in San Francisco, the all reds, I don't know if that is an inexpensive solution and expensive solution, but it seemed like a very practical one that would make a really big impact because if the car had been at a stoplight, it would not have been taking a left when we were in the middle of the intersection. So I just wanted to share my experience and really hope that nothing like that happens to another child or family. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for sharing with us. Speaker 1: POTTER Then Rachel Pluto, then Lauren Geringer. Speaker 3: Lo Potter bike walk Alameda. Love the vision zero but I do think the that the city really needs to step things up. I think the trouble with the plans that we. Put forth is that they take too long. We really need to get this done. We need to lower the speed limits at schools to 15 miles an hour. We need to have proper signage. And there really isn't any excuse to delay it. So on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda and the parents and the kids who have suffered through this, please do it now. Don't wait until the Vision Zero gets finalized. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: To hear Rachel Potter, then Lauren Gehringer. Speaker 0: Come on up. Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Rachel Plato, concerned parent and PTA president at Loeb Elementary School, as well as the host of tonight's Rally on the Steps. We have had six children hit by vehicles on the street since August. This is unacceptable. We as parents are extremely alarmed that our roads are lacking the flashing signs and there is no special speed limits for these zones. I personally believe the speed limit should be lowered to 15 miles per hour during school hours, as was recently adopted in Sacramento. We are not traffic engineers. We don't know what's best, but we do know that our children's safety is number one priority for the city. We need to make these changes to save their lives. At left school, we are situated between two busy streets Lincoln Avenue in Santa Clara. Currently, there are no school zone signs or road paint on our side for our school. We have 550 students that crosses four busy corners every day with only one crossing guard. This needs to be addressed immediately. Love School, formerly Henry Haight Elementary, is 100 years old. Why don't we have a school zone? This is unacceptable. We are optimistic that the city is hearing and sharing our concerns. What? We are thrilled about this voting on the Vision Zero initiative. We need immediate school zone safety improvement for our children. Safety. Please do the right thing. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker is Lauren Geringer. Can you. Can you hear. Speaker 3: Me? Hi. Speaker 1: I'm here tonight because eight months ago, while my kids and I were walking home from the elementary, a car sped through the crosswalk at Chestnut and Lincoln to turn right on red coming within an inch of hitting my son. If this had been a fluke, I would not be here tonight taking up your time. But I had seen so many close calls at this intersection prior to our incident and have seen so many since. Sadly, it turns out this problem is not limited to love elementary. Already the school year, six kids have been hit by cars on their way to schools throughout the island. Well, I'm heartened and optimistic about the Vision Zero initiative, and I look forward to participating in active transport planning. And while I truly appreciate the expressed intentions from the city to be making these urgently needed safety improvements, I can't wait quietly and patiently for those changes to be made while our kids are getting hit right now. Last March, at the time of my son's close call, I emailed the city to express my serious concerns. It was explained that nothing could be done until a new traffic engineer was hired. Eight months have since passed, and it's my understanding that that person has recently started work. I'm hopeful that means no reason for any more delay. I have to believe the city can do better than what is currently in place to protect our children making their way to and from school each day. We need immediate action before the ultimate tragedy occurs because we're getting really close. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And that was our last speaker. Was there anyone else who didn't take the speakers to Baton wants to speak? Okay, then I'm going to close public comment and then we'll have our staff report. Now, usually we do it in reverse, but like I said, I just want to make sure that people with children. Somebody wants to make a comment. Okay, come on up. Make your comment and then you can fill a speaker slip afterwards. Oh, hello. Speaker 1: My name is Denise Nelson. My son is James. He was hit in a crosswalk October. Speaker 3: 1st at Lincoln and Willow going to school at Lev Elementary School. And it was a miracle that a neighbor saw and came and got me. I was able to get there before the ambulance. When I arrived. Speaker 1: My son was bloody. Speaker 3: And scraped head to toe. When I asked how he was, he had to wipe the blood out of his mouth just to say, Mom, and this isn't a shock, actually, because we live on Lincoln Avenue and we watch cars race up and down Lincoln Day and night. But the mornings are horrifying. It is difficult. I cross three streets to get to Alameda High School for work and every day I have close calls every day. And I want my son to be independent. He's ten years old. I don't want to walk him to school. And the unthinkable happened. And I have to let him go out that door every morning. And my greatest fear happened. And I don't I don't want it to be. Speaker 1: Too late for someone else. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Okay. Those were sobering. Thank you all for sharing your views. And Ms.. Plato, I know that we emailed about the rally. I tried to move closed session along, but we we went to all seven, but we were thinking of you. So now we are going to hear our staff report. So Mr. Thomas said, come on in. Speaker 6: All right, listen, I'm going to tag team. This will move through this. Quickly so we can get to your questions and comments. The the tonight what we're bringing for for you is a council policy. This is a policy to sort of establish and clarify sort of once and for all how the city will plan for operate and maintain our local roadway network for the Alameda public. As all of you know, but and certainly public employees, we know our basic purpose here as city employees is protect the public health, safety and welfare. So there is nothing more basic than this than this this idea. Vision Zero is, as the slide says, sort of it's an international movement. It's it's something that more and more cities are sort of grappling with. And it really comes down to this very simple idea. It's not okay for a single person. Therefore, the goal should be zero for a single person to be to be hurt, to die, God forbid, or have life changing injuries on the public roadway system that we're providing for them. Accidents are not inevitable. We need to be working as a city and as a staff to make that number zero. This is not something that just sort of popped on us yesterday. The city of Alameda and the city council as early as 2017 started integrating this idea of Vision Zero into the general plan. Just this year, the City Council has approved the active transportation plan contract and the funding to really move this initiative along faster. On September 3rd, this council said there was a referral saying we need to move some of these issues and Vision Zero was one of those issues and really move things along. Shortly thereafter, at your request, we brought forth a change to the muni code so that we can start daylighting intersections. What that means is making it preventing obstacles and parked cars from being within too close to sidewalk crossing so so that we can improve the visibility. So we have less of these kinds of situations where people just don't see each other. And then we brought forth this policy which your council or your transportation commission considered on September 25th and unanimously recommended that that we move forward with. So with that little introduction, what I'd like to do is introduce Lisa Foster, who did all the heavy lifting on this, to just take you through about six or seven slides, sort of describing what this policy does in a little more detail. Speaker 3: Thank you, Andrew. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. I'm Lisa Foster. So the policy that we are presenting to you today makes safety the explicit highest priority in Almeida's transportation efforts. It requires the city to prepare a Vision Zero action plan that would be based on collision data to show us where the streets are most dangerous and develop specific actions to make the streets safer. That action plan would be developed by a multidisciplinary task force that would include members from staff members from planning, building and transportation, police, public works and the fire department, plus other stakeholder organizations like AUC DE and people who can represent senior disability, pedestrian, bicycle and other interests. The policy also requires city staff to immediately start looking into a few specific policies and standards that can be implemented quickly to make and inform our paving program to make our streets safer, such as crosswalk and bulb out placement and lane widths. It also requires us to implement Vision Zero equitably and to bring an annual report to the Transportation Commission and the City Council. The United States has the highest traffic death rate per capita in the. Compared to peer nations with 40,000 people dying every year on our United States streets. In Alameda between 2011 and 2018, 16 people died on our streets, an average of two per year, and 82 people suffered severe and life changing injuries, an average of ten per year. In addition to people being killed and severely injured, more than 1700 people reported pain or endured mild to moderate injuries from traffic collisions from all modes . And I do want to emphasize emphasize that Vision Zero is about all modes. Speaker 0: I'm going to stay a little closer to your microphone. Speaker 3: Okay. And for 2019, that would include the seven children who have been hit by cars for this school year, five of whom were going to and from school. I wanted to take a moment to talk about what the city is doing about that. Right now, we we're putting together post collisions, site visits with police department, public works and. This is new information, actually. Speaker 0: Yeah, no, I'm aware of it. Is there a slide for the audience? Yeah. Speaker 3: All right. I'm sorry. And planning, building a transportation in the cases with schools involved will invite the principal as well. The idea is that we will review any potential short and long term safety improvements from the standpoint of engineering and maintenance since enforcement and education. This is a new cooperative approach for the city and a bit of a practice run for Vision Zero. If that policy is adopted. The police department is also planning to do enhanced enforcement around schools during drop off, and the city has added a transportation safety effect on its website. I think U.S.. Back to Vision Zero. A core principle of Vision Zero is that traffic deaths are unacceptable and preventable. We have long as a society, accepted that traffic deaths are a part of the cost of transporting people. But we need to shift our mindset and this policy will help us do so. Equity is baked into Vision Zero. And that is because there are disproportionate risks for seniors, children, people of color, people with disabilities, people in low income communities, and people walking and biking. In fact, between 2011 and 2018, half of the Alameda traffic fatalities were people walking. And of those people, all of them who all of the pedestrians who died were 59 years old or older. Making it safer for seniors will be particularly important for Vision Zero. Vision Zero is uniquely multidisciplinary, bringing together engineering and street design education like a safety campaign or education maybe for truck drivers and enforcement. We know that people will always make mistakes. The idea is to create an environment where human error does not cause death or severe injury. For instance, we know that reducing speed saves lives. A person walking has only a 50% chance of living at all if hit by a car traveling 42 miles per hour. But that same person has a 90% chance of living if the car is traveling 23 miles per hour. We recommend that the City Council adopt this resolution establishing a Vision Zero policy to work towards zero traffic deaths and severe injuries. As we move forward, the policy will affect, of course, budget requests and priorities, and we believe it will increase partnerships across the city. The policy will not immediately achieve all of the necessary changes, but it establishes a framework to guide the years of work and effort that will be required to protect the health and safety of people using the public. Right of way in Alameda. Thank you for your time and we welcome your questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. Council any clarifying questions about staff report before we go into our discussion. Seeing then discussion motion. We'd like to start. Vice Mayor This maybe next week. Speaker 5: Thank you for that lovely staff report. I'd like to thank all the parents for being here. I'm sorry that you have to be. I've met with a number of you, have spoken with quite a few of you as well. And I think before I make my comments, I just want to make sure that it's clear that while there is a lot of work ahead, I think it's really also very clear to me in the first nine months that I've been here that you finally have a council that is taking this very seriously. You have a staff that is taking this very seriously. And we are making giant steps forward in the last few months on this issue because of the collaboration that we're doing. It doesn't mean that everything is going to get better tomorrow. This is a big battleship. It's going to take a long time. We need the community pushing us forward to do better, to identify issues as well. But but I do want to make sure that it's clear that, at least from my perspective, we have your back and we're here working on this. Vision Zero is really important. You know, it is shocking to me that it's actually now seven kids in the first two months of this fall, September and October have been hit in Alameda. Those kids were trick or treating. They were walking in their neighborhoods. Five of them were going to school. We pride ourselves on being the community where it's safe and family friendly. And I think people having to feel scared crossing the street just to visit neighbors to get to their schools is really, really important. I really, really problematic. We need to do more and we need to do more really fast. We need to change the way we are doing enforcement on our streets. We need to prioritize our enforcement on our streets on things that cause injury and death. We have the data to to to make those shifts. And we need to do it fast. We need to speed up. And in February, we unanimously directed staff to come back with a traffic calming program that didn't have requests for making things safer in our community. Take for 18 to 24 months, but actually started doing some things fast and, you know, being available, being able to make mistakes. One of the things I think we know and I worked for the city of San Francisco in my day job, one of the things I think some of us up public servants sometimes make the issue we make is that we are so afraid of making mistakes that it takes us forever to get to a place because we know that everybody's going to be mad at us. And so I want to say to our staff who I know is working very, very hard on this, that it's okay to make mistakes and I'll have your back if we're pushing this forward and we're trying to do we're trying to help people. You know, I and I'm confident my other colleagues will also have your back when we make those additional those mistakes. And we have to rip something out after we put it in because it didn't work quite the well. But we need to start moving faster. We need to start seeing changes. You know, I. Speaker 0: Okay? Yeah. Speaker 5: Oh, hang on. You know, to the two kids, I was hit by by a car when I was 13 on a bike. It it's not fun. It's going to get better. But as a community, I think we really, really owe it to you to build a place fast, build a place soon, so that before you're out of high school, you can feel safe and your parents can feel safe letting you go to your to go to school. You know, again, I feel like this is the start of a movement in Alameda. This is I really appreciate, you know, one of the I'm not going to name you, but one of the meetings I had yesterday said, you know, said, you know, I feel like encouraging kids to walking back to school and walking back to school days is almost criminally negligent. It is so unsafe out there. How are you telling kids to get on bikes and ride on these streets? We need to do better. I also you know, we had a school meeting, Tony and I, Councilmember de SAC and I met with the school district today at that. We talked about how we can start partnering with them better. We need the school and the school community's help as well. Visiting Love School. Last Tuesday I walked out. There was a big sign, says no double parking and there were two cars parked in front of it. Blocking traffic and now a bike lane. Know we need parents to also be aware that we are we are all in a hurry and whatever else but we all have a role in this. And lastly, I'm just going to say five of the four out of the five kids who were hit walking to school were hit by drivers that were found to be at fault. This is not a problem of kids darting into traffic. Kids on their phone, kids not paying attention. 80% of these kids were hit by adults who made bad decisions. And it is up to us as adults, especially those adults who are behind the £2,000 vehicle that does the harm to to take responsibility, whether we're parents or not. And we need to hold each other accountable and we need to hold each other up. And we need to encourage each other to be better. But again, mistakes are going to happen and we're going to have to change the way our streets look in order to to solve this. And I'm here for it. I think our whole council is for it and I'm looking forward to approving this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilor Vella. Speaker 8: I think it's a sad statement of things. You have two council members that have been hit while cycling. I was hit while I was in living in London. I used to ride from central London up to the boathouse every day because I was a poor college student and who couldn't afford travel fare on the tube. So I would wake up at four in the morning and ride my bike out and I had no other way to get to the boat house after my bike after my bike accident. So I literally had to get back up on the on the bike again. And I can relate. It's very difficult to do that and it's very triggering, having to ride past or go past places that you've been hit. I can't imagine having to do it as a younger individual. And I think that it's, you know, certainly a concern for all of us. I think actually the safest is to walk and bike to school. Are those days, the walk bike to school days because we have the critical mass and everybody is paying attention and looking out for that. It's sad to me that those are the exceptions and not the rule. Right. And I think that that's what we're all trying to get to with adopting Vision Zero. I'm looking forward to adopting it tonight. I, I also think there's a couple points. One is one of the things that we said we were going to look at was collision data. I think that it can't just be collision data that we're looking at. We also need to take into account the near-miss data because I actually think some of the most dangerous intersections are the ones where we have those near-misses. I think it's great that we want to work with the school district. I want to work with the PTA, not just the school district. I think that there's a lot that parents see in here that doesn't necessarily get translated to, say, the school board unless it's kind of the last step. And I think we need to engage with a lot of the parent group, parent groups. We have very active parent groups here in Alameda. And I think the types of things, the types of behavioral training changes that we need to see like around the double parking. And I think, John, I also sent a photograph of that to our city manager. Those are the types of things where if we engage with the parent groups, we work with our police department, we can kind of talk about the traffic calming and traffic safety things that we can do. I think one of the things that would be helpful is if our our traffic groups can actually look at the drop offs and do an analysis of how we can improve them and make them safer, whether that signage, whether that's enforcing the double parking and PTA. I would love to have your support with that because I also know that we're going to get some angry parents potentially that come out and say, hey, I got a citation. And you know what? I'll take a citation every day of the week if it means that it's safer for our kids that are going to school. So that's me. But I want to make sure that that we have the buy in from all of you and that that continues and we can continue to reinforce this narrative and get the behavioral changes. Another thing that I would like to see with the implementation of this is making sure that there is a place for people to report the near misses. I think that if that's something that we want to track, we need to have a venue for for actually tracking that. I see them all the time. And part of it is also we have these great east to west streets and that means at certain times of the year, the sun is directly in your eyes and it's directly in your eyes at drop off time. I have seen so many near-misses on Lincoln. In fact, I'm the one usually leaning on my horn who's stopped, and I am rolling down my window and trying to like wave cars that are driving eastbound. They can't see. We've we're starting to address these with their FAA cues. But I also think that we need to build in places for people to report it. And I don't think that Alameda peeps is that venue. I know that a lot of them get reported there, but that that's not really a solid way of tracking it because otherwise it looks like these this collision data is kind of sporadic and spread out in a number of different places. I also think that we need to be focusing around our schools because those are areas where we know we have a congregation of people at certain times of day. And so if we can, you know, our vice mayor talked about how we can kind of take steps to do this effectively and quickly. Those are areas where I think we should spend the time and start implementing now to have that effect that we want. So I'm very excited about this moving forward. And I the other thing is the 15 mile per hour I did have a question about the enforceability of that. I know that there's a bunch of different decisions that have been coming down from Sacramento on potential state preemption issues. I just want to make sure that whatever signage we have posted is 100% enforceable. And so if there's a reason that it can't be enforceable, I'd like to know why. I'd like to know what steps we can take to maybe either lobby for that change or something to that effect. But I hear what people are saying. I think obviously short of having people and the other thing is there's a lot of distracted drivers. Sometimes when I'm leaning on the horn, the person's literally looking at their cell phone, which is just completely unacceptable. And I do hope that we can start enforcing that a little more as well. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's Councilmember Desai. Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much. Thank you, everyone, for coming out this evening during the meeting as well as prior to the meeting, I think one telling statistic. That staff had given was that when someone is struck by a moving vehicle at 25 miles per hour, the likelihood of survival is, I think the number was 90% or so . And so what that means is that in a city where practically all the roads, perhaps except for five, in a city where perhaps all the roads are 25 miles per hour, they really should be no fatalities when it comes to unfortunate collisions where individuals are hit by a moving vehicle. So as a council member, where I want to focus my attention on is certainly an enforcement. There are that typically we talk about the three E's engineering, which is road configuration and a variety of other physical road diets, engineering, education. But I believe where we really need to step up is, is enforcement. And this is no knock on police chief where, Larry, I know he and his staff are doing a yeoman's job, but I certainly appreciate the fact that he is putting together an elevated or an enhanced enforcement package. So I look I certainly look forward to that. If we can get perhaps an off agenda report on the status of that, as well as the current status of our enforcement when it comes to dealing with traffic issues, the current status, you know, where we're low or not with regard to staffing and how the in Hance enforcement will will help and towards dealing with traffic issues particularly at the areas where they are most pronounced and clearly around eight school around out of school traffic fatal accidents are definitely pronounced. I actually on Friday morning I bumped into a friend Bob Poulos and he indicated that the week prior or maybe sometimes as soon on Lincoln and Walnut, a car had went into someone's front house. So clearly there's something about that area. I think what it has to do is with a narrowing of those streets, those cross streets and people driving too fast. And the reality is people should, should and must drive 25 miles per hour, because that's that's a great way of enjoying our built environment. Is that 25 miles per hour? There's no reason for us to rush through our city, and we should do that for the sake of the kids. And, you know, as as the lawn sign says, we should drive as if we're driving in our own neighborhoods. So when it comes to Vision Zero, certainly I support that. But most important, the area where I want to focus my attention on is working with city staff when it comes to elevating our enforcement. You know, it used to be back in the days in the seventies and the sixties, you know, Alameda was renowned. Certain parts of Alameda streets were renowned for cops. And we knew who the cops were who were just hiding out there on Otis Drive west of Grand Street or Otis Drive near near, near Know Park. And, you know, back in the day, as a as a kid or as a teen, you knew that. I don't think that that same culture is there anymore. And, you know, I get, you know, the engineering type of changes that we want to want to look at. But, you know, sometimes one of the answers is the thing that's the lowest hanging fruit. And I think that has to do with with enforcement. So that's where I'll focus my efforts. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brody. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for everyone who came out and who rallied. I wish she didn't have to do that. So I guess. Well, answer the question first. I mean, I, I appreciate all the work you've done. And, you know, Vision Zero is critical, I think. Before the vice mayor was on the council, we had a chat about this. And the transportation plan is will make sure you get Vision Zero in the transportation plan. So we got that in there. But I mean, this. No offense to all of you. This is like completely unacceptable to me. So I would like to know what we're doing now. I mean, a post I mean, post collision, you know, review is great, but we shouldn't have post collisions. You know, what are we going to do? What are we doing now as a city to fix this problem? So I'd like at least if we give if we approve this to give some direction, to have some, you know, report back quickly, you know, I can be a little passionate up here. I know. And I'm glad this meeting was not Friday morning when I woke up to the text that a three year old was hit trick or treating, because my first reaction was stop all truck cars in Alameda and give everyone training to recognize kids like WTF people seriously. And I've calmed down a little bit now, but I mean, I might. It was said in the slide and it was said in the speakers, this is our only job as a city is to take care of people and keep them safe. You know, depending on what number you look at, 70 to 80% of our budget goes to public safety, safety, safety. If we're not doing that, we're failing. And for these six kids, we're failing. There should not be any more. So I really want to know what we're going to do about it, because I am not the idea person. I'm the priority setting person to me. I'm telling you, we need to make this priority number one, stop kids from getting hit. So. Just be glad it's not Friday morning because it would have been a lot worse. So. There is no price tag either. You know, we cannot put a price tag on the life of one kid or one adult or one senior or one person of color or one disabled person or one anybody. And John, the vice mayor hit on it. You know, we're telling people, get out of your cars, walk to school, drive to school, reduce greenhouse gas. But then we're not creating an environment where it's safe for them to do so. It almost is like negligence. So we need to do better. And I want to I want to know what we're going to do now to do better, because six if that average stays up six and two months, you know, we're going to have another one in two weeks. Vision Zero is not going to solve that problem. I'm going to vote for this. I'm glad we're doing it. But it's not going to solve that problem. We're not going to stop a kid from getting hit two weeks by passing this today. So, I mean, whether it's the 15 mile an hour or any of these other things, you know, you drive down the street in this day lighting and you see a ten foot high truck parked. Nobody can see next to that. I mean, we need to start implementing these things today. Now, granted, we can't, but what can we do tomorrow? What can we do next week? What can we do? I want to know what we can do to fix this problem. And if it's a resource problem, I expect to have to come back to us and ask us to give them the resources, because I will do that. This is our number one job and to me this is our only job. But I know I realize we have other priorities, but to me this is our number one priority. The community has spoken and you know, to me and Nicholas out there, you know, you will recover from your physical injuries, but you are always going to be afraid. We can't have that. We can't have a generation growing up where they're afraid to cross the street or they get traumatized every time they walk past the intersection, especially if it's a young kid that's going to have to do that for five or six years. This just has to stop. So I expect our staff, they're really good at what they do. They're really talented. I expect them to come back and give us things that we can do now to fix this problem. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brody. And so first, I want to thank staff for putting this report together and all the work that went into it and this presentation. I also want to thank our city manager, Eric Levitt. And I think you might not all be aware, but he called his staff together and he oversees almost every department head in the city and and wanted to know what can we do immediately to start addressing this? And here and some of those points were brought out by Mr. Foster in the presentation. But but I would say as a city, I am sure that we are taking this very seriously. So I guess we have a council majority of council members who were hit by a car because when I was a senior in high school, I was crossing a street on a green light and a driver ran the red light. A driver ran a red light and hit me in the crosswalk. It happened in Oakland, but nonetheless I was thrown through the air and landed on my face and broke my nose and went off to college at UC Davis with my nose bandaged because they have to wait till all the swelling goes down before they can do the surgery. And I had a bandage and black eyes. It was a great conversation starter. But aside from that, I would say that to this day when I cross the street, my heart just kind of clutches for a minute. I'm amazed that my children have grown up to be independent young people because I held their hands crossing the street much longer than they needed me to hold their hand because I needed someone to hold my hand. So it's a terrible experience and I wouldn't want anyone, especially a smaller child. I was even a little aside. I was walking with a good friend of mine and she was of a more frail build and she had some health issues. And I told her to this day I was always so glad that I was the one closest to the car because she might not have survived. But anyway, so and I told Ms. played her when we were emailing about this that I, I am one you've heard me many times up here urging people to choose to walk or take your bike rather than to get in a car, because we need to do that for congestion, for our air quality, for in greenhouse gas emissions and all those things. But we have to provide safe opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists and we are moving in that direction. Not fast enough, I will grant you that. But I'm really excited about the improvements we're going to see on Clement Avenue and eventually on Central Avenue and some things that we've done already. I want to say that I think there are things that we can all do when we're out and about, because sometimes even if we walk and bike, we're we're also drivers. I call it mindfulness. It is so easy in our fast paced, busy world to just your mind slips and you're somewhere else besides just doing that one thing, being behind the wheel and someone I think it was Councilmember Vella mentioned that as the time changes now there are times in the morning when you're driving straight into the sun, you have to compensate for that and just slow down and be extra careful and education programs are always so helpful. Bonnie Wayman I'm not trying to do product placement anything, but Bonnie Wayman does a program for school children and adults actually of all ages on how to be a safe bicyclist, because you just you have to be a very defensive driver. So I would love to see those programs incorporated in the schools. But we're the city council, not the school board. When I'm out as a bicyclist, I try to reinforce the positive behavior of other drivers. So if a driver stops for me in the crosswalk, they get a wave and a smile and I ring my bell. And so, you know, let's do that. Let's reinforce good behavior. And and then as far as the near-misses and reporting them, I agree. Alameda peeps possibly not your best venue, but if you're out there and you happen to be taken a cell phone video, you can forward that to the army, the police department. And if you've got I mean, don't be don't be confront, you know, don't be confrontational. We don't want to escalate into something dangerous. But really, if you observe something dangerous and you have a cell phone at the ready and you're not driving while videoing that, that is something that the APD should know about. And as far as the one of the moms asked about, is it possible to do? I think it's what's called a scramble intersection where the pedestrians and all that can all cross at the same time. You see it in Oakland, Chinatown, you. It in some intersections in San Francisco in I think I see our our city engineer Scott with extreme is probably ducking down when I say this but I have said to him a residents have asked me could we do that on Park Street at Central and Park Street, Santa Clara on Park Street. Anyway, I he now has someone on his staff who has some experience in that regard. And so it's not. Nothing is ever as simple as Yeah, let's just do this here. But it's certainly something in the toolkit to be to be looked into. So I again, I thank everyone for coming out tonight. I also am concerned about these the collisions we've had because the pedestrian and the bicyclist is always going to get the short end of the stick. And so we we we need people to get out of their cars, but we need them to be safe when they do . So I certainly support adoption of this resolution and all the other good input from our council. Do I have a motion to adopt this resolution? Speaker 3: So moved. Speaker 0: I have a motion. Is there a second? Second I've got a motion from Councilmember Vela, second from Councilmember Odie. All in favor I and he opposed your abstained hearing. Then that motion passes unanimously. Thanks, everybody. Okay, now we're going to move on. We are still on the consent calendar. We are going back to is it five C? Speaker 1: Yes, because. Speaker 0: Again, we have a speaker and five secre. Do you want to announce. Speaker 1: Our recommendation to authorize the purchase of 35 vehicles consistent with the revised vehicle replacement policy in an amount not to exceed 1.311421 billion from Ford. Folsom. Ford Lake Ford 281,606 from Winter Chevrolet and 160 645 from Rebate Chairman.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Vision Zero Policy to Work Towards Zero Traffic Deaths and Severe Injuries. (Transportation 4227287)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7365

Speaker 1: Our recommendation to authorize the purchase of 35 vehicles consistent with the revised vehicle replacement policy in an amount not to exceed 1.311421 billion from Ford. Folsom. Ford Lake Ford 281,606 from Winter Chevrolet and 160 645 from Rebate Chairman. And our speaker is Pat Potter. Speaker 0: This part of the year. Speaker 3: I'm speaking on behalf of CASA and the Climate Action Plan, and I just really wanted to understand why public works is buying hybrid cars instead of electric and also what kind of engine is going into the Colorado pick trucks? Because I guess there's three choices, one of which is a diesel. And I don't know. But anyway, the big question, I mean, there's so many of these cars that you're buying. Why aren't they electric? Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I was our only speaker. Okay. So can we have a brief staff report on this item? Hello. Hello. Speaker 5: Good morning, Madam Mayor. City Council. My name is Forest Heidrich. Speaker 0: Publicly opposed to the microphone, if you would. Speaker 5: A little better there. A little better. Wonderful. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on the staff report. Speaker 0: So I was ready to pull this staff report just because I was really excited that we are buying hybrid vehicles for police and public works. And I understand the question we just had of why aren't they just straight EVs? Do you want to you want to address that? Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely. So, yes, we are very excited as well to provide hybrid vehicles to our PD, to our fire staff. And the reason why we are not purchasing all EVs comes back to the question of the infrastructure that's needed to charge said vehicles, to charge said vehicles. We have implemented EV charging out at City Hall West. We do have EVs planned for replacement where those hubs are located. And obviously our concern is for the success of those vehicles. So we want to go to the next best option, which is the hybrid platform. Speaker 0: But then does that imply that as we move toward adding even more EV charging infrastructure, we will be looking to make more of the fleet all electric? Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: Can I I'm just curious, when during the budget, when we talked about vehicles, etc., we talked about not just replacing 1 to 1. And it wasn't clear to me in the staff report if this is just a, hey, we've got a car that meets replacement, therefore let's just replace it. How, how did how did that part of the discussion about reducing the size of our fleet play into that General? That's a great question. So one of the takeaways from the budgetary meeting was for staff to review the current replacement step, not staff report administration bulletin. And so we did call out some of those minimum requirements for vehicles to be replaced. All of the vehicles that we have cited on this list meet those replacement requirements and are in what we would consider to be maximum use or critical job tasks throughout the city. Okay. Thank you. And then I guess the other question I have. I did notice that the the Chevy Colorados and the Toyota RAV4 are about the same cost. Given that Toyota is involved in fighting the car at the state of California's emission standards, have we considered whether or not we might want to go with somebody who is committed to our climate goals as opposed to was supporting multinationals who are pushing against it? Another great question. We selected that vehicle based on feedback from staff that day that the pickup truck in some cases was not working for them. We wanted to go to a small SUV that still offered them some cargo space and also had ground clearance in the event that they're used in disaster relief. But yeah, there are options out there. What if we were to ask to have that looked at, if there was a way to get something for the same cost that met the need but was with a more committed company, would that be problematic? Look at this. You have the option that you could approve this item with holding back on approval of certain vehicles. Okay. But you would need to just state what those vehicles were. Understood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions for now. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other Ken Brody? Speaker 4: Just a quick question. So if we do have a long term plan to move to, say, an all electronic fleet, I mean, do we have or will that include some type of backup, like some cities lost power for two or three days. So I can't imagine that you don't want your police force dying in day one vehicle wise. Right. So, I don't know. We have set up a plan to do that. Or is that will that be taken care of or. Speaker 5: Another great question. So looking at our fleet, as always, has a mixed fleet and not 100% EV, but always looking at how we can reduce greenhouse gases, whether that being from implementation of hybrids, driver monitoring, meaning we're not going to have these vehicles idling, shutting down when possible, but also looking at where we're implementing these EV charging hubs. Case in point, back to City Hall West, we have emergency generators at that location. So therefore, those chargers would still be online and we would be able to charge the fleet. And that's why that infrastructure part of that question is so important. Speaker 4: I'm just more worried about, you know, a long term power shutdown because we were spared this time. But, you know, who knows what will happen next time? Absolutely. Speaker 5: And the quick answer is that that's why you always want to have a mixed fleet available. You definitely want to have the EVs there. You definitely want to implement those wherever possible that you never want to be solely reliant on electric vehicles. Speaker 4: Okay. So hopefully building that infrastructure and some redundancy would be something that's brought back and feature, you know, capital budgets that we can make. Speaker 5: Definitely particularly. Speaker 0: In. Thank you. And I would just comment along those lines that even people who are driving gasoline powered vehicles found that the gas pumps didn't work because they relied on electricity for the pumps. But if the city were to say to go toward solar power on all of its buildings and then storing that electricity, that's that's certainly a backup for power. And there's other I do drive an TV. And during all the days when PGE was doing Power Shutoffs, a message would come up on the the screen reminding us to fold to your to recharge to your full capacity every night. So, I mean, who knows what the future holds? But I think, you know, part of the policy of getting away from fuel fossil fuel vehicles is trying to help reduce some of the complications that we've seen are causing these fires, the new normal. Okay, good points, everyone. Are we ready for a motion? Um, to approve this. So what we're looking at is this is a recommendation to do you know what it is, you read it. But anyway, the, the recommendation is that we authorize the purchase of 35 vehicles consistent with the revised vehicle replacement policy in the specified amount. The move. And Vice Mayor, did you want to add. Speaker 5: Me after Tony has moved? I'll second the motion. Speaker 0: We had a motion. A second. Okay. All in favor? Oh, yes. Speaker 5: I just wanted a comment for comments related to Miss Potter's comments. I did want to thank staff. The climate section of this staff report was very explicit about the fact that these vehicles will cut in half the the emissions that will be brought by these vehicles. It's not 100%, but I actually just want to thank staff for that. That was a very good use of that section and helpful. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. It's a good point. It was a it was a very informative report. Thank you. All the comments. Okay. We've got a motion. We've got a second. All in favor. Hi. That was Five Eyes. Right. Okay. That motion passes unanimously.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of 35 Vehicles, Consistent with the Revised Vehicle Replacement Policy, in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,311,421 from Folsom Lake Ford, $281,666 from Winner Chevrolet, and $126,645 from Freeway Toyota, Including Contingency. (Public Works 703)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7355

Speaker 1: Item six A public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending the general plan business park classification to clarify the allowable floor area ratio at Harvard Bay Business Park as recommended by the City Planning Board. Speaker 0: Hello. Speaker 5: Hello. Speaker 6: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. I am Alan Tigh, Planning Services Manager. So what's before you tonight is a minor amendment to the general plan text in the land use element. What it does is it's designed to eliminate an inconsistency in which the general plan describes the floor area ratios that are embedded in the zoning regulations at the Harbor Bay Business Park. So in 1991, when the City Council approved the zoning for the Harbor Bay Business Park, it allowed properties to be developed up to a factor of 2.0. The vision there was you we would get, you know, mid-rise office buildings. In 1991, we adopted a general plan that I would argue mischaracterizes at FSR as, uh, limited to point five when in the zoning that point five is that there's really a special provision that applied to the waterfront. So again, the zoning allowed properties to be developed there to porno for air, except an area that is along the water where they would be point five. The general plan characterized that as covering the entire business park. Speaker 0: So, Mr. Tai, if I could just ask you in layperson's language, could you just explain to the audience just how how would that work? And if they are and if they are, did you already tell us about that? Yes. Speaker 6: The floor ratio basically is the ratio between how much land you have and the amount of area that you have in the building. So, for example, in favor of two on a 5000 square foot lot means you can build a 10,000 square foot building. So that's really what it is. So over the last 20 years, there's been a lot of low density development at the business park. This really hasn't been brought to light, but in recent years we're seeing a lot more development in our business park. There's currently two projects in the pipeline Exelixis that wants to build an office building with 900 new jobs. There's also a new Hilton branded hotel that's proposed at the entrance to the Harbor Business Park that would be affected by this issue. So what the planning board and staff are recommending today is that you amend the text to just ensure that the description of their fair issue is consistent with what's already in the established zoning. Speaker 0: And this was a unanimous recommendation of the planning board. Speaker 6: That is correct. Speaker 0: All right. Do any speakers. Speaker 1: Specifically. Speaker 0: Ask any questions about the staff report? Do you have a motion item of approval? I have a motion to move. Approval to have a second. Speaker 5: A second with my thanks to the planning board that did a great job vetting this and getting to work. Speaker 0: I will echo your thanks to the the planning board. They they are one of our hardworking, heavy lifting boards and I appreciate that. Okay. Any discussion before we vote? Councilmember Desai. Speaker 2: I'm going to remain with the status quo. I think the point five is satisfactory. And if someone wants to come in with a higher floor ratio, especially over point eight, you know, they can do it. They can do that through a variance or special special permit use permit process they don't need. I don't think it ought to be by right. Because what you're saying is conceivably you can have a parcel like this. Point eight means that the building, if it's going to be a one story building, is going to be is going to take up basically 80% of that parcel like this. Or you could have a parcel like this. But instead of being a flat building, flat and squat building, you can have a stacked building. And so I think we really need to be wary of of what we're doing. I think the typical floor area ratio for light industrial is maybe around point three. Typical ratio for office in retail is .25, maybe point five. I think point five is pushing it as it is. And I think to give by right point eight, I think you're going to have. A lot of buildings that are, quite frankly, inelegant. One of the points of having a floor error ratio is to have a design that is elegant in terms of a design of a building, in terms of its massing and its height, that that is somewhat related to the area in which it is being built. Instead, I think you run the risk of having either these really, really short and squat buildings that are taking up a lot of parcel, or you end up having a lot of taller buildings that just seem out of out of whack. And so so I think it's wrong to to to go to point A and I would rather remain at point five. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de SAG. So we've had a motion we've had a second all in favor. I and I'm going to pose I take it. Okay, that motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Speaker 5: For clarifying. Speaker 0: That. Speaker 5: Comment. Wasn't that. That wasn't that was I don't think that was an accurate explanation of exactly what we just did. I just wanted to know if you want to. Yeah. So I should. Speaker 4: Clarify the. Speaker 6: So the current zoning allows most of the business park to develop up to 2.0 acre by right. The zoning calls out that the there is an area along the waterfront of the business park that is limited to point five. The general. Speaker 0: Plan. Sorry, Mr. de SAC. We didn't we didn't interrupt you guys, but let's let Mr. Todd finish his comment. Speaker 2: We voted. It's finished, and we'll move on. We had a chance to give it. Speaker 0: Thank you for stating your opinion. We've had another request to hear, Mr. Tai. Let's hear him out. Speaker 6: What we're trying to amend is the is how the general plan describes that FAA. Ah, and in 1991, what we put in the general plan, it was just probably poorly written to describe that the point five that we applied to in the entire area of the business park. Speaker 0: Not just along the waterfront, and. Speaker 6: That's what we're trying to correct. Speaker 0: Tonight. Understood. All right. Okay, perfect. We are moving on. So then we move to item six B. Speaker 1: Public Hearing to consider rejection of ordinance amending the Alameda Principal Code Chapter three Zoning Ordinance to Streamline Design Review for small residential additions, window replacements and green roofs. Update the work live ordinance requirements. Update the lot line adjustment procedures and make other miscellaneous administrative, technical and clarifying amendments as recommended by the Planning Board.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Plan Business Park Classification to Clarify the Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) at Harbor Bay Business Park, as Recommended by the City Planning Board. (Planning and Building 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7374

Speaker 1: Public Hearing to consider rejection of ordinance amending the Alameda Principal Code Chapter three Zoning Ordinance to Streamline Design Review for small residential additions, window replacements and green roofs. Update the work live ordinance requirements. Update the lot line adjustment procedures and make other miscellaneous administrative, technical and clarifying amendments as recommended by the Planning Board. Speaker 0: Hello, Mr. Tie. Yes, me again. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam May. Or members of the Council. So this package of zoning text amendments, we are amending chapter 30 of the aluminum code, which is the zoning ordinance. What it does is it would further our climate action goals and as well as some other goals and priorities in the city to reduce costs for housing maintenance in the city of Alameda. It would encourage job growth as well as bring our standards consistent with leaders state requirements. There are three areas that we are addressing with this package of zoning amendments. The first are design review streamlining measures. We are streamlining window replacements. This would include energy efficient windows. Those would be exempt from the zoning review. So no more public hearings. Public notices. Similarly, small additions. We were allowing. Speaker 4: Those that review. Speaker 6: Process to be streamlined as well as green or vegetated roofs. Speaker 4: So those have climate benefits. Speaker 6: With regard to the work live studios, we are proposing to expand to locations in the city where they are allowed currently work. Live studios are limited to areas in Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront. We are expanding that possibility to all commercial zones. We are also making revisions to the size, limitations or requirements for work live studios in order to get more smaller offices. We we've done a survey that kind of tells us that this small business space is needed in the city. And so. Speaker 4: That effort is consistent with the. Speaker 6: Economic development strategy plan. Last but not least, we are proposing changes to the property lot line adjustment process. That ordinance hasn't been updated in 30 years, so we are simply making updates to reflect best practices and to comply with current state law. So I'm available. Speaker 0: Any questions and do we have public speakers on this item? Okay. And so do we have any clarifying questions on the staff report or comment on that discussion or. Yeah. Okay. So that's the luncheon to discussion VICE. We're not quite very short. Speaker 5: I wanted to appreciate all of this again by listening the planning board meeting. They did amazing work on this. I appreciated the in terms of the development standards, the switch in parking, and I just wanted to flag and actually ask my council members what they thought about can't get into it's not agenda has been in terms of just discreet discretion if perhaps in the same way that we're changing parking requirements here if we could ask staff to to look at the city parking requirements citywide for the same reasons so they're having a big impact on our and I think are I time it time time is now to to have this conversation so anyway with I checked in with the city attorney he said that giving that direction would be perfectly acceptable tonight. So I'm ready to move this forward. But I also like to move it forward with just discreet discretion for staff to look at it, look at look at how we might make similar just to. Speaker 0: Bring it back to us. So. Yes, right. Okay. And you know, I realize I had a question on the staff report, Mr. Cherry. So on page three and I support this. But the the amendment would reinforce work live studios as commercial spaces and they could essentially be located in all commercial manufacturing and mixed use zoning districts. And the restriction on work with buildings to existing work, with studios to existing buildings will also be eliminated. My question is, and again, I think this is a good thing. We need more housing and we need more. This has been pointed out in the staff report. This is a way to help improve our jobs, housing balance. And and if you live and work in the same place, you don't have to commute. But how how do we take into consideration the impact on schools if work lives studios include significant numbers of families with children because I know some do already and it means how does that is that the school district's problem? How do we how do we approach that? Yeah. Speaker 6: So kind of the broader answer would be I think there are state laws that say that if there is development in local city, uh, we, the school fees basically take addresses the demand on school so that responsibility isn't necessarily the city's burden. But specifically with this issue work live studios there were other cities call these live work the reason why Alameda calls and work live is the emphasis on work therefore. Strict limitations are on the living portions. And with these amendments that we're doing today, we're further reinforcing that these are work spaces. And as sort of, you know, for maybe one or two individuals to live comfortably in, not really intended to big families. I mean, these are really studio spaces. Speaker 0: So I would just say, to be realistic, I mean, there is a move toward tiny homes, you know, housing people and a much smaller footprint. And so I don't think we can pretend that some children might be a part of these households. Speaker 6: So that absolutely is true. But in that in those cases, they're the work live studio and the occupants would have to keep a valid business license. It could it could happen. But the restrictions or requirements that we have in place are really catered toward people running businesses out of these places. Speaker 0: So many of you. Thank you. Councilmember Odessa, thank you. Speaker 2: I don't think that's correct, actually. I think when this ordinance was created, the emphasis was on work, not live. Yes. And the way in which that emphasis was put into life was by having a standard of 101,000 square feet of work space. So what you're doing here is you're reducing the standard of 1000 square feet of workspace to 500 square feet of work space. And. And that was that was the key issue back in 2003 when we dealt with this issue. Speaker 6: And we're also. Speaker 2: Voting against this back then and. Speaker 6: We're also adjusting. Speaker 0: This today. So I finish his comments first. Speaker 2: I think if someone wants to reduce their work area from the current 1000 square feet standard of 500, they can get a special use permit or a variance or whatever it is. Right. They don't need we don't need to change the rules. Right. They could conceivably. If if we didn't. Speaker 6: Yes. But what we are doing in terms of adjusting the minimum work requirement, workspace requirement to 500 is we're also adjusting the proportion of the living space so that if you do propose a 500 square foot work live studio, you will have a much smaller 30% living area. But that would also be legal. Speaker 2: It would be a nice micro area and people can, you know. So you're really turning this into from work, live to live work. So and frankly, I think this goes against measure and that was the heart of the discussion as to why I voted against it in 2003. Because now when you make it live work, you're basically making a multi-family residential and. That's just my opinion. Speaker 0: Thank you for sharing your opinion, Councilman Brody. Speaker 4: I mean, I have a different opinion. I would like it to be live work, and I don't think it goes that far enough. Instead of work live, because we had this discussion with was it building eight over at that Alameda point. But I appreciate all the work you guys have done to bring us to this. I wish we could have gone further. But, you know. Maybe next time. Speaker 0: As you come. It's all right. And I will just say that I spent all of yesterday in Sacramento at a policy meeting on addressing our state's housing crisis, and we just can't provide more housing fast enough for our residents and their ability to create jobs. And and things change. Times change in the in the intervening years since this first came about and some of you may remember it was rhythmic that wanted to go into the old clamp swing building and there was such an outcry and you know what would happen and it would turn Missouri on its head. And and it was just, you know, the start of terrible things to come and look what an amazingly successful enterprise, rhythmic, has been and has brought so many cultural offerings to our city, to our our school children, and also to visitors from outside of Alameda. And yet we placed so many restrictions on them that there haven't been very many of these work live buildings or spaces developed since then. So I you know, again, I think that changing times call for fresh looks at the way we've done things. So I'm certainly prepared to support this. Okay. Anyone else who do we want to make a motion? Speaker 5: I made a motion early. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Let's get going to make it again. Okay. Speaker 5: But I'll just I'll just point out to your point, the rhythmic that somebody was sued. Rhythmic was sued using our work live via Measure A and they lost. I mean, the the measure is the measure argument lost. So the courts have already found that this is not out of compliance with measuring. I just. Speaker 0: Yeah. No, no, no. And I was there was a lawsuit. Speaker 2: They found the previous ordinance. This would change that. So this this could conceivably be. Speaker 5: I would argue that and I don't mean to, but I would argue that this actually makes it much more difficult that this is going to be house the housing the housing portions in these units become significantly smaller. 150 square feet on a 500 square foot unit is not micro-housing. That's almost inhumane housing. So we can argue and we'll see. Maybe somebody will will sue. But I don't think I, I again, I disagree with the characterization. That's fine. When I read this, I was like, holy cow, this is going to make the housing side of this much more difficult. Speaker 0: But I think we can also rest assured that the city attorney's office has had a look at this before it it came to us. Okay. We've had a motion by the vice mayor, a second by Councilmember Vella, correct? Yes. Okay. All in favor. I oppose the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. All right. We move on to item six C.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Streamline Design Review for Small Residential Additions, Window Replacements, and Green Roofs, Update Work/Live Ordinance Requirements, Update Lot Line Adjustment Procedures, and Make Other Miscellaneous Administrative, Technical, and Clarifying Amendments, as Recommended by the Planning Board. (Planning and Building 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7362

Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. All in favor. I oppose the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. All right. We move on to item six C. Speaker 1: Recommendation to consider approval of the recommended parking enforcement program staffing plan and provide direction to staff on in long term parking management policy. Speaker 6: Okay. I think this is the last item you're going to hear from from us on this is to hear from you. This is a return trip on parking enforcement. We were here a couple of months ago talking about parking enforcement. I won't repeat that presentation, but the Reader's Digest version was we came to tell you, we were very concerned about our parking enforcement program here in Alameda. It was not it's we felt I think we use the word broken and we were looking for your direction on ways. We presented four different ways to sort of move forward to fix it. You pointed us in the way that we felt. We got actually a very good direction from the council that night. We came back to the office the next day and thought about what you would all said, and it became very clear to us very quickly the way we need to go, which is in brief, a sort of the approach that our neighbors in Oakland and Berkeley have taken, which is you build a parking enforcement division through a combination of full time and part time city employees. What we're bringing you tonight is we're asking once again for a sort of a a vote, telling us that we're headed in the right direction. So what we're saying here tonight is we'd like to start building and improving that that that our parking enforcement staff we would like to add two full time parking enforcement officers to start . This is, as you remember from the last report, this is not sort of like and well, let me just say what we're recommending, two full time non sworn parking enforcement officers, continuation of the existing part time positions. But we want to increase those salaries to become competitive with the part time salaries that our neighboring cities are offering . And this is sort of the first step. What we want to do is we want to get started. We want to start building this. Program getting a little bit better. We want to start charging for parking at the ferry terminals. We want to start doing a better job collecting at the meters in the parking lots so that our plan is to be back in front of you on on just the enforcement thing. Probably in another year, we hope to be coming back because we are with you and saying, you know what? We're on the right road. This is working now. Let's keep building. You know, we think ultimately we're going to need more than this, but let's take one step at a time. So this is sort of an interim, you know, year to two year effort, but we will be most likely back in the future. Our goal, if we do this right as a city, we firmly believe that this can be a program that pays for itself. Hearing the Vision Zero discussion today just made me keep hearing, you know, thinking about this people double parking in their cars in front of school drop offs. You know, why are we not enforcing that? Yeah, we should be enforcing that. These are the kinds of people who can be helping our police department, enforcing those kinds of things. You have been and our public works department has been out there daylighting intersections. You know, it's frustrating. And the last couple of weeks I've seen at least two or three people just pulled up and parked right in the red zone, parked and walked away. Like, you know, if we're not going to ticket them, that's the we can paint all the curbs we want. It's not going to make a difference. So we really it's it's it's time to get going on this. The other goal of this program, which we are going to build with you, we want to keep coming back to you, tracking the revenues, tracking the expenses so we can build it to what we ultimately need over time is to also relieve. Right now, you've got sworn officers who are trying to on the side manage the parking management program. We also see I think they're also trying to manage the animal enforcement program. You need your officers out there enforcing speed limits and enforcing crazy driving activity. So we're trying to build a program over time that not only helps us do a better job enforcing parking, but also lets the police department start spending less time doing this kind of stuff and more time doing, you know, the types of things that sworn officers need to be doing. So that's where we're headed. We'd like your sort of endorsement of this approach. If you say yes, keep going. We will be back very shortly with the necessary budget amendments, job titles and those kinds of things that would be necessary with the department to to it, really effectuate it and get moving. We are racing against the clock. We want to be we want to be charging for parking and enforcing parking not only in Park City and Webster Street, but at the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal when it opens next summer. So we will be back to you in the very near future with more decisions about parking and parking enforcement around AMI to point. But that's going to be more on the operational side how to charge what to charge those kinds of decisions. But we got to get this enforcement sort of piece of the puzzle sort of moving and in place. So that's all I have to say, and I'm available to answer any questions. Liz Acord from Public Works is here. We foster also our parking and we anyway, we're here. Oh, and Nancy is that. She's right. You're very competent in resources. Speaker 0: We know. And do we have any public speakers on this. Speaker 1: Side of speaker? Speaker 0: Okay. Comments, discussion. Speaker 8: Councilmember Vella So I think that this is I like the direction that this is going. I would say that the double parking at school drop offs is part of it. But I also know and I'm not going to name the specific delivery company, but there are certain delivery companies out there that literally have somebody that their whole job is paying parking tickets. And that's because they're trying to make as many deliveries as possible in a day. And I see delivery drivers double parked and parked in red zones all the time. In fact, I saw us daylighting an intersection and the next day I saw a delivery vehicle in that exact spot with the bright red paint on the curb. So I do think that we need enhanced enforcement in this regard. I also think that cost recovery, there is a forward path to cost recovery. I also think that stolen vehicle there's stolen vehicle cost recovery programs, and there's also programs for, you know, rental car companies where they've got rental cars that have kind of stayed out beyond. Where there's different bounty programs to get reimbursement. And I think that there's a pathway forward. So I think that this is a good start and I'm ready to support this. Speaker 0: Thank you. And he and Counselor Otis. Speaker 4: Yeah, I remember that discussion we had. I didn't know if you guys would be able to formulate anything out of that, but I appreciate the fact that you did. Credit to your credit. Yes, indeed. So I appreciate this is a really good step. And, you know, I always pay the meter on Park Street or Webster Street, so I don't I'm going to keep doing it. I don't want a $30.40 hour ticket. So I'm going to I'll make a motion to approve this. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 4: And, you know, pending some other people's discussions. Speaker 0: Any any other comments as councilor. Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Odie, seconded by Councilmember decide on favor. I. I. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you for bringing that to us. Yeah. And so much more coherently than we gave it to you. Okay. Let's see where we are. Well, people you made up for lost time. Um, yeah. Okay. Item seven City Manager Communication. Thank you.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Consider Approval of the Recommended Parking Enforcement Program Staffing Plan and Provide Direction to Staff on a Long-Term Parking Management Policy. (Public Works 224)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10152019_2019-7343

Speaker 3: Introduction of ordinance approving a 33 year lease with 133 year option to renew and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a lease with the Carnegie Innovation Hall, a California 501c3 nonprofit organization for 2264 Santa Clara Avenue, the Carnegie Building, and 1429 Oak Street, the foster house. This item requires four affirmative votes. Speaker 0: All right. And okay. City manager. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 4: I was going to say, I think the person who's representing the Carnegie group was trying to get your attention. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay, wait. If you'd like to. Um, well, come up to the microphone. This is coming up to the microphone because we're being recorded and no one can hear you unless you speak to the microphone. Speaker 8: I just wanted. Speaker 2: To say that nearly everybody who. Speaker 8: Put in a slip did not want to speak. They just wanted to. Speaker 2: Just check off in favor of. But well. Speaker 0: Here's the way it works. When we have that many speakers slips, it does limit people's times. Madam Clerk, do you suppose you could call the names and see if people really do want to speak? And that's what you want to let us know? Thank you. Yeah, it could be confusing, and I appreciate that. But we also have a rule about time of speakers. But let's see if we can figure out who wants to speak and who just wants to be counted as a supporter. Speaker 3: Kim Hayes. Speaker 0: You speak. So there's the speaker. Speaker 3: Jay Marlowe. Speaker 0: Motor City, and you want to speak. Speaker 3: Okay. That's Jay Kravitz. Okay. Susan's very. You want to speak? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 3: Uh, Lelia Gibson, little. Speaker 0: She here? I can't even have her speak. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 3: Pat Lambourne. Okay. Ariel. Very Fox Village. You need to speak. Speaker 2: Bob Dibble. Speaker 3: I'd like to speak. Okay. Andreas Kluger. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 3: You'd like to speak. Okay, so that gets us down to. Speaker 2: One, two. Speaker 3: Three, five wanting to speak, which is. Speaker 0: Your time. This one up to 3 minutes, people. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. That's how it works. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you for that clarification. We still will start out with the staff report. Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department. I am assistant community development director and Asset Management and I manage all of the city's real estate assets. And I had the great pleasure of working with Amanda Durkee in our department who led the, um, the process for the Carnegie. And I'm going to turn over the presentation to her. Speaker 0: Thank you. Great picture of you on the cover of the Army, the Journal. Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening. So I'm here. Speaker 9: Tonight to present the draft lease agreement for the Carnegie Building in the foster house. As most of you probably know, the Carnegie Building used to be the city of Alameda Main Library. It was funded by a grant from Andrew Carnegie and built in 1902 for a cost of just over $30,000. Together with the foster house, the Carnegie Building operated. Speaker 2: As a public library until 1998, and it's been vacant since. Speaker 0: Then. Speaker 2: It's also important. Speaker 9: To note that this is a historically important building for the city of Alameda, and it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Speaker 2: So in 2018, City Council. Speaker 9: Approved an RFQ to find a new tenant for the Carnegie Building in the foster house. The goal was to find an end user who would provide cultural, economic and or educational benefits to the Alameda community, who would restore and maintain the historic character of the building, who could provide for public use as frequently as possible, and who could demonstrate the financial resources necessary and the experience required to complete the restoration and operate the facility. The building does need a great deal of work to be. Speaker 2: Reopened to the public. It needs new electrical heating, lighting. Speaker 9: Sprinkler systems, additional restrooms, more complete disabled access, among other improvements. In 27, the city commissioned a report on the restoration and preservation of the Carnegie Building that estimated these costs at $4.7 million. Speaker 2: A 2018 update of of those numbers. Speaker 9: Put it at around $6.6 million. So through the RFQ process, the Carnegie. Speaker 2: Innovation Hall team was selected. Speaker 9: As the successful proposal based on a number of factors. One was the strength of their team. Their team leader, Michael Sturtz, founded and spent 13 years as the executive director of The Crucible in Oakland, which is a nonprofit industrial arts center. He's also an Alameda resident. Christopher Bentley is also on the team and he has a tremendous amount of experience in the restoration and preservation of historic buildings. You may be familiar with his work. Speaker 2: At the former. Speaker 9: Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. Their proposal included the restoration and renovation of the Carnegie Building, with all work to be done, according to the Secretary of the Secretary of the Interior standards with oversight and approval from our historic advisory board. Once the building is restored, they propose to open the Carnegie Innovation Hall, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the arts, education and innovation. They would hold workshops and classes on a wide range of. Speaker 2: Topics and have been holding. Speaker 9: A series of community meetings to try to identify the areas of most interested Alameda community. The exact programing is still in development, but one idea they're working on is the creation of a state of the art video production facility that could be used for anything from public broadcasting to YouTube content generation. In order to help subsidize the nonprofit, the Carnegie. Speaker 2: Innovation Hall. Speaker 9: Team also plans to rent out different portions of the space for private. Speaker 2: Events things like. Speaker 9: School proms, birthday parties and weddings. Speaker 2: So with that, I'd like to provide an overview. Speaker 9: Of the major lease terms. The length of the term is 33 years, with 133 year option to extend rent would be abated for the first three years to cover the cost of the restoration. Starting in year nine, there would be a four part what we're calling a for profit special event for. So this would be mean that 2% of gross revenue from the for profit special events would come back to the city after the first three $300,000 earned in year 34, the rent would be 2% of gross revenue, less any income taxes paid by the tenant. The workforce requirements include payment of prevailing wage and the commitment to negotiate a labor peace agreement. So I should note here that yesterday we received. Speaker 2: Alternative language regarding. Speaker 9: Labor peace from the Carnegie Innovation. Speaker 2: Hall team. I have copies of that here and I'll read it. Speaker 9: Right now as well. Speaker 0: I think that was in the letter the city manager provided. Is that correct? Speaker 9: That's that's correct. Okay. So the language is the project sponsor, their contractor. The city and the union shall collaborate on a prevailing wage job. This is the alternative language provided by the Carnegie Innovation Hall team. They shall, in good faith, identify and competitively bid to union, nonunion and local prevailing wage trades to the greatest extent possible. So we also put in a number of community benefits requirements in order to make sure that this building remains community serving over the life of the lease. I won't read this entire block of text now, but they include the number of people served by the organization, the number of courses offered, hours of operation, discounted classes for Alameda residents, and discounted rentals for Alameda community based organizations. And finally, we included a set of reporting requirements that would include monthly reports on applications for discounted community use, annual check ins accompanied by a report on program activities and finances, as well as a course catalog. And every five years, the tenant would have to provide a plan summarizing its program goals for the next five years. This would also be an opportunity for the tenant and the city to work together to adjust the community benchmarks if needed, based on any changes to their organization's goals and mission. So the staff recommendation is that the Council introduce an ordinance to approve the lease. This would bring significant benefits to the Alameda community, including a major financial investment in the historic Carnegie Building, resulting in the restoration of the building. Speaker 2: It would provide public access to a building that has. Speaker 9: Been vacant for 20 years. It would provide Alameda residents with discounted access to educational and arts programing, and it would provide a new arts and event rental space to serve as an anchor to our as another anchor to our downtown. So with that, my presentation is concluded and I'm happy to take clarifying questions now or wait until public comment. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Ricky. Does anyone, any councilmembers have any clarifying questions about the staff report? Is Shall we launch into public comment hearing? And then let's kind of have a go. Thanks, Mr. Ricky. Okay. Madam Clerk. Speaker 3: First is Kim Hayes, then Jay Marlowe, smarter than Susan Sperry? Speaker 2: Is it two or 3 minutes? Speaker 0: 3 minutes. And I'm just be sure to raise the microphone up to your height and be sure to kick into it. Okay. Speaker 2: Okay. There we go. So I just wanted to. Speaker 8: Convey my sense of excitement about the renovation of this building. Speaker 2: And I hope. Speaker 8: We all know we're talking about the building right across the street from city. Speaker 2: Hall. It's just centrally located. Speaker 8: Really does have an opportunity to become a jewel of this city. Speaker 2: I've worked up until about 6. Speaker 8: To 8 months ago. I've worked with Michael off and on on some writing projects. Speaker 2: So I've had a chance to get a real close look at a similar. Speaker 8: Historic renovation that he has done. And that's why I wanted to convey my excitement mostly as a community member rather than someone that's been working with him a. Speaker 2: Little bit off and on the building that I've had. Speaker 8: A chance to see that he's renovated. Speaker 2: Is, I believe, Edwardian. And it's just it's absolutely spectacular. Speaker 8: And so it's not just a renovation that you'll get, but it's something that will. Speaker 2: Be true to historic, historically accurate, to incredible detail. But on top of it. Speaker 8: He and I'm sure this is imbued in his shows and the. Speaker 2: Work he does, the the crucible. Speaker 8: Just a sense of magic. Speaker 2: And it's you have to see it really. I wish there was a way for you to see just the rooms that he's done. It's it's the the incredible historical detail. Speaker 8: But beyond. Speaker 2: That. Speaker 8: A flair and a. Speaker 2: Creativity that really captures hearts. Speaker 8: And so. Speaker 2: I just feel like it would be a loss. Speaker 8: To not, you know, have. Speaker 2: It really be here. Speaker 8: In the city. And I think that it would be just a beautiful, fabulous thing for everyone to enjoy and take advantage of. Speaker 2: I have a minute left. I know I don't need to use it, but yeah, I just I just really wanted. Speaker 8: To come here tonight and convey my own personal excitement as someone who's been out and about in Alameda for over ten years now. Speaker 2: And love this city. And I just love to. Speaker 8: See it become a part of the. Speaker 2: City. Speaker 0: Thank you. And you brought your baby, right? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker. Speaker 3: At Jay Malo. Smarter than Susan. Very than Bob Devoe. Speaker 2: Met a mayor, city council members and staff. Speaker 8: I am Marlo Schmitter, representing Carnegie Innovation. Speaker 2: Hall as deputy. Speaker 8: Director and speaking on behalf of Michael Sturtz and the team. While Michael is out of the country. Speaker 2: We are here to ask you to approve the lease in the spirit of what we negotiated over the past. Speaker 8: Six months with. Speaker 9: No further. Speaker 8: Changes. This has been a difficult. Speaker 9: Road our team bid on. Speaker 2: And won the RFQ. Speaker 8: Based on a specific set of requirements and our unique ability to fulfill those requirements. Speaker 9: To create a state of the Art Center for Innovation. Speaker 8: That pairs educational programing and entrepreneurship with. Speaker 9: The arts. Speaker 8: Performance, music and technology. We've reimagined Alameda Historic Carnegie. Speaker 9: Library as a place where all. Speaker 8: Are welcome to dream, learn and grow by design. Our community events and dialog. Speaker 2: Revealed deep community support for this vision. Speaker 8: We believe in this project. Speaker 9: However, the process undertaken. Speaker 8: By the City Staff and City Council has made this challenging. Speaker 2: The goalposts. Speaker 8: Keep changing. As recently. Speaker 2: As today, just before. Speaker 8: This meeting on issues regarding prevailing wages in union, labor, insurance and more, we are a group of volunteers working for no pay. We have done everything the city. Speaker 2: Has asked, including. Speaker 8: Meeting at the last minute with a union representative. We do not understand why the city feels it necessary. Speaker 2: To add a play to. Speaker 8: The lease agreement, despite the fact. Speaker 9: That we. Speaker 8: Already committed to writing in writing. Speaker 9: To a. Speaker 2: Prevailing wage job. Speaker 8: And that any general contractor we hire will, by necessity and in good faith. Speaker 2: Competitively bid. Speaker 8: To union, nonunion and local prevailing wage. Speaker 2: Trades. We ask that. Speaker 8: The City Council. Speaker 9: Approve a. Speaker 2: Lease today. Speaker 8: And swiftly move to sign that lease and thus allow us to promptly. Speaker 9: Get to work. Speaker 8: Fundraising and enacting this worthwhile project for the community. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 3: Susan's very involved about and Andrea's. Speaker 2: Clearer. Good evening. Nice to see all of you. I want to express my joy in that we're having a renovation and creative project with the Carnegie and I have always respected Mr.. Carnegie and his. And I'm grateful and I'm sure other cities are grateful that he provided us with a lovely building. And I have been upset for years and have expressed this to you about it sitting there, empty, this beautiful building. Now, I have a personal experience with that library. I was I am a retired teacher, and I used that library to check out books to help my students, etc.. I was making a trip to Kenya to view, of course, the animals, and I thought I would take a songbook along. I always had as taught English as a second language through the song. So anyway, I went to the Carnegie and the Children's Library and I found a paperback songbook. So I took it to Africa, to Kenya, and we were in a big, weird little bus, open air bus, and a storm came and the bus flipped over. So that night we were we only had a few loaves of bread and no chance. One tent, one tent. There were 15 people. So we had to make do around the fire. So I got out my book and we started singing these songs, simple American folk songs. Anyway, then the Maasai came by. They heard our singing, the Maasai, the Native people, and they came and they were fascinated by our singing. And then they started to jump in. I said, la la, la, la. And they, you know, started to jump. That's their, you know, thing anyway. So I, I, there were people from all over the world on this trip, Dutch, English, Hong Kong, whatever. And one of the parents said to me they appreciated me singing because that relieves the tension of this possible fado. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Ms. Very. And our next speaker is. Speaker 2: Wife. Speaker 3: Found and Andrea's Kluger. Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Bob Tebow. Speaker 0: When I raised the microphone. Speaker 4: Thank you for allowing me to speak here. I first wanted to say I really believe deeply in this project. As I mentioned in the last meeting, my daughter, I can remember taking her to the Carnegie Library and would love to see that that building come to life. As much as I believe in this project, I really believe in the people behind it. I think we really have a unique opportunity with this group of people, not only Michael Sturtz, as other speakers have talked about, but the group that he brings together. I worked with him on the founding of The Crucible many, many years ago, and to see the group that he brought together there that brings a passion, that brings creativity, that in with volunteer efforts can pull together such an incredible organization. I really, honestly believe that there is no other group of people who could make this happen. But what I really want to emphasize tonight is how challenging this is nonetheless. This is a group that has to raise $6 million. That is a tremendous amount of money. Once they've raised that money and can rehabilitate the building, they need to run an organization that needs that is able to support itself. And we all know how difficult it is to run an arts organization. So we really have an incredible group that I think is capable of doing that. But what's been troubling is the process and how we seem to have lost the cooperative spirit a bit in getting this this project done with some last minute costs added to the program that just are hard to bear. In particular, the play stood out. We did meet with Andreas Kluger, who we applaud for for bringing good jobs to the city of Alameda. We share many of the goals that he has. So we want to work with Mr. Kluger. But what we really need to be able to do is move forward with the project we have and to the volunteers and the funders behind us. Not so that there is an open door for added cost. So we're hoping that the city will approve the lease, but along with it, the amendment that eliminates the play that was added at the at the last minute to the lease. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker we identified. Next we here is Mr. Clifford One Oak. Thank you. Speaker 4: Good evening. Council members and city staff names Andreas Cleaver, secretary treasurer of the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council. I was first made aware of this project over two weeks ago and actually immediately told city staff, We are open to sitting down with the organization to work out the issues regarding the use of union labor for this project. I in fact was contacted by Michael Sturtz about 11 days ago on the fourth. We had a brief conversation where I indicated to him, Let's sit down any time. Let's work out the issues. And finally, with the assistance of the city manager, we were able to sit down only on Friday, over a week later and watch with. I sat down with the board in a very constructive conversation around the project, and I indicated that we would be. Typically, when we have a private project like this, we do what we negotiate a separate agreement, which is an all union job. And I indicated that we would be more than willing to simply to allow the application of the city's existing project labor agreement, which allows for nonunion contractors to bid with their labor force on this project. They indicated a couple of years the areas they felt were challenging. We said we can accommodate specialty work. We can accommodate we can work out a good coordination with volunteer work. There was nothing there that seemed to be a challenge in working under the plate. It's a prevailing wage job. The cost is exactly the same. Prevailing wage and union rate is the same rate. They can use nonunion contractors. There's an issue with regards to use of local hire. I think that's something positive working with the Alameda Point Collaborative as part of the agreement. That's something that can be worked out. So I feel very positive coming out of there. I thought we had made a significant concession. You know, my concern and then we heard nothing back until late on Monday because I said, look, let's talk if there's issues, get a copy of the agreement. You can look over it. I never really got. There was some texting I did with one of the board members, but they never indicated there were any concerns and or problems. Again, spoke even today with the board member going over what some of the issues are. There is nothing in my and I've been doing this a long time, folks, dealing with lots of different owners, developers, contractors. There's nothing in my experience that we cannot work out in terms of the application of the citywide project labor agreement. Again, it is a prevailing wage job and my concern is and the language they presented is nothing. It's just simply it's a prevailing wage job. Sitting in good faith is what we're doing. If there is prevailing wage with no oversight, I have a real concern that there may not be actual preventing wages being paid on the job . And that, I think, is a real issue of concern. So, again, my recommendation is include the requirement. There are still there's a few issues that we can sit down and work out. By the time the city manager executes the agreement will have those worked out. Again, there's nothing there that I feel would be a problem that we couldn't accommodate. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Again, that was the last of our public speakers on this item. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Then we were going to close public comment and move to council discussion. Who would like to start? Well, then I'll speak at once. Speaker 1: I'm just asking a. Speaker 0: Question of the. Speaker 1: Carnegie Project. Uh. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And we have the ability. Speaker 4: To be. Speaker 0: You representative. Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah. Hi. I. I'm just wondering if you can address the comments you just heard from Mr. Coover. That was. Is that your takeaway? Not the comments. Speaker 8: About the comments about. Speaker 9: The conversations that. Speaker 2: We had? Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 9: We thought they. Speaker 8: Were. Speaker 2: We think that we share a lot of values in common. Speaker 8: As we wrote in the message to the city council, um. Sent on. Speaker 2: Was that yesterday? Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. But he reflected that he felt that that the issues that were raised, that the answer was we can we can we can accommodate that as well. Were there additional issues that that that your project raised that you felt weren't addressed that required a difference in language? Speaker 8: Our biggest challenge. Speaker 9: Is that we are an all volunteer. Speaker 2: Staff, and our. Speaker 9: Ability. Speaker 8: To fundraise for this project depends on. Speaker 9: Our prospective. Speaker 8: Philanthropic funders having confidence that this project will move forward. And there have been so many. Speaker 2: Delays that we need to see action. We believe they need to see action. Speaker 8: Promptly. Speaker 2: For this to happen. Speaker 8: Um, working out the details of a play. Speaker 2: Um, I won't speak for Andrea's, but we. Speaker 8: We are not. Speaker 2: Familiar with the play. Speaker 8: Other than just having received it and having. Speaker 2: Scrambled to get the pro-bono. Speaker 9: Legal. Speaker 8: Counsel and. Speaker 9: Other volunteer. Speaker 8: Time that we needed to review it at the last minute. Speaker 9: We feel like we don't know how. Speaker 8: Long that. Speaker 2: Will take to work out and that's where our concern lies. So that's why we'd like to. Speaker 8: See the lease move ahead as amended. And, and. Speaker 2: We're happy. Speaker 9: To keep working together. Speaker 8: But and. Speaker 2: We think that our. Speaker 8: Actions would be the same regardless of whether or not there. Speaker 9: Is. Speaker 8: A long, drawn out contract. Speaker 2: We'd like to see everything move forward rapidly. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. So I think that gives us some good information to tell somebody. Speaker 5: I just have a couple of questions and maybe staff could answer. So there seems to be I think this is more for our staff. Speaker 0: There's it's it's actually unusual that we have a back and forth like that. So we'll see if staff can handle it. Speaker 5: So there seems to be some narrative out in the community about this process. I mean, could one of you or both of you kind of enlighten folks on, you know, how we actually go about property negotiations and, you know, who sets the terms and you know who has to sign off and that type of thing? Speaker 4: Um, sure. Speaker 0: And everyone, be sure to be close to your microphone so everyone can hear. Speaker 4: I'll start and then you can tune in or Nat can tune in. So first of all, I just want to preface that this process started prior to not only my arrival, but also prior to this current council being on as a city council's. Two of the councilmembers sitting up here weren't city council members at the time that this process started. So I will go to sort of the end part of it and then go the way our ordinances and our charter work is that the city council is the final approval. City Council sets parameters, staff negotiates within those parameters, and that in this case it's a lease. So it actually takes a supermajority of the council, which is for council members. Um, I would say a nuance here different than some leases that the city does is that there was a RFQ or RFP process, which is a little unique . Sometimes we don't always do that with leases. In fact, this may be one of the only times it was done with a lease. I think it's because of this unique project to try to see what interest there was. We we I guess we have done some other RFQ since I've been here. There's been a couple other projects where we've done RFQ, but that's not always the norm. So that that's sort of the the straight process. There's a lot of unique things that we went through on this. But, um, in the end that that's the process and then that may want to add a little bit to it. Speaker 2: So in the case of this release, we spent a good portion of time negotiating an alloy. And for that, for the community, it's a letter of intent. And it's really where you spell out the terms, the term of the turn in terms of the least, if there's read, what's going to be required in the least document. And the the applicant was focused on taking the alloy. I assigned the live from the city to start fundraising. And one of our meetings I said, you're going to fundraise on a non-binding letter of intent, don't you need a lease? And so they said, Yes, we need a lease. So then immediately we were working, we changed. We shift our focus to try to get to a lease document. So in that period of time, we were focused on 1 to 1 product and then we changed to go to another product and lease negotiations do take time because we can conceptualize in a line, but when the lawyers put the language in the document, then people really it's real and they really get an understanding of what's being required. So when we talk about length of time, it was mostly in trying to get the negotiations the right way. And then the other piece of the lease was we had proposed different sorts of sort of rent structures. We tried a traditional rent structure and because of the fundraising goals that didn't work, we tried a percentage rent structure. And because because of fundraising goals, it didn't work. So we, we were doing different iterations of what this deal would look like until we could get to the final product or the product that's in front of you tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's helpful. And I can't get it. Please. Speaker 4: I had one other thing that I forgot too, which is important in the RF queue. It did talk about that. So for instance, one component that they probably create, some of the length of the negotiation was that it ever requested that the applicants or proposers. That they could agree that the city was open to a short term lease or a long term lease and then defined by parentheses under long term was, I believe, 50 to 66 years. I believe in this case it's a 66 year which is on the long end of that RFQ. And based on that, that's a lengthy commitment by the city. And so I think that does bring out other issues and other other issues, as well as probably the length and the time of the negotiation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Levitt. Did you want to continue, Mr. Rudy? Speaker 5: What did the city attorney want. Speaker 0: To the attorney Mr. Chang, please. Speaker 1: I'll be very brief. I just want to summarize that the council has the ultimate authority to enter into a lease, any lease, including this one. And the council gives direction to staff and will ultimately make the final call on important terms in the lease. And the ultimate outcome of the lease. And the RFQ, while it's an important selection process, does not bind the Council and any particular term or applicant, and the council retains ultimate discretion here. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I just want to interject quickly that similar to the Carnegie Board and this council member is a group of volunteers working very hard for no pay and we take our work very seriously. So did you and continue, Mr. Rudy? Yeah. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the point I was trying to make sure came out here is there was no agreement at X days ago or whatever. I mean, the agreement, if there is one, will take place when the five of us vote and if four of us agreed to do that. So I don't know where this misconception got out there, but it's out there. So I hope that's that's that changes. I want to ask a question about there was a item brought up in public comment about insurance. I mean, can you talk about the risk to the city? Because this is going to be city owned property, I mean, regardless of how long the lease is. Right. So I know there's a lot of talk about volunteers and, you know, volunteers don't have insurance. You know, if if I go in and volunteer and, you know, build something and blow something up, then, you know. Speaker 0: May I come in here to the insurance? Speaker 5: So you kind of understand. Well well, I can defer to you if you want to if you want to ask about it. Speaker 0: Well, and I will just maybe streamline a little bit. I, I think this is a very exciting project, but we also have a fiduciary duty to our city. This is a significant asset, notwithstanding the fact that it's been sitting vacant. So we need to make sure that this is a solid business deal and we understand, you know, volunteer labor and all the creativity. My two issues are the labor issue because the next item we're going to hear, three items combined have to do with a housing crisis and people having a hard time affording to even live in the Bay Area, including our teachers, artists, creative types. And so we we do need to make sure that people are properly compensated with the appropriate agreements and the insurance when is paid for me and I do understand from staff communication that insurance and increasing insurance limits is something that staff has discussed from the beginning and was told that we just can't afford higher limits. But this is very concerning to me because a building and the work that's about to be undertaken, if, you know, hopefully we can come to agreement, does have certain risks involved. This is a beautiful, iconic building. It needs to be protected. So with that, if I stayed on the street, we can see the city attorney to to give his input. Speaker 5: Sharon, I think you framed it quite well. Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Sharon. Speaker 1: And so. Speaker 5: Mr. Levitt, either one. I mean. Speaker 0: Anyone can jump out, although I will disclose it. The city attorney and I discussed the insurance issues just this afternoon and not for the first time. Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I'll start and my colleagues can can chime in. So like many provisions of this lease, insurance is one provision that I think the city and the applicant has probably had many conversations about and perhaps we'll continue to have conversations about in some ways. The current proposed lease provides for an insurance that provides both property insurance. It also provides general liability insurance. I understand that there's been conversations about the coverage limits. The coverage limits in conversation had a wide range. I believe the current lease provides for 2 million in general liability. I believe the. Further provides a property insurance provision that does not that does not yet contain a particular limitation. And it also provides for a builders insurance, which contains a $1 million limitation. And and finally, I believe the current lease provision provides for the lessee paying the city and added insurance premiums on property insurance. And so these are the existing terms that. Speaker 0: Were in and the change from year to year. The. Speaker 1: That's right. And so certain provisions have a five year C five year market rate adjustment. It does not it is not insurance rates are not adjusted from year to year. And I don't believe every single provision has a a CPI adjustment, only one. And so I understand that staff and the applicant has had conversations about whether or not, for example, some of the coverages should be increase up to the improvement limit which the applicant is putting in 6 million. And whether or not 6 million is a more appropriate number for some of the provisions. And I further understand that there are some concerns with respect to costs associated with that. It's, of course, ultimately the council's decision to decide tonight how much insurance is appropriate for this building. Speaker 0: Well, I think we would work with the city attorney's office, which includes the risk manager, and take direction from that. I don't I don't pretend to be an insurance expert, but I do think that we need to have adequate insurance. And I think the numbers I'm seeing are too low currently. Speaker 5: I guess the fellow can't go. Speaker 0: No council wrote. I'm sorry. Councilmember Desai I think. Speaker 5: The follow up question to that would be, I mean, hypothetically, something happens. I mean, who pays out? Speaker 1: And so that depends on what happens. Speaker 5: So let's say there were I'm sorry. Let's say let's say there was a $6 million damage. Speaker 1: Right. Let's say there is a fire during the construction phase. Worst case scenario, $6 million of improvements have been put in on a very last day. There is a fire and all of those improvements were lost under the current proposed lease. What would happen is that the applicants insurance would essentially cover the city's deductible. The city's insurance deductible is somewhere between 250000 to 1000000, depending upon the type of damage. And then after the million, the city's insurance carrier would kick in for the rest, which would obviously have some impact on the city's future insurance premiums. So it will be a it will be joint coverage at that point. Speaker 5: But ultimately, our taxpayers would pay for our increased premiums. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 4: Councilmember Fine. Speaker 0: So public comment is over. If there's an insurance expert who or. Speaker 5: I trust our city attorney, I have one more clarifying question. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to break press in a little, sir. Are you are you handling the I? No, no, no. I'm asking you a question. I'm asking you a question. Are you handling the insurance policies for this building? I didn't ask that question. I didn't ask you that. I asked you. May I ask the question and then I'll see if you can come up. Thanks. My turn. Are you handling the insurance policies? Securing insurance policies or discussing with the broker for this building? Come on up. Speaker 1: Yeah. He's on the negotiations. Speaker 0: And I'm sorry. Remind me your name again. Speaker 4: My name is Bob Double. I'm sorry if I was rude there. I just wanted to make sure it was understood. Speaker 0: It works best if you one person speaks at a time. And since I'm conducting the meeting, please listen to my question and then I'll call on you. You've got the floor now. Speaker 4: Okay, I just I just wanted to say that in the RFQ, it had specific insurance requirements and we went out to procure exactly those requirements. When we looked at getting property insurance, we could not achieve a quote because no insurer wants to take a single historic building and provide a quote on that. What they will do is do a quote on a group of buildings. So we went back to the city and said, we're happy to reimburse the city for the property insurance, but that really needs to be secured by the city because it's just not possible on a single building versus a group of buildings. So if there is an. Speaker 0: I mean, I just inject a question here. So you're happy to reimburse the city for the cost of the premium and the deductible. Speaker 4: So that the deductible is covered by our liability insurance, which we have $2 million as required in the RFQ. And then the city's insurance would cover the greater loss. However, the cost of that insurance will be borne by the organization, not by the city taxpayers, as that is the key point I wanted to make. Speaker 0: So so if a claim is made and the deductible first has to be met, your organization will cover that. Speaker 4: Our insurers cover the deductible. The insurers for the city cover the larger claim, but we cover the premiums for that city insurance. Speaker 5: And that really wasn't my question. My question was, if there's something if there's a casualty or a claim and our premiums go up, who pays for that increased premium? So that was the question. Speaker 4: That is us. We are responsible to reimburse the city for the premiums for the property insurance, which we're unable to secure ourselves. Speaker 0: For the increased premiums in the event that there is. Speaker 4: And we pay that. Speaker 5: I wouldn't say that in the least. Speaker 0: But is that in the least? Speaker 5: I think you're saying you're paying if if you're part of our pool and it costs us an extra, you know, let's just say $1,000 a month, you'll pay that. But in the event of a casualty or a claim, the thing burns down has to be rebuilt and our rates go up. You're not telling us you're going to pay for that increase. Speaker 4: If that affects the whole city's rates? You are correct. We are simply covering our our share of that specific building as covered by the city's property insurance. Speaker 5: So you are right. Mr. Shen. Speaker 0: Okay, let's give us a minute to hear from the city attorney. Why don't you stay up here for just a minute? We might we might have another question. Mr. Chen. Speaker 1: I think I think we are generally in agreement. The the place where we differ is that when there is a claim, our overall property portfolio's insurance rate goes up across the board. And that is where this lessee would not be obviously covering us for our over across the board increases that would that would happen if there was a fire that caused $6 million of damage. Speaker 0: And that's the part that the taxpayers bear. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Do you have any suggestions for how to address that? Speaker 4: I do not. There's no way. Speaker 0: And you need to speak into the microphone so we can capture what you say. And the answer is no, you don't. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I think I have one more question. One more question. Speaker 5: Okay. So on this this thing that we just got, this proposed language, I mean, it seems a little wishy washy to me. I mean, what what does that actually commit? Commit the project sponsors. Speaker 0: May I ask a question of you? How would you make that language less wishy washy? Speaker 5: Well, I think what we have in there now would be pretty good or using the city's language, which does provide a little more flexibility. But I guess my question is, what are they committing to by signing this? Anything? Speaker 0: And who would like to take it? Turn it? They're drawing straws to see who has right to this. Speaker 5: They work well together. Speaker 0: One of you or both of you? Mr. Shay. Speaker 1: It is my understanding that the commitment is for a prevailing wage. Only. Speaker 5: Only a good faith identify and competitively bid. That's kind of that's not an ironclad. Commitment. Right. I mean, all you got to do is say, well, what we tried in good faith. Speaker 0: The councilmember, they said, did you want to say something? Speaker 2: Okay. Well. Speaker 5: I'll just leave it at that. Speaker 0: Okay. We heard you, Mr. Eddie. Who else would like to say something? Mr. Desai? Councilmember Desai. Speaker 6: Oh, great. Well, thank you very much. I think we can all agree as a community, whether you're here tonight or watching on television or perhaps subsequently reading about this in the local newspapers, that we want to bring the Carnegie back. And I think we set up a process starting in 2018 to that end. And it seems as though the process was quite clear from the outset with regard to the RFQ that and that there has been some changes, unfortunately, or maybe some miscommunications that unfortunately hadn't been clarified until here we are in the fall of 2019. But when I look at the RFQ, you know, I look at a process that is clear in terms of what we expected of people who or entities that were going to bid on this project. We set out a we asked for seven elements within. With regard to the statement of qualifications that each proposal was supposed to speak to, they were supposed to, for example, speak to the project team, the concept of their proposed use and previous experience in doing a project like this. Item number four was What's their restoration plan? And number five was financial qualifications. Number six was operations plan, and number seven was community benefits. In addition to bringing this building to life, how would this benefit the community? So the request for qualifications or RFQ was pretty clear in terms of what we expected of people who were going to submit responses to the RFQ. More interestingly, the RFQ also identified a selection process, and through that process there were going to be two selection criteria, two rounds of selection criteria. So we weren't just going to look at one and we weren't just going to look at entities in one swoop. But we were going to take our time and to make sure that we do two levels of analysis. And when we in each of those rounds, we looked at, among other things, issues of financing, design and construction operations. So each of the rounds we were looking at, for example, financing. So it seems to me that we're suddenly dealing with these issues with regard to what's called the play in a substantive manner now that perhaps we could have dealt with, you know, from the outset in early 2018. Or perhaps we're dealing with issues with regard to insurance requirements that, as Mr. Devoe had indicated, was detailed discussed leading up to today. But. But there seems to be some new issues with regard. Speaker 0: May I just I want to just correct a misstatement. There is no insurance requirement in the RFQ. Speaker 6: Oh, I know, but but they had indicated that they would talk about. Speaker 0: The statement and I typed was the RFQ had specific insurance requirements. I think there might be some confusion but I'm I'm just re read the RFQ. Yeah. But just just didn't want the public to be misled. They're not saying that. Speaker 6: They they had testified as to discussing insurance issues. So. So it is what it is. So the the concerns. Speaker 0: That I have I'm sorry. The city manager has his hand up. I'm going to defer to him, Mr. Leavitt. Speaker 4: To add either clarity or confusion, I'm not sure yet. Speaker 0: I we call them you guys. Speaker 4: It was discussed in June and July. Insurance requirements. I have not found the provision in the RFQ that was referred to. So I'm like the mayor. I'm not sure where that's being referred to. Speaker 0: If I'm missing something, you. Speaker 4: Can in July. Speaker 0: Pointed out. Speaker 4: The staff level. Speaker 0: At a staff level. Okay. Speaker 6: And the play wasn't in the RFQ either, is that correct? Speaker 0: Miss McIntyre, did you want to add something? I, I did this thing where I read in expressions and you get mildly horrified. So I just. Speaker 2: Thought, sorry about that. The insurance provisions came up as part of the yellow I. That's the standard provision that we discussed. So that's where that came from. Speaker 6: It was the play part of the RFQ itself, and. Speaker 2: There was a play question during the RFQ process. And at the time the response was that there was not a play required for the project. But throughout the throughout the the RFQ, there is language that says that the council has the last say on what happens. And so, I mean, with every lease the council has the last say. I mean, you've edited leases from the dyas before. So this is not okay. I know. Speaker 6: But but it was but it was expressed that a play was not. Speaker 2: There was a question about that. Yes. And at the time the response was prevailing wage would be required. Speaker 6: Because I believe that seems to be the the bugaboo here is that, you know, the the costs associated with play. And I don't think it's really the cost because it sounds as though that they're updating the prevailing wage. And so to the extent that they're opting the prevailing wage, whether it's union or nonunion workers, the cost more or less will be the same. It might be administrative. Speaker 2: Issues that that people are concerned about with regard to. Speaker 6: The play. I mean, is it is it true that it's like a 20 page document? Do we know how many pages that deal with? Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with the PSA. Most of my projects have not yet have not had to be subject to them, which is changing. So, no, I don't know. And the city manager should feel free to add to that. Speaker 4: Well, I'll. I'll wait. Speaker 2: A while. Speaker 6: I guess I'll just. Speaker 0: Tell them. Speaker 6: That. I'll just finish by saying. To me, it seems as though we had a process that was clear in what we as a city were looking for on behalf of the residents of Alameda who want to see the Carnegie restored. And we found a certain number of respondents from which one or two came to the top. And out of that, we selected this entity who appears to have a professional background in regards to putting together performing arts centers and as part of their team members professional backgrounds in terms of restoring buildings, perhaps of historic architectural character. To me, it just seems as though it's not just honoring the process, but honoring what the community and the residents expect of bringing back a jewel like the Carnegie in the best of all worlds. Let me just end up by saying, in the best of all worlds, we would have Andrew Carnegie coming back and writing a check for $10 million. But, you know, we all know that's not going to happen. And we all know that, you know, this is, you know, our best stab at bringing back the Carnegie. And if this nonprofit doesn't survive through the process or isn't given a chance, a fair chance to survive. The process. And what are the chances of anybody else surviving through the process? Because anybody else is going to have the same insurance questions and the same play questions. So, you know, I'm satisfied that the process has been served and the public has been served and that we have had adequate vetting and that we should start moving about and finally finalizing the contract and dotting our I's and crossing our t's. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de so did Mr. 11 Administration want to add anything or should I go into the next house? Speaker 4: Mr. Leavitt I guess I'll just add one thing, and I understand what Councilmember De Saag is saying, but I will say, and I totally respect where the applicant or the proposer is, I understand that they felt the process was in a certain way. I'm not sure. I again, I came in halfway through through the process. But I will say, when you look at the RFQ and you look at what happened again, I go to the years and term and said short term, which is in my mind usually five years or less or under our ordinances, three years or less to long term, which it defined in parentheses as 50 to 66, and they want the long term. So when you start talking about different conditions, a lot of things come in and out of those discussions. Now, maybe communication could have been better. I'm not going to disagree with that, but. But there's a variety of things. And again, we come back to it's ultimately the council's decision. And I will say on the labor peace part of this agreement, what the condition is, is that they would come back. With whatever their agreement is so they can come to an agreement before tonight. You gave latitude that they could come back with something that would satisfy the council a later date, as long as it's before construction. I understand that if I were on the U.S. side, I'd probably want certainty, a certain level of certainty. But that is a provision that was to try to create some flexibility in the provision. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela. Speaker 9: Since we're and. Speaker 0: Everyone's be close to your microphone. Speaker 9: And I apologize, I was listening in. I have a four month old at home who is cutting his second tooth. So. But I was listening to the the comments and conversation. I do want to address this issue of labor peace. I think it's kind of ironic considering that Andrew Carnegie is also known for the homestead strike in which it was there was a bloody unrest that we're now having this conversation, that irony is not lost on me. So I don't necessarily wish that the man would come back. I think that that money was earned on the backs of workers who literally died. That said, I do think that there is an issue where, you know, saying that there's this issue of labor peace. It's not a 20 page document. It is literally Section 4.18 in the proposed lease. It is one paragraph long. And I would like to know, I guess, what is so objectionable to the statement that the parties agree that it is in the best interests of the project, that the construction work proceed in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner through the use of skilled workers to ensure that the work is done in a high quality manner. And specifically, Councilmember de SAG. We've had conversations. You know, I think generally as a council about how important some of these historic buildings are and how important it is to maintain them, and that the work be done in a manner that is is not going to risk the building. And I think some of the things that some of my colleagues up here have expressed have reflected around making sure that this jewel of the building is, in fact, preserved, and that we want to make sure that the work and the construction on it is done in a way to preserve the historical attributes of the building. And, you know, for the applicant, you know, this is going to go before our historic advisory board. This is going to go before our planning board. It's not just that, you know, here we're going to agree to this lease and then there's no more oversight. There's actually the secretary of the interior standards are going to apply. There's going to be a lot of things. And to that end, I think at least what I'm looking for in this language in section 4.1.8, is that we make sure that, again, that the work is done in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. I think essentially the proposed language, I think what rubs me wrong is that it essentially accepts the section 4.1.4 prevailing wages, which is actually the longer section, and then rejects this other section and specifically rejects language that I think is very important and I thought was something that the entire council had cared about. I also think that what we're looking for is that there are conversations around making sure that workers, again, Councilmember Desai said, well, if they're paying prevailing wage, I think the concern is worker misclassification, which can often happen where contractors are saying somebody is an apprentice when they're actually a journeyman. We want the most skilled workers working on this project. We want to make sure that the building does in fact remain intact. And I think on buildings such as the Carnegie that are this old, a lot of the improvements are going to be things that people don't necessarily see. Those are going to be the most costly improvements. Right. The retrofitting, things that don't necessarily have to do with the beautification of the building, but the functionality of it, making sure that the electrical is up to code and and done well, the foundation, things like that. So I think there is a lot of work being done here. I think that the term as drafted by the city would allow for pro-bono skilled labor to be to be, you know, something that could be negotiated over. But it's still you know, this is a seven city building. And so ultimately, it's our discretion whether or not to approve the lease. And I think that that was made clear in the RFQ. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Next wait. Speaker 2: Minutes. Speaker 1: So thank you very much, everybody, for coming out. I appreciate this. This, I think, has been a frustrating process for all of us. And I think it's unfortunate because I think this is a very exciting project and one that I've been excited to see move forward and whatnot. I you know, I'm going to say I think some mistakes were made on all sides. I think what we're seeing tonight is the result of what happens when you bring negotiations on the public and allow Facebook cop Facebook comments to start driving conversations. It puts people in different camps and I make my hope would be in the future that we can learn from this mistake and, you know, kind of have good faith negotiations together behind closed doors. And, you know, as as they're meant to be, so that we can come to agreement and and celebrate when we're when we're coming together on leases. That said, I'm not here to chastise one side or the other. It's clear that the Q&A said something about plays without ever checking in with the city council. And then when it finally did, I mean, what I will say in defense of my council colleagues, regardless of what side they are, we talked about this contract for the first time four weeks ago. We had no say so at the end of the day. Unfortunately, there were a lot of discussions and I can imagine that it felt very frustrating to feel like you were coming to the end for a you know, everybody will say hooray and we'll be there in two weeks in this thing will get signed. But unfortunately there were comments and whatnot. And, you know, we need to be better as a city in identifying the process and the timelines the RFQ said will be signed in June. It was reasonable to expect that you'd be signed in June. That may not have been a reasonable timeline, but it was a reasonable expectation. So I'm sorry on my behalf for that. I am heartened, regardless of the comments that are being set up here, that what I heard as one of the big sticking points around the project laborer projects, PSA play, I heard both sides stand up and basically agree that they've met, they've talked and they actually don't have any disagreements. They're concerned about the time it will take to sign that agreement. What that gives me hope is regardless of how we move forward tonight, whether we change language or whether we keep it, and I, I think that we probably don't have the votes to change it if there were people who wanted to. I think we can probably find both sides committed to making sure that we get a signed agreement that works for everybody really, really quickly. It doesn't have to be a really long process. And that's what I heard is the sticking point. So I just want to put that out there. I think if we all if this moves forward, I think if we all if we all commit to that and and I will ask or offer to help in any way I can we can get there again. I think, unfortunately, getting lost in this, we're in the weeds of of a contract. Thank you, sir. We're in the weeds of a contract, which is not always very fun. And yet here we are talking about a very exciting project that I think everybody up here will be excited to see happen. And my interest is figuring out a way to get us there as quickly as possible, because I would like to see this project open. But yeah, there may be some conversations that still need to happen. Speaker 0: Okay, so I'm going to haven't had a chance. Speaker 5: To comment so I can do those after. Speaker 0: Yours. Yes, you can. Thank you. Okay. We're here now. We've spent a lot of time listening to this. Let's see if we can come to an agreement. This is what I'm hearing and I think what might be possible. Speaker 5: But I haven't said anything, so don't assume what you're hearing. Speaker 0: So. So if I could just finish my comments and I will see the floor to you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So I think it is important to pay prevailing wage. And I could not agree to a contract that doesn't that doesn't agree to that. I'm glad to hear you had a good conversation with Mr. Clever, and it doesn't surprise me. He's a very reasonable person to work with, and I know he's also met with our city manager. My question would be how to verify that prevailing wage is being paid. And for that I would defer to folks who are more experienced in that field. And the other thing is the insurance part is is important. And it wasn't in the RFQ, it was part of the negotiations. I wasn't in any of the negotiations. But the report back I heard was that it was something that was pushed back against and pushed back against. And that's certainly the prerogative of of the applicants. But as a councilmember, I want to know that we feel that we are adequately insured. So I would want those assurances there. I, I don't disagree that this whole process could have been done better, but I don't really see any a lot of benefit in sitting here and and, you know, regretting how things happened. I think this council is already in the process of changing some processes going forward. So we we avoid some of these situations because we do want to be fair to both sides. I mean, a lot of people have come together and put their time into this project, and we respect that. At the same time, as the city manager has said the least, that is being asked for and that we might agree to is 66 years altogether in the first 33 involve no payment of rent. I mean, admittedly, there's this $6 million that will be put into it, but there's there's still a lot of moving parts to be established. But so with that, I think that I would would like each side to recognize that we all have our valid concerns and those are mine. I want to see that prevailing wage is paid and I want to see that the insurance amounts are adequate. And beyond that, I think the council has spent a lot of time in close session with some of the conditions that will come up later at these various approvals for the use of the project. And as I think my council colleague, Councilmember Vela noted, there are still more approvals. I mean, the planning board, the historic advisory board probably in the reverse order, but and the Secretary of the Interior, whatever it is. But I would like to see if we could roll up our sleeves and figure out a way to move this forward instead of taking this can down the road. But let's see what we've got killed somebody. You want to tell me how you disagree with everything I just said? Speaker 5: No, I just thought before you. Summarize what we say. It would be great to hear from all of us. But moving on. Speaker 0: To something I said. Moving. Thinking for myself. Speaker 5: Moving on. Speaker 0: Your turn. Speaker 5: So I too want this project. But I also want this project. So that means I want it to be successful. And I want it to be successful in the renovation. And I want it to be successful in the operation. And the operation is as an arts and cultural center, not as a wedding venue. And there was I think there was an article posted on the Internet on one of the blogs yesterday stating there are some concerns about that. And I just got a chance to look at the performance today. So really haven't had a chance to, like, dove into them. So, I mean, there are some concerns. So I'm going to take a little a little risk on that. But. I think people need to understand that, you know, one, as was clear, clearly pointed out, this is the body that makes the final decision. So it was a little bit disconcerting that there was a lot of noise on social media. So moving moving forward from that, there's this language about good faith that gives me a little heartburn. And one of it one of the things I have heartburn over is we're supposed to have a good faith negotiating process on this lease. And yet a couple of weeks ago, we started getting bombarded by people coming here and we couldn't speak about it. And there was falsehoods and and things put on the Internet and on Facebook and people getting riled up. And there was demonstrations. Everyone has a right to speak. But, you know, we're trying to enter in a relationship with someone that we trust with one of our jewels and jewels of our community. And we want to make sure as a council that we trust that person to fulfill the vision that we all have and that the community all has. And that was all shared. And when we're supposed to be bargaining in good faith and negotiating in good faith, and then one side decides to negotiate via Facebook, then to me that's not good faith. So and then I see this again. I look at good faith, and I got a chance to share and it's public information if anyone wants it. The cost estimate on the renovation where the $6.4 million came from and it came from a contractor, I think the name is Body Construction and they have labor claims against them. So when I see a language that says all we're going to do is good faith, yet their estimate and maybe they never go with that person, that's fine. But you know, the person that's giving them that number that we're supposed to rely on, you know, it was already being accused. And I understand if you're accused, you're not guilty of anything. But they've already been accused of violating labor laws. So I will say to that point, though, the best way to ensure compliance with prevailing wage standards is to have a play. So I think it's kind of a win win for everybody. You know, two quick final points. I mean, I'm not going to get into like what was said and what meeting and what was in the RFQ and so on. But we do have a citywide play. So I think going forward, staff should put that in RFQ and should understand that when there's Q&A sessions, that it's not that whether it applies or not applies that we have one as a city for our public projects. And it could or could not be subject based on the discretion of the council. So that's my suggestion there. I mean, the deadline for coming to an agreement is when construction begins. And that's quite a long time, if I understand correctly. Right. So it's we're not saying that you have to do this in a week or two weeks or even a month. So I think there's enough flexibility in that paragraph as it's written for 18 or even adopting the city, the city place tender, which is even more, I guess I would say liberal or loose that the parties should be able to do this. But I'd like to see this done. We just opened the high school, which by the way, was also done under a play. And it is beautiful and it's amazing. And I think we deserve to give our community another amazing project right next to it. And I hope this group can do it. I would be willing to vote for this lease as it is, make no changes as a gesture of trust to them. But I got to say, you know, so far I have a little pause, but I'm going to take a little risk. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember J. So I wanted to say something. Speaker 6: Well, I just wanted to quickly. Speaker 0: Post your mike, please. Speaker 6: Yeah, I just wanted to quickly say that, you know, whatever the outcome of tonight, I really hope that the proponents of the Carnegie Innovation Hall continue to stay the course and try to to work things out with with all the different stakeholders that have been mentioned tonight. So I know it's kind of difficult right now, but I hope you really stay the course, whatever the outcome of tonight's decision. Speaker 0: Okay, Councilmember Vella. Speaker 9: So I think that I'm I'm in support of the vision of this project. I'm in support of what I think our hopes, all of our hopes collectively are for it. I do think that I did initially have a lot of concerns. I still do have concerns of how financially it's going to work out in the long term, especially relative to it essentially becoming a glorified event center. I think that that is a concern. I think that there's going to be but I think it's addressed in the lease. That's that as proposed. I think staff did a really good job around kind of. Shoring that up. And it's not to say that I don't I don't think that the project proponents were intending on that. I just. Who knows how things are going to be in ten or 20 years? As the city manager mentioned, this is a back and forth. And one of the things that I personally was concerned about was the duration of the lease. I also just don't I normally don't like long options. I think if we're going to give a big option to me, at least for for, you know, that's giving a lot of value to the tenant and we're the landlord. And so giving a lease option that's three years, in my opinion, is, is a big give. And I understand why the applicant wants that. I'd be amenable to it, but there's something that I want in return and that has to do with the language in section 414 and 418 . And so, you know, to me, that's the trade off. I also think that, you know, I don't want a a project where, you know, somebody gets injured on the job or that we have people that are working on this historic building that aren't, you know, qualified to do it and something happens. And I think that that goes to to the insurance question. So I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to do that. We approve the lease as written and that. Madam Mary, thank you. Your concerns about the insurance are are valid. I think that that comes at a substantial cost to taxpayers. And so I'd be amenable to that additional direction if you would like. Speaker 0: What I would what I would, I guess, add as a friendly amendment is that I would ask the staff to work with the Carnegie folks to just make sure that the concerns that I think almost all of us expressed. For insurance protection and protection of the city are met. Um, I don't think we need to micromanage that and. Okay. So do you. Do we have, um. Speaker 5: Madam second. Speaker 0: Let's see. I okay. So, yeah, that's your position. Even Mr. Zinn. Speaker 1: Yes. On the insurance provision, given that the council's direction appears to be relatively broad, what the Council be amenable to, to approving with modifications to the insurance provision as to its adequacy as ultimately approved by the city manager. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Yes. Second report. I would second. Speaker 0: That. Good. Yeah. Okay. So you would second the motion. Speaker 5: With your. Speaker 0: Amendment as as restated by the city attorney. Okay, so we have a motion second and discussion. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 6: Yeah. Madumere I would like to honor the request made by the proponents by replacing the language that's in there right now with regard to the play with the language that was provided with us tonight through this handout. That's a that's the residents had requested that. And I believe that the professional team is substantial and I'm confident that they can do the job. Speaker 0: Are you offering a motion? Speaker 6: I am. Speaker 0: Is there a second? Hearing, then the motion fails for lack of a second. So we have a motion on the table discussion. Vice Mayor Knox. Speaker 1: Thank you. I'll be really brief. I'll be voting for this motion. I think it's an exciting motion. Again, I just want to go back to what I heard was the two parties that need to have a discussion saying that they're not that far apart. Anything we can do, I'm going to just you know, and I know you have concerns and you're driven. So I'm looking over the building trades, whatever we can do to sit down and, you know, I know you'll work in good faith. I bumped into Mr. Cleaver at a at a after one of our meetings when it became when it came out into the open that this was one of the issues. And so we discussed it briefly. And my takeaway, I came back and called the city manager and I said, I don't think this is going to be a problem. I think they really do want. He lives in town. I think he understands the project. I think they are going to sit down and work and work really hard. And so whatever you can do to commit to helping them get to, you know, I know we're giving them to ten construction hours. I hear your concerns about the fact of wanting and wanting certainty for your for your funders. So whatever we can do to knock something out really, really quickly so that if you have problems, you can come back and talk to the city manager quickly as well anyway. And I'm sure you have partners up here on the dais who would be willing to help in that way as well. Speaker 0: I think probably we are giving that one to staff to work on, but I know they've been working hard on it already. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. I abstained. Okay. So the motion passes for two one. So. Well, then. Thank you, everyone. Okay with that, I'm going to take a five minute break before we move on to our next three combined items. Thank you. Manager. What do we do with the city manager? Speaker 2: I'm to make him. Speaker 1: Make the motion to separate them. Speaker 0: In a minute. Let's get back to. Speaker 1: Where my head. Speaker 4: Is. Cake. Speaker 0: Okay. For the third time, would everyone please take their seats? That means everyone, please take your seats. Thank you. Okay. We are going to resume. I've had a couple of requests for further agenda changes, counsel. So when I have counsel's attention, I'll resume. Okay. My requests were we have an item that is currently last on the agenda. It's six G and authorization of a five year agreement with Ranger Pipeline for the cyclic cyclic sewer replacement project. And that was just a concerned calendar item that got moved to regular agenda because of the price. But we have a request to just let it be heard now quickly, because we don't think it's very long. That's one request. Hold that in mind. And then the other was Miss Potter. Debbie Potter says that she believes it would. Speaker 2: Be. Speaker 0: A little smoother if we combined to the two housing authority related items, which is six D and nine A. But to hear the the of 60. No, no we know this is Debbie is saying rather than have all three of them heard together the one that has to do with the rent ordinance just changing the temporary and

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 33-Year Lease, with One 33-Year Option to Renew, and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with the Carnegie Innovation Hall, a California 501(c)3 Non-profit Organization, for 2264 Santa Clara Avenue (the Carnegie Building) and 1429 Oak Street (Foster House). [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Community Development 001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10152019_2019-7293

Speaker 3: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of councilmembers A.D. okay. Speaker 0: And so I'm six. Is being presented by the then skipper. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: And I'm thinking there's maybe a different slideshow. Speaker 2: Yes, I'm forgetting it. I'm sorry. There goes now. Speaker 8: So Mayor and city council members. I'm Vanessa Cooper. I'm the executive director of the Housing Authority of the city of Alameda. We're very happy to be here tonight to give you an opportunity to tell you. Many of you already know the many things that we're doing. And to talk a little bit about the activities of the housing authority and some of our processes. The first thing I want to do is to tell you a little bit about the housing authority. So, um, so as many of you know, we have a housing authority that's been around for a very long time, over 75 years . It's governed by a board of commissioners, a number of whom are here tonight. They are seven Alameda residents, two of whom are tenants. They're appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. And I report to the Board of Commissioners. Speaker 0: So I am going to ask for quiet in the audience, please. Thank you. Yeah. Speaker 8: So one of the things I want to do at this point is really to acknowledge the board of Commissioners and the staff. I'm going to talk about lots of things that we have done, particularly in the last seven years, but also over more time than that. And what I want to tell you is that the board of Commissioners and the staff are committed to this mission statement. So we provide quality, affordable housing, we encourage self-sufficiency. And we're really looking at community inclusiveness and diversity in housing. What I'd like at this stage of the city staff and the housing authority staff and commissioners could just raise their hands. Speaker 0: Actually do stand up so we can see you. And I want to thank the especially the board, because you, again, are these stalwart volunteers. So thank you all for being here and staff who I know are very hardworking. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 8: Well, thank you to them, really, to for us to be able to put this presentation together tonight. We have four main business areas. You'll hear a little bit more about this as I go along the section eight program, otherwise known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Property management, housing. Developments of building new housing and the city housing programs. What I want to do is to tell you how they're funded, first of all, because sometimes this is a little bit misunderstood. 80% of our funding comes from federal funding, as you can probably imagine. A similar proportion of our oversight and regulation and reporting also comes from the federal government, primarily from HUD. We get about 10% of our funding from the city. That includes the rent stabilization program and a subsidy that runs out in 2026 for Independence Plaza. That's the 4% to the bottom. So these are our key achievements since 2012. And that's not to say we didn't have hundreds of key achievements in the 60 something years before that. But I really did want to focus on this period since independence. We are categorized as a HUD high performer. We've been there for five years. It's not a small feat. And with that, we've received a number of multiple oh, so our number of national housing awards. And one of the things we're really proud of, and I know the rent staff are going to talk about this later on, but is the rent stabilization program or the rent program? You've had many meetings on this. It's a good program that we work with the city on. Last year alone, we resolved about 300 landlord tenant disputes. We also have developed 51 new units of affordable housing. That's Everett Commons and Littlejohn Commons. And this has a cost of 38 million. But I want to tell you, that's really an investment of 38 million into Alameda, into jobs that we brought to Alameda. That's money that we raised from other sources. We have worked with the city, particularly with Debbie Porter and the other staff, to secure the land at North Housing. I think this is about the most exciting, affordable housing project in the whole Bay Area. Really, when we're looking at 500 or so units, we're creating a neighborhood, and I think that's something that we are really excited to work with the city on. We have expanded the Section eight funding by 40% and that's in seven years. That's an increase of an annual $12 million investment in Alameda. And then one of the things I'm most proud of or proud is perhaps not the word, but grateful for the staff for doing is to serving is serving homeless veterans in Alameda. I want to make a special mention now. I can't give you their name, but there is one landlord who will take all our homeless veterans and she works with them every time, whatever situation they're in. And it really is a huge benefit to us and to them. We don't just build housing for ourselves. One of the things I see as the mission of the housing authority is not just for us to make new buildings or to rehab our current buildings, but it's to help other affordable housing developers in Alameda. So we've been really pleased to issue project based vouchers to City. A couple of years ago. We did the first project and a couple of weeks ago we did the second project, which is really exciting. The next thing and really what I see is an accomplishment for the staff and really a benefit for the tenants is that we've established free voluntary social services and I'm. To come onto this a little bit longer, a little bit later. Our social services provider, Life Steps is here. They work with all our households. And as you can see from the numbers, they're working with them often on a daily basis. Similarly, in terms of self-sufficiency, we've from our self-sufficiency program, we've had 17 graduates earn over $200,000. They can use that for school or work. One day I got a check request for a car and I'm like, Who's buying a car? And actually what it was is it's someone who's graduating from the program and needed a car to go to work. And so those are the types of things we're trying to do to help with self-sufficiency. And then again, with the assistance of the city and the school district, we have a unique partnership which takes funds that the school district are supposed to develop or is supposed to is the wrong word, but dedicated for the school district to use for housing. And we have partnered with them to house school district employees at Rose Field and Everett Commons. And I think this is so important. We really want our school district employees to live and their families to live where they work so that they can really be focused on the work they do. The last point, and I really do think this is a credit to the staff and it's frankly, this number has not actually changed even before seven years ago is our customer satisfaction survey. So we survey tenants, we survey Section eight participants and Section eight landlords. And for the last seven years we've had an 89% satisfaction rate which, you know, we're in the business of providing services. We can't meet everyone's satisfaction. But I would say being close to 90% year after year is pretty good. So I talked a little bit about resident services. As you know, we're not just about housing. We are in the business of housing. We're in the business of people keeping their housing, maintaining their housing and growing in their housing. And these services are there to help people thrive. They help to help people when they hit non housing challenges, a loss of a job, perhaps a health crisis, a family crisis. And so not only do these provide essential services, they actually bring great things to our properties. So the food bank come to us and run. What we have is a farmer's market. It's not a food bank delivery. There are tents up. People choose their own food. We also have residents who participate as volunteers, and that's been really beneficial. We're very happy with our partnership with the Boys and Girls Club, which is a very long time partnership. We know that after school program is essential for all our families of all incomes, and we have a number of other services here, including legal services. We work with the City Police Service. We do transit. My personal favorite is the International Children's Reading Room. For those of you who haven't visited, we converted a laundry room. It's beautifully colored. We had books donated by the community. The officers will come and read there. It's really a great opportunity to see what's happening at Esperanza. Yes. Yes, at Esperanza. Speaker 0: I've been there. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 8: So I think perhaps I should say that the Alamo does actually relatively unusual in having a housing authority for a city this size. There are some cities that have that, but we actually serve proportionately more than many cities of our size. So in the Section eight program, we have about 1500 households. I want you to bear in mind as we go through the presentation, about 64% of them are headed by a senior or somebody who is living with disabilities. And we certainly have a more diverse population than the city of Alameda and the county at large. Similarly, in our units, we have over a thousand families living. So I mentioned you saw where the money comes from and the money comes through grants and contracts and other arrangements. But with every type of money or service requirement, there are obligations and regulations. And so what you see here is a number of areas where we are accountable or where we partner with individuals. So clearly HUD at the top three or four different state departments. And we have contracts with the county of Alameda. We work regularly with Congresswoman Barbara Lee's office and then certainly with the city of Alameda, citizens, staff and elected officials. And then our board. So our board meets every every month there's public session. The board members can be contacted directly as well. And we have something and if you don't mind me doing a small pitch that I think it's important for people to know we have a resident advisory board. Now you have to be a Section eight participant to be in this. But we are always looking for members on what the Resident Advisory Board does is help us set our five year plan and our one year plan. And I really would encourage people who want to have more involvement in the housing authority to volunteer. You'll see our public notices going out next month. You can talk to any of the staff here, but we would love to have your feedback and your input. So one of the things I also like to say is the housing authority is different, perhaps from some other organizations. We are working with low income families. We're working with people who may well have disabilities or may be seniors. And we have a number of obligations, and that includes fair housing laws. Sometimes we have to say no to people and they don't really understand. It's because we have to be fair with everyone. We have to have equal access. We have that means that we have to apply those laws fairly. We can't make a side agreement with one person or another. We also have privacy laws. And I heard Mr. O'Reilly talk about perhaps when the council has been in a bind and not been able to comment on things, we have exactly the same problem. So what we have is that tenants clearly and their advocates can talk in public. The housing authority is not able to respond. In fact, it's our duty to protect those people's privacy. They can sign a release of information form. And we have those here. We you know, we're happy to release information if we get that release, but otherwise, we're not going to be able to comment on specific cases tonight. A number of other areas, we provide free translation. So if you have someone coming in saying that they're not able to access our services, the languages, please let us know because we we can we can fix that. And then we provide a reasonable accommodation, modifications and accommodations for people who are domestic violence victims. And you can see a little bit about the appeal process later on. Like the city and like other government agencies, we produce a lot of reports and we have a lot of opportunities for coming back to us with information. There's just a list here. I really would encourage anyone who's interested to come at least a one of our monthly board meetings. It's tomorrow night at 7:00 in case in case you don't need another night at home. And it's very easy, for example, to sign up for our newsletter on the website. There are multiple ways you can get involved. So looking now at the Section eight housing choice voucher program, often known as Section eight, this is our largest program. We are reliant on the private market landlords. And I really do want to use this as an opportunity to thank the about 400 landlords who house our tenants, and many of whom have housed the tenants for over 15, 20 years. They generally are the same landlords doing this and they really have been committed. We do have 75 voucher holders who are looking for housing. So if there's anyone who wants to sign up, the staff will will take that information. But this is something that's in high demand. You can see we opened the waitlist in 2015. There were 32,000 applications. We took 750. Just a reminder, this is our federally funded program and it is subject to annual appropriations. So it is somewhat of a stomach churning. Speaker 2: Right. Every year. Speaker 8: We don't always know how much we're going to get. We have massively increased the amount that we get per unit, primarily because of the rents going up. But we had to fight for that. We had to do rent studies at excessive cost, but we are pleased. That's partly why we have so much more money coming in and has allowed us to keep a significant proportion of people housed. But we do have funding challenges. The program is underfunded administratively. It's subsidized by the rest of the housing authority. And we have been through budget shortfall one year and then the following year government shutdown. But as you know, we were lucky enough to manage that with no impact to our clients or the landlords. So one of the things I like to think about is if we're not careful, we talk about money and rules and eligibility and it's important for us to think about what housing does and the stability that housing can bring. And we did the survey with Section eight participants. The one I'm particularly moved by is the Affordable, the one at the bottom. Affordable housing has improved our standard of living. And then this is the part I like best. It has even improved the relationship between the people and our family, and those are the kind of benefits we're looking for. Those are the kind of things that our staff come to work every day for some of the reasons those resident services that we listed, which are all voluntary, we don't have to do those as a housing authority, but we do those because we know that's what keeps people housed and that's where we get this type of growth, the same kind of growth we're looking for in our own families. So on to affordable housing development. And I know housing developments in general has been a topic that the council seems to have been talking about forever. We are really pleased to be able to expand this. The affordable housing in Alameda. We have this map where you can see we have 29 parcels, most of which have housing on right now. And our goal is to make quality neighborhoods and real communities. We're not just looking at housing. I'm going to go through these fairly quickly because many of you have seen this. But this is Littlejohn Commons, opened in 20. 18, and it serves low income seniors. Another investment into Alameda, $20 million of total investment and lots of prevailing wage jobs in the process. Everett Commons serves low income families and formerly homeless veterans, again up on $19 million of investment. Really is a beautiful project and one that we are very grateful for. The work of some of the councilmembers, some of the neighborhood members to really fit into the style of the neighborhood. At Independence Plaza, we recently completed a $2.5 million rehab. This rehab was entirely focused on ADA upgrades. We've got a few more to finish, but we were able to convert 20 of the units to full ADA, which is really important because what we're actually seeing is our residents needing more and more assistance. Roosevelt Village. This is the point at which I'd like to thank the vice mayor. I think I'm the only person in town, not just in Alameda, but in the Bay Area, who says, I went to the planning board and actually I asked for 80 units and they asked for 92 where really the vision of Alameda and the commitment of Alameda both at the city council level and the planning board level two, affordable housing is remarkable. It's what's got our work done. It's what's Got City done is what will get the next set of projects that North housing and reshape and other places done. And this is one of our partnerships with the MSD, so we're really excited about. It's going to be primarily administrative work as a U.S. who will be eligible and maybe some first year teachers or single teachers. And then when we look at North Housing, as I said, really, I think Alameda should be very excited. This is about building a neighborhood. It's going to be an opportunity that will only have once we want to get it right. And we're very pleased with our partnership with Alameda Point Collaborative and Building Futures. We are trying to work really on what the project feels like, how the flow is, as well as working with the neighbors nearby. So another area and I'll say one of the reasons I came to this housing authority is because it works so well with the city. That's not always the case in other places. Sometimes the housing authority in the city are fighting for resources, and I felt that it was remarkable that that was what is now, I mean , and it was then daily contact between city staff and the housing authority. And much of that relies on these city services agreements. As many of you know, both the home program and the CDBG, the Community Development BLOCK Grant program, are federal funds. We administer them. You make the decisions, we make those proposals to you. The inclusionary housing ordinance is funds paid by private developers, and that really has taken off in the last five years, as you've seen, increasing development in Alameda. And then the thing I think we've really worked most closely on because it was new are the rent ordinances and you'll see later on, I think we're very proud of the data we have, the program that we have, the response time we have. But that has really been done in close collaboration with CIO and with the community development team. So moving on to our fourth area, that's property management. So that those are the services that help people preserve their housing, onsite property management, in-house maintenance services. And then this one, I do like to tell people because it's often a question, which is what happens if I call in the middle of the night because my refrigerator is broken? So we do have a 24 hour live answer call line. They will triage those calls. If it's if you have if it's something that you can't wait for, they will call the maintenance worker out. You know, actually, if they do maintenance, what maintenance worker usually answers. But if they don't, they keep getting the maintenance answer. The supervisor, supervisor, supervisor, until someone comes out and we will dispatch someone in about 40 minutes or we'll get a vendor. And in terms of numbers, the current portfolio, we have 628 units that we own ourselves. Some are managed by us and some by a third party management company, and then 210 units that we own in some form in partnership. So I wanted to put this slide up. One of the things that I think people sometimes don't know or don't know until it til they need to know is that the housing authority provides independent living. We are licensed for the independent living error arena. We are not licensed for assisted living or skilled nursing facilities in the independent living area. We do several things to allow people or to permit people to stay longer. We help them connect with in-home supportive services, will modify the unit. They can have a live in aide. We will approve service animals. We have case management and you can use the Section eight program with us. When you look at the other two content parts of the continuum and I just want to say this has nothing to do with being affordable, being low income. This applies actually to all income level. Also the skilled nursing facilities, you know, at the far end is really a full medical environment. And frankly, if you've ever experienced it, not that pleasant an environment, you know, there are beeps going on and nurses coming round. And that's something that the state will kick in and pay if it's medically necessary. And you can't use your voucher there. The middle part, the assisted living part is where the challenges are. We're seeing more and more of frank. I'm going to say I'm seeing more and more of my family members need something like this, but we also see it among our tenants. I know even in the rent program, we see it about in among landlords and tenants in the rent program needing more assistance. And we often get those calls. You know, our inspector is this isn't our inspector's job. But we do say to the inspector, if you go in and see a situation that is not maybe not on your checklist but needs reporting, we ask you to come back and report it so we can get the social worker out there . But the problem with assisted living, as many of you know, is it runs to from 5 to $6000 a month. It goes upward of that depending on how many activities you want and other benefits. But the state doesn't provide any funding. We're not licensed to do this and it really does need a different level of care. And so one of the issues that we're having, I'm going to see if I can make the point to work. Let's see. Maybe not. So I'll I'll just say this visually. So what we're trying to do with our services is inch out the independent living into the assisted living without violating the state laws on assisted living, trying to preserve the dignity of the people who live with us whilst maintaining that their their safety and their ability to live independently. But I will tell you that assisted living gap, I believe, is going to come up as a problem for the city, for the county and for the state as a whole. And we would love to work with you to address those issues. Again, I don't think this is unique to affordable housing. The other questions that I often get at what are the least requirements to live with us? Obviously there are income eligibility requirements and there are occupancy limits that perhaps you don't see in the private market. So you have to have if you are one person, you're going to get a one bedroom. The one bedroom can only have up to three people in. If it's a two bedroom, you can have up to five. There are some limits there, but otherwise I would say the vast majority of the lease requirements are exactly the same as you would get with a private landlord. In fact, actually, there might be a little more generous than the private landlord, but there's nothing more stringent with us than you would see elsewhere. And there are some examples here. The same goes to be the same as can be said about lease violations if you don't pay the rent. And we have some mechanisms to help you pay the rent, but if you keep not paying the rent, there's you know, we can't keep doing that. We do see damage to units and smoking. Thankfully, with the city ordinance over the years has gotten much better, but it does still occur. And that's something that often impacts the neighbors. It's the neighbors who complain, not the not the smoker. And then linked somewhat to the issue I showed you earlier on. The independent living and the assisted living is repeated habitability issues. So we can have a tenant who perhaps has lived with us for 20 years or is going well, they're passing their inspections and then they start to take longer to pass those inspections. And one of the issues we are seeing, and it's not unique to us. I encourage you to look at some of our other cities that are no different, but they may have done research on this is around hoarding. We do see people deny access to units. I do want to say that we really do encourage people to tell us about what's happening in the units. Now, obviously, if there's deliberate damage, we are going to look at see whether we can resolve that with the tenant. But things like pest control, honestly, we'd rather get in there and fix it right away. But not allowing access can be a problem. And then there are occasions when we have, as with all property management companies, threatening behavior towards staff, residents, guests or vendors. And then the next one actually is a little bit different. I think the private market is probably a little more lenient on this. We do sometimes have unauthorized guests or unauthorized and control pets, and those could be pets or uncontrolled service animals. And then again, with all leases, illegal activity, illegal activity. But that's something that your police officers who are assigned to the housing authority will assist us with. So I just want to sort of reiterate that we have we have two major programs that tenants or participants are involved in. There are lots of other things, the leases, which are part of the physical housing that we rent and the Section eight program. And sometimes people have both. So what I wanted to put up here is that there are also Section eight program violations. So on the lease, you know, if you don't pay your rent or you have ten people in a one bedroom, we're going to start with measures, you know, initial warning measures for you to try and pay up and move your people on. The same is true with the Section eight program, misreporting of income and assets. And I will tell you that particularly when we go into budget shortfall, HUD is very strict on this. It's something that they really and I think somewhat understandably, are being less and less lenient about people either forgetting deliberately not reporting their income or their assets. And we are charged with implementing that. They're providing us with more tools to check that failure to complete the annual income recertification at all, additional people living in the unit again. And I want to say I totally understand this. There's a housing crisis. If you have a family member that is unhoused and you have this unit which we give you, which is in, you know, pretty good shape for the and, you know, where you've probably got a little extra space because we allow one bedroom for the head of household and two bedrooms after that. I understand why people end up with additional guests, perhaps people living there, but it's actually not how the program works, and particularly if that income is not reported and then occasionally have people not living in the unit. I mean, they may have someone else living in the unit, but that is something that comes up not infrequently. The next thing I want to talk about, because it sort of goes with the sort of pattern of HUD language, is housing quality standards. These are the basic standards that HUD sets. And I want to stress they are basic. They're not the same as a property management inspection where we're asking for a little more and they're only valid for as long as we're in there. So, you know, if we've tested the smoke detector at 10 a.m. and the tenant has tampered with it at 1020, they no longer meet it. And similarly, if the landlord has patched something and it fails, you know, it passes at 10:00 and 1020, then the standards, they're not monitored, ongoing. Monitored in our private units every other year and in our own units every year. And then the Section eight program you can have, if you have repeatedly violations, it can lead to program violations on the Section eight side. The reason I say this is because I want to be clear for people who may be clear or may not be clear on the appeal process, we actually take very few adverse actions, less than half of 1% of our tenants or our voucher holders in any one year. But I do think it's important to make sure that is clear on what the processes are. So on the Section eight subsidy side, you would be issued a program violation. The mandatory tenant conference or the notice of termination sometimes goes this way, sometimes is flipped depending on the nature of the the notice of termination, and then you're eligible for an informal hearing process. If the tenant does not like the informal hearing outcome, then you they can request judicial review. That's a request they must make within 90 days. We notice them. We send them a registered letter making sure that they got that letter so that we know if it came back. And then the decision beyond that can be appealed to the Court of Appeal either party can request. So there are outside actions relating to the Section eight voucher in terms of your tenancy with us at the Housing Authority, a lease violation, you can get one or two lease, low level lease violations and you're not going to termination. Termination usually happens when there's a single severe lease violation or multiple ongoing lease violations. We will then decide to file an unlawful detainer action with the court in Alameda County or, you know, your you have a very strong court system. And when we arrive in court, before we get to see a judge or a jury, we are mandated to go through mediation. And that's actually been a very successful process for us. We can often reach stipulated agreement with the tenant, so we preserve their housing, they change their behavior in some way. It's not ongoing. It's usually time limited to six or 12 months, and the vast majority of people retain their housing. If the mediation doesn't work, we will go to a judge or jury trial. The tenant selects which and again either party can request the Court of Appeal. During that time, a participant can submit a complaint to the bodies at the bottom or at any time. One of the things that I think staff work really hard at and we have worked really hard at, is to provide some extra reinforcements to that system. We understand that getting any kind of notice of termination of a housing decision, whether it's your subsidy or your housing or or one may lead to the other, can be a traumatic event. And so we have all these additional resources, which is why we end up with less than half of 1% ending up losing their housing. The first thing we do with lease violations and terminations, even if you don't pay, if you're a few days late on the rent, you're still going to get a social worker referral. You can meet with a supervisor if you like, to review the violations. Actually, many, not many of you, but a number of you have contacted me about noise issues at our properties. And I will tell you that generally we start with mediation. Those are the kind of things that are difficult to win in court and somewhat subjective. But if we can work with mediation, sometimes we can get one neighbor to understand that the other person has a child who tends to wake up early or they have a sleeping habit. That means they go to the bathroom in the night. Sometimes that understanding can can at least ratchet down the anxiety about the noise. When we think that there's a real problem, we will work with your city police officers to work on welfare checks. And I will tell you, I myself have called Adult Protective Services a number of times when we think that perhaps the tenant is not needs additional assistance, that perhaps they they don't understand the process, perhaps they need additional support. And we do provide referrals to legal services. In fact, our case managers are required to provide people referrals to legal services if they get a notice of termination. And then we work with the legal aid representatives. Once they're appointed, there's a whole host of other things. We have some internal review of termination and hearing outcomes. And then the last point here I really want to say is we generally offer people offers of alternative housing. So what we usually find is that there may be a physical issue with that unit and then some other issue that we're dealing with. And if we can move people, even if it's temporarily into a hotel or into another unit, to make sure that they are stabilized, to make sure they can kind of get on with the daily, daily activities. That's our first, first goal. So it might even be somebody who calls on. Friday night. They only have one toilet where, you know, I maintenance person has done the best they can, but it needs something more than what we can do. We will offer them a hotel. And we've been lucky to have relationships with hotels in town that we can do that pretty quickly so that it can be an immediate action. The other thing is about file requests. So we have had we actually have again, have very few of these. We have about less than ten people a year who come in and ask for their full file. That's usually people who are represented. And what I will tell you here is that we're subject to the same regulations as as the city files our public records act. We do have some additional privacy restrictions that we can enact that can be viewed on site for free. We have those electronically there in three different systems. So tenants should be prepared to spend some time with us. And with that, I would say an appointment is always better if we can, because we have limited space and limited staffing and we can provide paper copies for $0.10 a page. I will tell you that when I asked When did we last charge someone for a small amount of copying, no one could remember. And we have some staff who've been there a very long time. And I can tell you that I don't see deposits of, you know, on a dollar 80 for a copy of the lease. My sense and what staff tell me is that if you come in and you need a copy of your lease, you'll get it. They actually tell me the most common request they get is for birth certificates. And I said, What do you mean birth certificates? They said, Well, what happens at the beginning of the school year is people come in and say, Can you give me my birth certificate for got to run down to the school district and register my child. And so I will tell you that again, if you come in and you do a small amount of paperwork, we're going to give it to you. We'll do it as quickly as the receptionist can do it. If you need the full file in paper, we are going to charge because that can run to hundreds, if not thousands of pages if you've been with us for a long time. But we do have some other electronic options. We have some can sometimes size does not work. We can email things and they don't arrive with people on this awesome privacy limitation. So if people are asking for their medical records, we're not really comfortable emailing those, but they could come in and do a transfer in the office. I I've mentioned the release form. I do want to also mention that one of the we have these privacy restrictions that we can use, but they're not transferable to the next party . So if a tenant chooses to, to release their information and we provide it to someone else that might be their attorney, that might be a friend, a family member, we cannot control that after that. So that's the one issue that we do make sure people understand. So I wanted to put this slide in because I think that when we're looking at housing authorities, just as when we're looking at cities, there are ongoing challenges. We've been in this housing crisis, which I keep thinking, you know, I keep saying there's going to be a bubble. The bubble is going to pop. Last night, it was an earthquake. I thought that might, you know, shake the housing market. But I don't see any any anything happening there. We're in this for the long haul. We've been here for 75 years. We're going to keep doing it. I want to say we are definitely open to feedback. We want to make sure that we amend our processes where we need to. But these are the big picture challenges that we face. First of all, the overwhelming unmet need for housing. I want to tell you that the people in our house, in. Speaker 2: Our. Speaker 8: Office that face this most are our receptionists. Every day they have people saying coming in and they have to say, here's a packet. No, we don't have housing. No, we haven't opened the waitlist since 2015. It's really hard. And I know for you as council members, it's hard to see the number of people who are on the streets. It's hard to get some of those messages that people send you. So we're happy to be working with the city on homeless services. We're really happy to be building more housing. We're happy that we put an Alameda preference in our properties. We think that's important. Even if the money comes predominantly from outside of Alameda, often the land has come from you or through you, and we really need to be looking at tackling those challenges. We are facing increasing regulation from HUD and from the state of California, whether those labor regulations or new regulations by hard on some of the most recent initiatives and they don't pay us any more to do that. In fact, sometimes they pay us less. And that's where we're underfunded for administrative costs. As I said, the the the other programs, not your programs, but other parts of the housing authority subsidize the Section eight program. And the board takes a decision on this every year. And they do it because it is really important. We're putting 1500 families in housing as they. Said We have an increasing need for social services, that is to allow tenants to live independently and to live longer to retain their autonomy. We put a lot of effort into trying to transition people who cannot remain with us. But I will also say, like like the city owned property and like some of the housing in Alameda, we have an aging housing stock. We did a capital needs assessment that was over $20 million in need. We are working diligently on it. We're looking at it from a risk basis and sometimes from a can we use other people's money basis. But we, for example, just put a new roof on at Sherman Street. Those they're relatively small projects, but they're projects that keep people housed. We look forward to funding north housing. That's our next goal. But we are in competition with the other projects in Alameda and we are in the competition with the other projects in the East Bay and sometimes in the North Bay. So we will continue to look for that federal funding and push for that federal funding. And then, like most local government agencies, we have a growing CalPERS liability and we have staff turnover due to retirements. So with that, I think sometimes people don't realize how much input they can give us, and we really want to hear that input. We want to get that response. So I do encourage people to sign up for the newsletter, particularly if you're interested in getting on a waitlist. It's not a commitment to get you on the waitlist, but we do advertise that way and in many other ways. I know that our Board of Commissioners would love to hear from more people at the monthly meeting. We frankly have one regular speaker and occasionally a second one. The annual plan public hearing is actually what the Resident Advisory Board will create. They will create the plan with the staff, and then we'll do a public hearing. We survey our customers every year. We really encourage feedback. It can be anonymous. If people really want us to call us back, call them back. We will. They can put their contact information, but we do follow up. In fact, I see every single one of those comments. If people want to file complaints, they can do that through the website at the office, via email, in any language they like. And we will follow up with that. And then we have a number of workshops. We obviously have the rent program workshops, we have a landlord workshop and we did one this week. We had a great turnout and we have another one coming up next week. As I said, the resident advisory board is a third out. I think for people to join that board. We really want to hear from residents. HUD designs this process so that there is a resident input. And then, you know, I do want to say a big thank you to our partners, the Boys and Girls Club Food, the food bank, Alameda Family Services, Meals on Wheels and Life Steps, our social services provider. I know many of you and many of the people watching do volunteer. In fact, many of our tenants volunteer, which is really exciting with those entities. And when you volunteer with them or you write a check to them, you are also helping our residents. So with that, I think that's more of an informational overview. I just want to say it's an absolute pleasure to work in Alameda, the collaboration between the city staff, particularly Debbie Porter, Andrew Thomas and many other people to help us get our buildings done, to help us put in roads out at north housing and to work on the city programs every single day is invaluable. Again, I want to say it couldn't be done without the staff. And our goal really here is that the future of the housing authorities to deliver and expand affordable housing solutions for low income, disabled, senior and homeless households in Alameda. So thank you for the opportunity. Speaker 0: Thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions of the Council for Ms.. Cooper? Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: Have a couple of. Thank you. You mentioned that you have a lot of I mean, there's one of your favorite landlords. Do we have incentives for landlords who might be interested or who you think might be able to help the house, these 75 voucher holders? Speaker 8: We do we actually have a program currently, which we've had around since about about 2015. There have been some other programs before that as well. So we offer $500 for each new use unit leased. And I want to explain the philosophy around that. So when our Section eight tenants go in, there is a perception that they might be a little behind the game, right? So they go in and there's someone who's got this great high tech job in San Francisco. So we do a number of things. We do workshops with them. We show them how to fill out the standard associate apartment association forms. So they walk in with the form done. We practice with them going in. We talk to them about clothing. We talk to them about showing up on time. How to find that housing. We run these workshops every month for our voucher holders who are seeking housing. And then what we realize is that $500 has been helpful in kind of. Making the landlord think again and honestly sometime will pay that to anyone who works for them. So if their property manager is the person who secures the lease, that $500 will go to them. If, if, if it's an owner, it'll go to the owner as well. And that has been successful so far. But I do think it's something that we could continue to look at. We also offer a security deposit program and then this sort of renter education that we try to help with. And then we have a listing at the housing authority of vacant units. So if there are any landlords listening or watching who'd like to list with us, that would be great. Speaker 5: And then just to follow up on that, last year, I think Libby Schaaf and the mayor of Oakland, I think she's committed some city money to help expand their incentives. I mean, is that something that we could consider here in Alameda just to help clear this backlog? Speaker 8: You know, I think it is. So there is an area that other housing authorities and the Oakland Housing Authority is a different type of housing authority has more flexibility, but they do things like they pay landlords to keep the unit vacant while the inspection goes through. Now, we really try to get an inspection out in two days so we don't have that problem as much. But there is that hesitancy. So they pay the landlord to hold the unit, or if a section eight tenant moves out again, they'll pay another month of rent while we find another Section eight tenant. And then and I'm a little hesitant to say this because it's not to cast any aspersion on people, but they do also or other housing authorities often have what's called a damages fund. So sometimes our Section new Section eight landlords are reluctant to take on a voucher holder because they think the unit might be damaged. And so that damage fund can be pulled on at the end of the day if the security deposit doesn't cover it. My view is it's more of a kind of reassurance and I would hope that actually our tenants would would would have no lesser care of the units than anyone else. But it does what we're trying to do is push the needle so the landlord will consider our tenants in an equal way to any other tenant. And I do want to say that the Nondiscrimination Act is something that we really appreciate. We've actually been talking to the city about that since 2015 because we believe that if if people don't advertise no section eight, then over time things will become more open and people will be people will look at this in a different way. It doesn't mean people don't find other ways around it, but it's we're very grateful for the action you took and that the state has taken as well. Speaker 5: Okay, I have others, but I'll save them for later. Thank you for the recap on the incentives. Speaker 0: Okay. Did I see any hands over here? Okay. Thank you. That was a great presentation. I believe I heard you say near the beginning of the presentation that the subsidy runs out for Independence Plaza in a certain amount of time. At which subsidy and and when. Speaker 8: So this is the subsidy that came through the redevelopment agency. It runs out in 2026. You subsidize the operations there. It's somewhere between a million and 1,000,005 each year. It's one of those sort of situations where, honestly, it's been an opportunity for us that the housing a very real to plan ahead. Quite often you arrive at a housing authority and it's already 2025. So we do have a plan to fill that gap in the long term and try to minimize the impact to the tenants. Speaker 0: Okay. That was my question. What happens then? So you you want to review. Speaker 2: Right. So so we we. Speaker 8: And and I have staff here who perhaps can speak more about this. But so one of the things we did two years ago is we went through an extensive process with the board, with the tenants. We presented at the resident meetings on exactly how this works. We talked about how some tenants really hadn't had significant increases for for many, many years. And in fact, rents were very close to the rents that were pro forma when the building was built. We're also cognizant, cognizant that about 110 of the 186 were very low income. And so we put together a plan to gradually increase the rents that was reviewed by the board three times we went to the tenant meetings each time we put in place a fund with life steps to assist those those families that can't make that. We've given early notice. And unfortunately, sometimes our early notice makes it more confusing, but it is to help people adapt to that. And what we've really done is frankly put the higher rents on the new people coming in, the most majority of them have a voucher. So we are working on sort of switching the ship somewhat so that there are more voucher holders there who can cross-subsidize the lower income tenants. But we do want to say that we know for some tenants any rent increases difficult and it's that's the reason we gave life stepped some. Direct cash assistance that they could help people with. We don't ask who that that's going to. We do ask them whether they've used it or not. But we prefer for people to have that kind of privacy with a case manager. Them with us. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And then let's see the. I think you also mentioned that it's possible to contact if people have a concern about housing authority housing, they could contact housing authority board members directly. How do you how would you do that? Speaker 8: Right. So on. Well, so, first of all, our board members are at the meetings. We really you know, we would really encourage more active participation. I think it's great for the board members, frankly. It's great for the staff to hear that the somebody who has a concern can put that in writing. They can put it through our website. We have complaint forms. They can also contact the board chair directly. There's an email address on that system. If they send me a letter that's addressed to the board chair, the board chair is going to see it. The response may come from me, but he will have seen that response. And also, actually, our board members are at a lot of other things. So we hold town hall meetings at every property every year. We provide pizza and education and information, and our board members come there because we want to meet tenants at the property is not for some people coming to the board meeting is not is a little it's actually very informal, but it feels daunting the first time. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And Vice Mayor. Speaker 1: Sure. Thank you very much for the presentation. And I don't know if we can go back to the Slide 29, which is the appeals process I just had done. So maybe my question makes more sense. Thank you for documenting the appeals process. And I'm just going to reflect I'm hoping we can hear from the about the referral before public comments and I'll try not to jump too far into that. Speaker 0: I think we can. Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Because we're going to combine the public comments, as I understand. Yeah. Yeah. So. So are there I can use slide 29. Yeah. Speaker 1: Can you walk me through? We've heard a number of concerns about process. I'm sure we've all heard them. But. But I'll address some of the ones that I have. Can you help me? It seems that program violation, the the first of these is just the housing authority. Noticing somebody that there is an issue, something happens. The mandatory tenant conference is staff and the. Yes. Section eight voucher holder meeting. Speaker 8: Correct. It, depending on the severity, might be with a supervisor. Mm hmm. Speaker 1: Okay. And then the notice of termination goes out. Then they can request an informal hearing process. I did look that up and see it. I believe I heard from our staff today that the informal hearing process is also staff. Speaker 8: It depends. Sometimes it's contractors. So we are lucky to have retirees from other housing authorities. And sometimes it's staff, but it's never staff in the in the same department is staff who do not know the tenant. And actually, that's what HUD has recommended from a cost perspective that that's why it's an informal hearing. Okay. Speaker 1: And then the judicial review, is that something that the lawyers are hired and whatnot, or is that something? It's this tenant request. But I'm assuming that if you're on Section eight, the idea of hiring a lawyer to take something to court is right. Speaker 8: I mean, I. Speaker 1: Cost to the tenants for this this that this side of the. Right. Speaker 8: So I actually could defer to our attorney on that one. What I would say is that we know that we're not tenants and our participants go to court. There is free legal aid right there. When they get to the stage, they're already being offered free assistance. You pay for some of that assistance. So I'm not sure if there's a filing fee. Speaker 0: Why don't we have the attorneys, the attorney present? Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Jennifer Bellon, a partner at Goldfarb and Lipman. And our firm is the firm that serves as the general counsel for the Housing Authority. And we represent a lot of housing authorities throughout the state and also serve as general counsel for Oakland and Berkeley housing authorities in the Bay Area. I think once I saw a private attorney and I've been doing this for a hundred years, a private attorney, represent somebody in a writ of mandate action. That's what it is after the informal hearing. But there's Bay Area Legal Aid. There's the Eviction Defense Center, there's the East Bay Community Law Center. There's a central legal de la Raza. Most of the tenants who are represented, both at the hearings and at in the judicial review, are represented by the free legal services providers. And we don't appear at that at the hearings. We the housing authority is represented by Housing Authority staff. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: Even if someone brings their attorney. Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you for being here. Speaker 2: You're welcome. Speaker 1: And then I guess my my other question that I was trying to understand a little bit, it sounds like there is nobody when you want to go in person to file a complaint, talk to somebody that is there, somebody at the front desk. I've been a little unclear about this that yes, you can speak. Speaker 8: To this desk coverage from 830 to 5. We cover lunch times and all those other times and there's someone answering the phone at that time. Two people have their own assigned workers. They can look on the website and work out their work as a done by Alpha Order, or they can just look at the piece of paper . Generally, we do need an appointment for something that's not urgent. Basically, we're running on very tight staff when you think that there are 4000 people who could drop in on any one day. So what I will say is, honestly, that's not how it works. If you want a copy of the lease, the receptionist will get you a copy of the lease. If you want an hour's sit down with your worker, then we really do encourage an appointment. Speaker 1: Okay. And then my last question. It's keeping me. I don't know. Speaker 0: You can come back too, if it returns. Councilmember Vella. Speaker 9: Thanks, Vanessa. My question has to do with the appeal process. You mentioned that it could be a retiree from another housing authority. About about how long does that informal hearing take? Speaker 8: Do you mean the duration of the hearing or how long the process takes? Speaker 9: How how much time would an individual member of that panel spend? Speaker 8: So we give a guideline of an hour and a half. One of the. Speaker 2: It's really up. Speaker 8: To the hearing officer. The hearing officer. And we train them again and again that the hearing officers are in charge of the room. Just as we've heard, you're in charge of the room. And so there are times they. Speaker 0: Make that clear. Speaker 8: That we go to three or 4 hours, particularly if there's translation or perhaps there's a disability need that we have to accommodate. Sometimes we end up coming back for a second appeal. The one thing I will say is that people need to understand that the informal hearing process is only for certain items. It's going to be the items that they have been noticed of a termination, a reasonable accommodation that's been rejected. And so the hearing officer will cut the conversation down if it's about other things and say, you know, actually that's not an appealable activity. That needs to go through a different, different process. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 9: And do these you also mentioned that it could be housing authority staff. When do these hearings take place? Serving the work day, is it? Speaker 2: So it's. Speaker 9: Work hours. Sorry. Speaker 8: So we generally schedule it for the work, the work day. We have been known to do some evening hearings as well. We do generally ask the people ask for that on request. We frankly, we tend to schedule them on a Thursday. And that's just because then we can have our hearing officers. They know that it's Thursday because most of them only do this part time. There are some staff that do it. So we say Thursdays, people ask for a hearing and we scheduled the hearing as quickly as we possibly can. Once the hearing has been held, then we respond to the to the participant within 14 days. Occasionally, there may be some documentation that has to go to and fro. Perhaps there's some clarifications and it may extend a little later, but they get a letter saying, well, you know, we're way we're going to extend by a few days . If people need an evening appointment, then they should talk to us about an evening appointment. We'd be happy to to see if we can work with people. And certainly if it's a disability related accommodation, we absolutely are going to do that. Speaker 9: And for the retirees who volunteer to sit on their voluntary, are they paid? Speaker 8: Oh, we pay them. Thanks. They may be retirees or people who've worked on the housing. What is part of the problem is that the regs are so thick. This isn't something where you can just come in and say, Do I think it's a good idea? The hearing is really saying and I want to say I think the other thing that whenever I'm training, hearing officers or Jennifer's training hearing officers, we remind them this isn't the housing authority versus the tenant. This is the tenants due process rights to understand why we've issued the notice and to challenge whether it's right. And those two parts are actually very important. Sometimes what comes out of the hearing is more about understanding than than their rights. And sometimes it's about their rights. And so it's not, as did the housing authority, when in fact, we held 55 hearings last year. And I can say that there was just a handful of people who lost their housing or their subsidy in that process. In fact, we encourage people to go to a hearing because if they don't understand the decision we're making and we want them to understand and if it's possible, we've made an error, we want to reveal that at that time. So I would say, for example, people might have a hearing for the income calculation and we might be right in recommending termination. But then they walk in and say, Oh, I forgot this piece of paper and then were able to recalculate their income and perhaps they can stay on the program. Speaker 0: Did you think every other day he raised me right. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 1: It's a two parter. So this is this is the appeals process for for these two specific places. If somebody has a complaint about their, let's say, a maintenance complaint or something like that. So they you know, you sent me some information about how they can how they can file those. Do they get a tracking number with that? And then the other question is, if they don't like the result of the if they feel that that something is broken needs to be fixed and it hasn't been and they file another complaint, it's still not addressed. What is the process for kind of working that through the system to to get to a result? Speaker 8: Sure. And, you know, I actually prefer to call them interactions because one person's complaint is not someone else's complaint. So I always give the example. Someone complains that the the dumpster is overfilling, but we know the dumpster is coming tomorrow or we're sent we send maintenance out to clean it up before the dumpster comes. What I'm hoping is the property manager on site can give a quick answer and we don't get into tracking and everything else. But I will tell you that I have recently been working with all the housing authorities to see whether anyone has a tracking system, some of that. So again, we're struggling with these privacy issues. So like in your department, the health records have to be kept separate from the employee records. But so I think the the question really is probably how do we keep track of key complaints we have had and we continue to work on a centralized tracking system. A lot of those were coming through me at the beginning, and now we're really working on the department directors to address those. But what we do find is that what we know is if we hear the same thing again and again, even if we think we're right, there may be some other issue, there may be some misunderstanding . So we do try to respond. Our goal is to respond. We say within ten days. That sounds like a long time. We really try to get back much more quickly. I will tell you, there's a small number of complainants and they find themselves in your offices and my office for whom we can do nothing. We have called out code enforcement. We have had your officers review the situation. We have worked with social services and they are going to probably get a standard letter back from us. But those are things like why can't we have more parking and b diamond? You know, that, that generally things we can't fix or things that the the participant or tenant thinks is genuinely wrong with the housing situation and our message, you know, our main message in those situations is to go get a third party opinion. That might be your code enforcement department, that might be your police officers, that might be a social worker, or frankly, it might be a mold test, it might be a noise test. But at some stage, there are some things where we have to say we've done what we need to do on the other ones. We have to work strongly and closely together to make sure that the efforts that are being made so things like offering other units, going in and doing more tests, we keep to those timelines and that we perhaps I would say do a better job at informing the tenant of what we're doing. I will say that sometimes our staff is guilty of tackling the problem and perhaps not the communication, and I'm guilty of it too. That's not to blame them. Speaker 1: And then the second part was, if somebody doesn't like the results, they're right. What is that? I'll call it. So it's process. But but yes. Speaker 8: So we do encourage people to go through the supervisory process. Many people just like to come straight to me and I and I do try to to encourage them to go back to the subject area experts, because sometimes I'm not the detailed knowledge person about their income calculation. So we have something called a supervisor form. So you can come in, we have a complaints form which will go to me and that gets gets then distributed. But we found that some tenants didn't want to fill out the complaints form they wanted. You know, it was equivalent to wanting to talk to a supervisor. And certainly if the receptionist cannot handle the question, the supervisor will come out. But that supervisory form is available on the tenant side. We encourage people to go to the property manager on site first. They're there. They're open every day for the most while there's one property that's a little shorter hours, but they're open every day for at least 6 hours. You can just walk in. Then you can see the property supervisor. Her information is published in our newsletter. Then you can see the director of property operations. I will tell you that, you know, I don't generally ask to see if people have met with those other people first, but I have been known to meet with tenants. I often meet tenants deliberately walk through the lobby because, you know, that's the one time you really get to get to see what's happening. And then people can come to the board meeting, they can talk to the board chair, they could call HUD, they could call the DFI h many of them call you. We're very happy to hear from you when you have those complaints because we do want to try and fix them as quickly as possible. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: I'm. So. Speaker 6: Yes, I just want to make two comments. One is, you know, I grew up three short blocks away from the Esperanza in the seventies and the eighties. The Esperanza was were quite drab, quite frankly. But, you know, as I drive up and down Third Street, when I'm leaving my mom's place over on Santa Clara and Lincoln, and I'll go up Santa Clara, Third Street, you know, I'm really I'm really glad to see how Esperanza does look. Incredibly spruced up, no pun intended, since Spruce Street. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 6: And for all West Enders. So I just wanted to say that, you know, that there's a design flowers there now. And, you know, for the past several years that that indicates that the housing authority definitely is is is making such great strides with regard to Esperanza. So I'm really happy about that. The other comment I'd like to make is in one of your slides, you mentioned project based Section eight Subsidies for Foresight Site. So off the top of your head, do you know how many subsidies went into site? Speaker 8: A Yes, as long as you don't quote me, but I think I believe that we put a let me do the math on this. I think you in public. Speaker 0: You know. Speaker 8: I do know that. I do know. But I think Eden will correct me if I've got it wrong. We put either 20 or 25 in the senior building and those actually. I'm sorry. Speaker 0: Well, we're doing this. We have 28 of the units in the senior building set aside for formerly homeless veterans. Does this correspondence. Speaker 8: Actually doesn't they have they have a few more. But also those vouchers are all for homeless veterans, those with special allocation vouchers that we got. Some of them went into Everett Commons. And I want to say another I want to say 25 went into a map. I'd be happy to send you the exact numbers. And then more recently, actually just a couple of weeks ago, we accorded them 16 more for the family side. The difference with that is actually they're not veteran vouchers, so they're available. It's a family property. So we wanted to have family vouchers available. Speaker 6: While I was going with this question, though, is because they're project based vouchers. They, while granted, is 25, they they can assist in the cash flow of the city project, whereas the housing choice vouchers families can take it wherever, you know, they they they they so choose within. Absolutely so so while it's 25 those project based vouchers that site a especially since it's been constrained somewhat with regard to financing they've been very helpful in terms of, you know, making cash flow penciling basically. Speaker 8: Yeah, we were very excited. It's a 20 year contract. So it's, you know, it's that number of vouchers times 20 years, which is something we were able to push out with some new legislation in hard. And they can come back to us in 20 years and talk to us about whether we could possibly do another 20. And I agree with you, I appreciate you pointing that out, that these project based vouchers are valuable because you can borrow against them, you can borrow back against the future cash flow. So you can then actually reduce your your financing costs. Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Brody, did I see you? Speaker 5: Well, I. Speaker 0: Know. Speaker 5: I'm going to talk about like, well, the referral. Speaker 0: We so I think if we've completed questions, council questions about the staff report, then we will move on to the counsel referral and then we will take public speakers all at once for that. So so then you can probably have a seat. Thank you very much. Los Angeles up then. Thank you. Okay. So then this is where we segue way over to item nine a madam Kirk, do you want to remind us what that is? Speaker 3: Consider directing staff to present options to the Council on increasing accountability of and addressing potential conflicts of interest issues at the Housing Authority. Speaker 0: Okay. And this was brought by Councilmembers Vela and Otis. So how how do you all want to present this? Speaker 5: We don't get counted on our time, right? Speaker 3: I mean, it's for the press. I mean. Speaker 0: You're the present, okay? Speaker 5: I won't. We won't. I mean, I won't speak for my colleague, but I'm sure we will take an hour and 25 minutes. Speaker 0: I can step. Speaker 5: Behind you if you want to start. You can. Otherwise I can. And you could fill in whatever I miss. Okay. So the reason for this referral, as you know, we've put a lot of what some landlords consider burdens on them in the city. Private landlords, yet we haven't, in my opinion, put the same accountability on our housing authority, which is actually run and operated by the city. So the first issue to me is an issue of fairness, that if we're asking our private landlords to do something, it should be the same thing that we're willing to do as the city , being the landlord and our residents being tenants. The other area and the main area of concern I have is when people come to me and I've had a number of people come to me and in the five years we basically can't do anything. We're not allowed to get any information, we're not allowed to ask questions. We're not even there's even no way for us to request that there's something that comes out here in public. So, I mean, there was a comment, you know, I just want to bring up there was a comment. I think it was directed to me because I did have a someone call in complain about parking at and B demand and she had a parking space next to the diamond, next to the door. And then she was moved and she has trouble walking. So in the private sector, that tenant would be allowed to file for reduction of services in the HRA is we were just told, too bad, so sad. You got to deal with it. There's nothing you can do about it. And then if we can go, there's that slight still up there appeal process. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 5: So if you look at that blue area and I think this is what my colleagues were getting at, that entire blue area is within the purview of the Alameda Housing Authority. There is no outside recourse for the city council. There is no appeal to the city manager to try to get information. There's nothing. It's all inside. Now, granted, it may be department A versus department B, but it all reports up to the same person. And this process of judicial review, you actually have to file a writ. And what you file a writ to do is to undo a government action. And the government action you are seeking to do is the removal or the revocation of the voucher. So let's be clear here that at that line, that tenant no longer has a voucher. So what that means practically for that tenant is they don't have housing because a person with a Section eight voucher, if they're not if they don't have their voucher, they're on the street. And I just had an experience with this in my last job. She was kicked out. She filed a writ. It took forever for the writ to be heard. She won 22 page decision. The housing authority, granted it was not here. It was in Oakland, appealed, and then it went up on appeal and it got reversed. So it was like a three year process for this appeal appeal process. And in the end, she's still homeless. So to say there's an appeal process, yes, there is. But you have to become homeless basically before you can take advantage of it. And the same thing down at the bottom. Well, you know, if we as a council wanted to evict one of our tenants, whether it's a resident or a commercial tenant, we have to sign off on initiating that litigation. There's no accountability here for any of us. So and let's just talk about this court mediated mediation and stip and pay. So a lot of times they'll have a stipulation and they'll say, well, you can stay if you do X, Y and Z. Well, the judge in the jury of who violates X, Y and Z is the housing authority. So again, it's all under one umbrella. And if a tenant feels grieved, there's no accountability. So I have others and I'm sure some people are going to talk about others. But when I have a resident of Alameda, the city where I'm elected to serve and help solve problems for and she says to me in a letter that someone at the Housing Authority told her when she wanted her front door lock fixed. You don't you can't expect vanity. You have to understand you're a Section eight voucher holder. Now, to me, there's nothing I can do about that, nothing at all. And for me to sit here and tell one of my constituents that there's nothing I can do, it just it's just it's just not right. So I realized we had this discussion a few years back, and I think. There was a binary choice back then. It was either bring it back into the city or leave it alone, and the binary choice was made to leave it alone. But I do believe that there is a continuum of of things that we could do in this referral. And I think at the very minimum, you know, I don't really want to disrupt the way the housing authority operates, but I would like to see some minimal oversight, at least through when people are having trouble losing their vouchers and have us, as the council, have the ability to speak to the housing authority and have our attorney get information and maybe even look at rents, because we have told our private tenants or private landlords, you can only raise your rent 70% of CPI, but yet our housing authority can do whatever they want. And there's no oversight on the city for this by the city council on that. So I would I would like to see some type of oversight in some of these areas. Elimination of tenancies, elimination of subsidies, maybe budget, maybe rents, but then keep the rest of, of the, uh, the functions the same. And one thing I did see on the Internet today that someone said, well, you could just get rid of the board members. I mean, I don't want to get rid of the board members. I'm not saying that. But no, we can't. The Housing Authority board is there's a special I think it's health and safety code section that protects them so only the mayor can get rid of them and only with cause and there's due process. So in my opinion, the Housing Authority Board, I, I'm not going to criticize them, but they have no accountability to anybody, any elected official. And we're the only people that have accountability to the citizens. So I would like to have all of our residents, whether they live in a private landlord home or a regular owned home or a housing authority home that we, the city technically operate, can have somebody that can act on their behalf and that there's accountability for them to the city council and elected officials. And I'll let my colleague take over and see if I missed any. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm actually still conducting the meeting. I will call on Councilmember Vella and then I'm going to have a few things to say. Speaker 9: Councilmember Vella So a couple of things I did want to clarify that the housing authority is not under the city control. They're separate, which was what we considered in 2017, was bringing them back in in 2012, I think was when we separated. So that as an aside, I think the general purpose of this referral and I want to get back to it is to direct staff to present options to the Council on increasing accountability of and addressing potential conflict of interest issues at the housing authority that have been raised. We've had a number of residents come to our meetings and express a concern. I think that, you know, the first, at least in my mind, the first place to start is kind of hearing from everybody about what the process is finding a way to perhaps. You know, I think that the slide with the appeal processes is helpful. I think would be helpful if we could have it, you know, posted even on the city website and try to get people on the same page. I also think that this allows at least what I'm looking for is kind of a the different options for for the council in terms of addressing the underlying issues. And I there are a couple that I think are a little more nuanced, at least that I would like to hear about that I think thematically seem to be issues. One is. This issue of transitioning from independent living. And I think that that's a substantial one, that perhaps, you know, one of the options that staff could present to us is forming some sort of stakeholder group or task force that's broader to help address that. And I think we've heard from Vanessa that and I think this is just a general concern is we have an aging population in general. There is that gray area of assisted living. And what are the options? Because I think some of these issues are going to continuously come up and it is about preserving dignity. And I would hope that we can work either through Shrub or Disability Committee and with the Housing Authority, APC, some of these groups to actually address what that might look at and what would be involved in that. I think the other thing is just that there's an overall issue of code enforcement. And I think when we talk about when we talk about options for increasing accountability, potential conflict of interest, if we, the city are not providing a very standardized and clear process and actually following through with code enforcement issues, we're failing everybody because it's it's not just building code. It's health and safety issues. And it creates a record and it's an independent third party resource that we could offer that I think evens the playing field out for everybody. And then there's a record and it's not about, okay, I complained to the Housing Authority and if you're a resident of Alameda, you should be able to file a code enforcement. So maybe that's one of the options that gets looked at. The other thing is, again, so so I think to Councilmember Otis point, it's not about, you know, an either or there might be a continuum of different options. Those are the types of things that I would like looked at. I think also with the appeals process clarifying who if there are retirees that are the hearing officers, if I don't know what the cost is for that to have those individuals come in, I think that sometimes it's it's not it's the perception of bias or the lack of understanding of who is actually filling that role. I think sometimes people might get a little heartburn if somebody that reports to the same person is on that panel, I think clarifying who sits on that panel or who serves as a hearing officer and what training they've had, that could be something that's of assistance. So I think that there are things that are of no cost to also think that there are potential solutions out there that kind of are across the board, things that I think thematically everyone deals with and it that I will that that that's my introduction to at least where I'm coming from. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vella. I'm going to say a few things here. I have sat in this position at this dais on more than one occasion and defended my colleagues on this dias from ad hominem attacks by members of the public. So it pains me greatly to see that process in reverse. From this dias, there is absolutely no reason to attack a volunteer board, a very qualified individuals who serve as the housing authority board of directors. And to say that they have no accountability were the only ones accountable to them, to the citizens. I'm also going to give Vanessa Cooper and whether misspells the attorney or anyone else who would like to address some of the fairly strong accusations that were made. And I also want to say this, and I've said this before housing issues are something I take very seriously. And I think most of you in this room know this. And I mean, I'm sure we all do. I know we all do on this. DIAS What I don't want to see and what I find counterproductive is to make this a an a process where someone has all the virtue and someone is all evil. It does not have to be an adversarial process. And for goodness sakes, we just sat through a presentation of all of the things that the housing authority is doing. And I we we are fortunate in this city to have this housing authority working for our residents in some of our most vulnerable residents. Are they perfect or are there things that could be done better? No, they're not perfect. Neither are we. Could we all do things better? Absolutely. Is the way to get to that point by hurling insults at people and making them just feel defensive or do we want to engage in a dialog? So at the end of the day. We're protecting the most people and keeping them in their homes because we all take homelessness seriously. And the best way to keep people from becoming homeless is just keep them in their residences to begin with. When it comes to losing vouchers, I would like some numbers. So we have some specifics to see just how widespread an issue this is. But I will also say this for the last couple of council meetings, we have had representatives of a particular advocacy group cannot be at the dais and make all kinds of accusations about the housing authority speaking on behalf of residents. I am someone who works as an arbitrator, who is an attorney who takes very seriously making informed decisions. You never want to be in a position of only considering one side of an issue and then making your decision. This serves no useful purpose. But as Ms.. Cooper stated, she is also limited by what information she can share without the permission of a tenant. So I took it upon myself, met with the city, the city manager, and we we take these issues very seriously. And he's very solution oriented. And I said, I want to arrange a meeting with Vanessa Cooper, Greg Katz, yourself, myself, and this member of this advocacy group. And we scheduled it. And I just wanted everybody to sit around the same table and talk to each other as opposed to about each other from a one sided forum at the last minute. The advocacy group representative canceled. We didn't cancel the meeting. We you know, the four of us met and we heard a lot of things and, you know, looking for solutions. Late this morning, the city council got a list, a long list of complaints about the housing authority. This the housing authority that again, hours before the city council meeting. This is an opportunity that I see to address some of these concerns. But I want to hear it from all sides because there is often more than meets the eye. These are complicated situations and I just don't feel that anything is gained by attacking people who, just like us, are volunteering, who are sharing their expertize and their time to deal with some pretty tough issues. So I do want to give Miss Cooper the opportunity to address some of those allegations or whoever is most appropriate to address them, please. Speaker 8: So I'm not going to address the allegations specifically, but I do want to come to the situation that we had where we were not able to speak with the advocacy group. You know, the housing authority has been around for 75 years. We're not going anywhere and we don't think the advocates are going anywhere. And we think the advocates have an important role. I keep hopefully I've conveyed this. We believe in housing people. We come to work every day to house people. We make extra efforts so people are not unhoused. I do want to say that just because a very small number of people lose their tenancy and that doesn't mean the housing authority is necessarily doing something wrong. The city does evict people, too. And it happens. I think you can talk to private landlords as well. But what I do want to suggest and with the advocates groups, we've actually this isn't new for us as we went through the rent stabilization process and there were very long weekends when Debbie and Michael and I were emailing on the phone trying to put those regulations together. The Housing Authority consistently tried to meet with the advocates. We met the first time and then were not able to do that. And so what I'd actually like to suggest, because we're really are all in this together, we really do want to house people who are the most vulnerable, who have the least resources, is that perhaps we could look at something like a facilitated conversation through seeds. I do think that there's information on both sides that needs to pass. I'm not going to be able to breach the privacy of a tenant unless that tenant elects to do so. But I think there are systems that can be discussed. There's information that can be passed on. I think that sometimes when communication lines are crossed, both sides get frustrated. You know, I'm not going to tell you that my staff don't get frustrated, that I don't get frustrated. And I think that it's really it's the time to come to the table with a facilitator, a mediator. We certainly had great success with seeds. I feel like there are very good, neutral third party, but certainly if there was someone else that was proposed, we'd be happy to do that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Council members who brought this council referral. Is there more you want to say or do we go to public comment? Or any council comments. Speaker 9: Councilmember Vela So I do want to say that I've I've heard from the activist group and I have heard from individual tenants. I've also met with Ms.. Cooper. I do think that there is something to a, you know, getting together and talking through some of the specific issues that are here. And I also just want to say that I think that there could be a wide range of of solutions that get to the underlying problems, some of which are communication issues, some of which are kind of making very clear what the processes and who's involved. I think other things are, and I guess my concern is I don't know how like taking over authority of the housing authority solve some of these issues unless we're going to be doing things like the code enforcement or unless we have a plan for how to transition people as they, you know, have have more and more needs that they that they have. And I would like us all to be working collectively on this and collaboratively. But I also think that, you know, there are clearly people who are feeling very frustrated and who feel as though that, you know, this process is not working for them. And so I'm hoping that we can find some way to address that issue. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Murphy And then Mr. De Soto, real briefly. Speaker 5: I don't think I attacked anyone. Somebody sent me an email or a paper letter, and I conveyed the complaint that she gave to me. So there's no way I can find out the other side of the story. So that's something that I think is missing here. And to Ms.. Vela's point, the referral was not to do one thing or the other. It was to bring back options. So I'd appreciate options no matter what they are. And lastly, the fact that there has that there's no accountability to an elected official is a fact. It's not an attack. It's not an indictment of anybody doing anything wrong. It's just a fact. So if there's ways we can go about improving that accountability and without violating confidence, you know, if there is two sides to every story, we're only allowed to hear one. So maybe there's a way that we can hear the second one. And if you hide behind a wall and say, that's just the way it is, then you know. That's kind of where we're at. Speaker 0: Um, yeah, I'm not sure I heard anyone say that, but I would also ask that when staff considers our direction, they also consider the implications of politicizing the housing authority by bringing in elected officials for oversight. But I agree that we need to look at a lot of different options. Councilmember Desai, you had your hand up. Speaker 6: Oh, yes. Well, thank you very much. I think I'd like to make two points. The first point is, in my initial tenure as a city council member, the city council member was ultimately the governing board to which the Housing Authority commissioner is reported to. At that time I don't recall the governing board serving in, uh, in a, like a capacity that's similar to the way that the RAB serves. For example, when a tenant has concerns about issues with their respective landlords, particularly with regard to rent increases through the process, which has now changed obviously through the Rabb process, they could they could go through they could appeal those kind of landlord decisions. And if they weren't satisfied with the decisions through that process, then they could take it to the city council. Now, when I was on the council from 19 December 96 to December 26, I don't recall the city council serving in as a last resort for the most part. We were there to work with the Board of Commissioners in setting policies and giving them guidance as to where we thought their level of effort should be placed. Second point is, so I'm satisfied with the decision by then city manager John Russo to delink the housing authority from the City Council, largely because I believe that the housing authority and the Board of Governors is basically serving the same ends and utilizing, for the most part, the same means that they had utilized when they were when the housing authority through the governing board was directly linked to the city council. So I think independence from the city council has worked for the most part, and so I don't see anything fundamentally broken, which leads me to the third point, and it does have to do with this appeal process. My understanding of this appeal process is that it is, frankly speaking, quite an articulated, transparent process as you can get . Largely, it has to do with the fact that, you know, when the federal government makes available dollars through the Section eight program or project based vouchers or through any other, in addition to making available dollars for purposes of housing are qualified families, the federal government is also going to impose certain rules and certain expectations. And so part of those expectations and rules comes from the Code of Federal Regulations, which then our respective housing authority through the administrative what's called the administrative plan, then operationalize the different rules with regard to the program operations. And so the first line that you're seeing, Section eight Subsidy Arrow is going to program violations, going to. That's all about the following the administrative rules that the heard that Congress first has set up, that HUD then interpreted that HUD then asks local government the housing authorities to then implement. So they're implementing federal rules laws into bureaucratic, bureaucratic language. That's that's HUD's job. And then those bureaucratic language then is sent down locally to housing authorities to be implemented through the what's called the administrative plan. And so when what you're seeing here is an appeals process that goes step by step, at least the first level that deals with administrative issues. And it's meant to be so that families and individuals are treated fairly with respect to a standard set of rules and processes that people can easily see. And this is important because it's completely possible that places like in the East Coast in the 1950s and the 1960s, you had a housing authority that maybe didn't follow standard rules. Speaker 0: So, Mr. Desai, if I could just stop you for a minute. So we we aren't quite at the point where the councils exactly as we have, I'm sure a lot of public speakers who want to speak and then come back. I think our discussion will be even more informed when we have when we have the hear from the public speakers. But right now it is, oh my goodness, approaching 11 p.m.. So we need a motion to consider to be able to consider the remaining items. And they are 60, which is the rent ordinance. We have a one speaker on that six F, which is the safer grants, one speaker on that and nine be the de pave parkway for three speakers on that. Do I have a motion to continue and if you want to continue to a time certain to keep us on track or do we have a motion at all? Speaker 9: Madam Mayor, two speakers on this item. Speaker 0: Bill, I bet we do. 11. 11. But you thought none? Speaker 2: No, no. I wanted I wanted to know because I was going to we're. Speaker 9: Going to make a motion to continue to a time certain. Speaker 2: But I'm a little concerned. Speaker 0: So failing that this well what I would suggest when you mention time certain but it's your call I know we're on the same flight tomorrow, but we could say we will continue until X time. Speaker 2: Baby. Speaker 0: I know. Speaker 9: I'm fine. Continuing until midnight or 1230, but I. I may need to. Speaker 0: I just did right now. So shall we. 11. What other people? Your thoughts? Councilor. Speaker 5: I'd like to hear the at least the safer ground if. Speaker 0: You which your time. Speaker 5: I'm fine with whatever time people agree with. I just like to hear the say for. Speaker 0: Grant and I just wanted to say something. Speaker 9: So I'd like to make a motion to continue until 1230. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: 1230, maximum second, reluctant. Okay. Okay. We have a motion, a second to continue to 1230. But that doesn't mean we have to hold out till 1230. All in favor I in the opposed abstained and then it passes. Thank you. Okay. So we are going to go to public speakers and I heard the clerk say we have 11, which means you each get 2 minutes and we'll keep this moving. If you, Miss Basinger will read several names in advance, just be ready to scoot out and screwed up. And when it's your turn. Okay. Speaker 3: Dallas Chroma Dell's chroma death said turn our Minda Grayson. Speaker 7: Definition is some speakers on. She said. Speaker 0: I may be the clerk. I'm sorry. The clerk will convey the message. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So do I have the first speaker? Is that you? Come. Hi. Hi. Good. And you are? Speaker 2: I'm Reverend Ilse Cormack. Speaker 0: Hello. Speaker 2: I'm waiting for. Can I see the times? No, I'm not going over. Okay. Oh. Speaker 0: She should be able to see that time. Can you see? Is it up there? Speaker 2: Can't see it yet. There it is. Speaker 0: There it is. Okay, wait. Because I see it on the little screen. Now start her over at the very top. And you're Mark. Speaker 2: I am Reverend Douglas Cromer. I live with my mother at Independence Plaza. I've lived there a year and I had to come live there to be her caretaker. And, um, so my mother's very concerned about the rent increases, and several of the tenants have come to me just a very concern. It seems excessive to me. I'm 56 years old. I've been renting most of my life and I've never seen such a dramatic rent increase. Like we're going to go absolutely to the letter of the law, 5%, you know, every year until you reach a frozen amount and you can't go up any more. So we know we have a ceiling, which is great, but it seems excessive from going from, you know, as much as 20 years with no increase. Now, some increase is reasonable. I understand that it seemed excessive over a short period of time. So we're going from 0 to 5% a year. So that's now $600 a year. The next year, another 600 saying if you get 1200 dollars a year, extra, $800 a year, the third year. That's gone down this year. And but I found out that was because of the law. And I asked to speak to two of the people from the Housing Authority. They very kindly got to me right away and and gave me some very good information. But they they left out some important thing. I only have 21 seconds left. Okay. What was the important thing? Because I want to be fair to them, and that's the important thing. I really appreciate you saying we're all on the same side. The people I talked to were very kind. They care about homeless people. They care about low income people. But it's too high. It's not low income enough. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you all then. Speaker 3: That's Southern. A man are Minda Cross and Cynthia Alvarez. Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Beth Southbourne. I'm the executive director of Life Steps. It's a nonprofit social service agency that oversees 34,000 homes throughout California. We work with numerous housing authorities, as well as private and for profit and nonprofit developers. The concept of life service started in 1996, so not just build affordable housing in bricks and mortars, but actually really help the needs of the communities that we serve. I personally used to run a homeless shelter. I've been a homeless advocate for over 30 years, both singles as well as families. And we do a lot of clinical work here at Life Steps and taking people off of Skid Row into housing. We developed our model at preventing destabilization because I was too tired of watching people being evicted. So that is the premise of why we developed our intervention social service pieces. We educate our developers, our management companies, our residents on using us before it gets ugly. And the more we get involved in the beginning, the easier it is oftentimes for us to have an outcome that's positive. Since 2000, when over 80% of our referrals have prevented housing destabilization, we can't fix everything, but we certainly do. Relocate people is as much as we possibly can. If we're not able to prevent the destabilization. So with that said, I'm here tonight for any questions that you guys may have of our social services. We also are stringent on our client confidentiality. We will not be discussing individual cases because we believe that dignity and the respect of the residents are utmost in our own integrity as well as their own value to be able to live independently. Speaker 0: Thank you and thank you for the good work that life steps provides in a sphere. Speaker 3: Are integral, says Cynthia Alvarez and Lynell Jordan. Speaker 2: Getting in council. Mayor Phil and I'm here today to ask for over. Can I hear me? I'm here tonight. I did have two speakers. One got the flu a couple of days ago, so is bedridden and the other one is scared of retaliation but is willing to talk to you, writing you a letter with their concerns. So I'm again speaking. So I today I got my file. I went through my file before we came here. I noticed there was four copies of everything, just like the packets this big, but it's really this big because I got like quadruple copies of stuff. The things that we requested, me and my lawyer, they were not in there. The complaints that I've been complaining about my mold and my sewage flooding, not there. No call logs of that at all. Tampered with, maybe. Why did it take so long for me. Speaker 9: To get my view? And why did. Speaker 2: I show up to my appointment. Speaker 9: And yet denied? Speaker 2: Why was the reasonable accommodation letter there and. Speaker 9: Sat and held. Speaker 2: And not given to me? Discrimination. Harassed, bullied? Yes. They got my face told me my mind might be slipping a little bit. Nope. I'm just tired. What are our protections like? They can bully us, but we can't bully them. We get, you know, written up, get kicked out of the program. But why can they do it to us? We need you guys. That's it. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 3: Cynthia Alvarez, then Lynell Jordan and Kenji Tamaki. Speaker 2: Good. Good evening or almost good morning. My name is Cynthia Alvarez. I'm the deputy executive director at the Housing Authority of the city of Alameda. I started there about three or four months ago, and I just actually wanted to come forth and say a little bit about how I came to be here. I've actually been following, you know, I'm a house. I've worked in nonprofits for a number of years. Most recently, I was in I live in San Francisco and I was working in San Francisco, a short BART ride, 15 minutes. And I actually I was working for DC Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation. I thought my job there, this is where I want to retire from. They do such great work. They really go deep into the community and provide enriched services and strong housing. They really are a leader. But at the same time, I've been following the city of Alameda, this housing authority here, they you know, being a high performer is not an easy achievement. And I, I had actually been reading the monthly reports that are posted on the website. I follow different folks for different reasons. It's just my thing because I feel like I can learn something and implement wherever I may be. When the opportunity became available for this position, the one that I now hold. I jumped at it, even though it meant a longer commute. I have three very young kids at home, and so it meant. Speaker 8: Some give. Speaker 2: And take some sacrifices, if you will. Not really sacrifices because of the work that this agency does. I am extremely proud and I was so grateful to be given the opportunity to join a team of such committed individuals. And again, I was at a place where I thought I was good for but this agency and now being in it, the depth of services, life steps, the involvement of everyone within the agency and really trying to preserve housing and having people thrive where they are is really exceptional. And it is not something that is discussed enough. You know, the agency continues to look to see how we can do better and more. And thanks for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: LA Now, Jordan, can you tell me hockey and Jeanette? Janet Boston. Speaker 10: Hey, good evening. My name is Lynnette toward in kind of doubled up those L's. But anyway, I'm the director of housing programs with the City of Alameda Housing Authority. And I was raised here in Alameda. And my dad worked at the Naval Air Station all my life until he retired. And I came here from the Housing Authority in Sacramento, where I worked there for 12 years, and they have over 18,000. Vouchers is a very large housing authority. But when I had the opportunity to come back to Alameda and work here, though, it's a smaller agency, you might have thought the work would be smaller, but it's not . It's larger. It's a lot more work because you're hands on on a day to day basis. And I was so impressed with the way that we do have so much supportive services for the clients here and all the steps that we take before any ever trying to take anybody's voucher away. That's just not something they do here. In 2016, we created the Bay Area Directors Roundtable and we still chair that group now. And that's all that housing authorities here in the Bay Area and as far away as Monterey, they come and meet every quarter and we get together and talk about back best practices. And some of the other housing authorities are just really shocked when we talk about the things that we do do here at Alameda housing to support our tenants. And then they've actually asked me for different things and I've passed on information to them and showing them some of the ways. So we're kind of leading in the industry and I'm really proud of that. I enjoyed my time in Sacramento. I loved working there. I come to hours every day. I still live in Elk Grove, California, but I wouldn't commute this far if I wasn't committed to this, and I didn't believe in the stuff that we were doing here in Alameda. I just wanted to let you know that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Kenji, Tammy, Okie, Janet, faster than Katherine Polley. Speaker 11: Thank you. My name is Kenji Tamaki. I'm the vice chair of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Alameda resident for 20 years, an active volunteer with the Scouts for ten years and on the board of Commissioners for four years. And I also want you to know that my entire career is focused on affordable housing. What I'm about to say reflects almost 30 years of experience. And throughout my career, I've worked with many affordable housing owners, and the staff of the housing authority are among the very best. That doesn't mean they do everything perfect and they can't do everything a tenant may ask for. But if anyone accused the staff of being unresponsive or not caring, that doesn't match my experience at all. And having said that, I'm aware that some tenants have alleged that they've been mistreated by the housing authority. And in situations like this, it's I think it's important that a tenant be able to file a complaint with an outside agency who, without any conflicts of interest, can review the housing authorities actions. And this complaint should be able to filed at any time. It shouldn't just be in response to a housing authority action. And fortunately, I think there are multiple agencies that are responsible for doing that. You've heard them described in the presentation, but more in the context of an action against the tenant. But in fact, HUD and the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment will review any tenant complaint at any time about property, condition or discrimination. This tenant this complaint can be submitted by phone or by fax or mail if the issues an eviction you've heard about how cases can be heard before a judge and these agents are really qualified to handle these issues because they have experienced staff, legal power to gather evidence from both sides and authority to enforce the decisions. And that's a real weakness in trying to resolve these tenant issues through city council. City Council obviously needs information from both sides and people. Other speakers have spoken about the problems of tenants revealing their private information. So that raises the question what can council members really do for a tenant? And I think that the first thing you should do is ask the tenant, have they filed a complaint with these agencies and how did that review go? You can review the situation and see how it goes from there. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Janet. Pastor Catherine Pauling, then Kathleen Mertz. Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Janet Basta. Speaker 9: And I'm the director of Human Resources and operations at the Housing Authority. I'm also a resident of Alameda for over 30 years now. I've raised my family here and my children have attended Alameda schools. I've spent my entire career in public service. Speaker 2: And I want to say that rarely have I worked with a group more talented and dedicated to addressing the needs of the population that we. Speaker 9: Serve than the colleagues I have at age. The work is challenging. Speaker 2: Vanessa spoke earlier about the challenges the receptionist has on a daily basis of. Speaker 9: Telling people no, but it's extraordinarily. Speaker 2: Gratifying to help families in need. We have a very, very committed staff, and as an agency we spend a lot of resources training them to do, you know, help our clients, make sure. Speaker 9: That we administer the programs that we run the way that they should be run. Speaker 2: We do. Speaker 9: Certification programs in running the Section eight. Speaker 2: Program, for example, or conducting housing inspections. We do a lot of. Speaker 9: Customer service support trainings. So we are really committed to building our staff skills and helping them to address, address and serve our clients. Speaker 2: I joined the Housing Authority four years ago as I wanted an opportunity to have an impact in the community where I live. And it's been. Speaker 9: An honor and a privilege. Speaker 2: To help the Housing Authority address the housing crisis. I obviously support the agency on the administrative side, and I'm proud. Speaker 9: To do so. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 3: Katherine Pauline, Kathleen Mertz, Mike Poochie. Speaker 0: By the way, you are all doing perfectly staying right in your 2 minutes. Speaker 2: And I almost feel like I should have a chance to respond, since you did use the ad hominem attack against me. Um, you. I got a call at Thursday at 559 for the meeting on Tuesday. I contacted you first thing Monday to say we would not be prepared for that Tuesday. So don't tell me that I turned down the offer, too. And I very clearly stated we wanted to prepare in order to have a meaningful meeting and find meaningful, lasting solutions. So we have always expressed the willingness to be able to discuss and do it. What's been happening is there's very clearly winners and losers. So you're going to have we had an hour and a half presentation. We've had half a dozen speakers basically saying how wonderful they are themselves. And we have people and photos and files that take three months to get and then aren't even complete. So there is a gap in information here. There is a serious problem. People who used to love where they lived are now so rule bound that they describe their living situation as oppressive and run more like a prison. So there is a big gap and the wonderful colorful slides and the presentation. I don't doubt that this group has been very effective in managing money and developing real estate. I know Vanessa has an incredible background in real estate and development that that's why she's hired and she's done a lot for the city. I'm not villainizing anyone, but there is a serious problem here and people are being treated very badly. And now we're at 1115 at night. And the elderly, the disabled, the parents with children were not able to stay. And they were too afraid to speak personally because there have been some very rude and bullying comments made and people are afraid. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathleen Mertz. Speaker 3: Mike Poochie, then Svetlana Regina. Speaker 2: Are limping. Hi, everyone. I'm Kathleen Mertz. I'm the director of housing and Community Development at the Housing Authority, which means that I oversee the real estate development aspects of the work that we do, as well as I implement the city's programs working with that, be partner shop for like the CDBG home program, also oversee asset management of our properties. I started in well, one, I'm going to allow me to read her and a resident. Also, I want to say that too, which is part of why I started in March 2017. I used to be working for a national nonprofit that actually works specifically in low income senior housing and when working in real estate and in the field of community development. But on a national scale, I had a little bit of this kind of moment of my life of saying, I'm working in a room, improving these buildings by building, but what am I doing in my community myself? So I had this opportunity to come work for the housing authority because if there's if you want to work in affordable housing in this town, there's one place to go. And I've never regretted that decision. I worked very hard with a bunch of really talented people, and I like to say that we're small and we're mighty. Everybody that I work with is incredibly dedicated in trying to solve issues of housing in this town and in this region, as well as working our best to keep people housed. And I really want to a shout out to a board of commissioners. They're great leaders and they actually have technical expertize in housing, which is super valuable for us as staff when we're working through policy and strategic decisions with them. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we hear. Speaker 3: Mike Pucci, then Svetlana Machina is the last speaker. Speaker 4: Evening, Madam Mayor, and fellow council members. Her council members and city. Speaker 1: Manager and. Speaker 5: City attorney. I'm Michael Poochie. I'm Alameda resident and also the former. Speaker 4: Executive director of the housing authority. Speaker 5: Of the city of Alameda for 19. Speaker 4: Years. I came here tonight really to listen about. Speaker 5: The concerns of Councilmember Odie and. Speaker 4: Councilmember Vella. Speaker 10: About the potential conflict. Speaker 5: Of interest issues with the housing authority. Speaker 4: I've heard those. I heard your concerns. Speaker 5: I'm not in agreement with some of those concerns. And I was going to. Speaker 4: Try to address several other matters tonight. But in order well. Speaker 5: If I knew I was going to be up this late, I would have taken a nap this afternoon. But I just want to make. Speaker 4: Myself available to you all. Speaker 5: And also to. Speaker 4: Staff, city manager and city attorney as well as the tenants. Speaker 5: Because I have a lot of history here, I could go back and give you secondhand information about what happened 40 years ago and why we're here. At this point today, I can give you firsthand information about what happened 25 years ago. Up until 2014. I'm retired, but I don't do any hearings, administrative hearings. Speaker 4: Um, I haven't done one in probably over 30 years, but I would like. Speaker 5: To be available for anybody to, to talk to you about anything related to the housing. Speaker 1: Authority. But I will. Speaker 4: Draw a line. I'll put a caveat on that. I will not impose upon. Speaker 5: The duties and responsibilities of any of the staff members. And because that's not my role anymore. That's their role. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schiller. Speaker 2: That evening. Mary and Alma Mater City Council. My name is Long Irish Cinnamon Alameda resident and I have appeared here before and I would like to first thank you more to you for bringing this very important matter for the discussion and Muli Vella of course, and I think this is great that we are together here and we are talking about it and we are trying to find the right solutions because apparently Alameda Housing Authority is doing tremendous, very important work to house underprivileged people and this work should not be negated. At the same time, I think what people are talking about is that disconnect and the grievance procedure. And I think that as a city and as people, we need to find solutions to those conflict resolution issues. And I know that this city is big on bringing people together in find finding the right solution to this. And I think the city should be able to participate in that process because the city was the one who found that Alameda Housing Authority in the first place and the city should have a say in how this problems are resolved. So I can tell you, like a few things from my personal experience is one, the whole thing with my father started the first thing I did. I wrote a long letter to Alameda Housing Authority with a grievance about discrimination. And to this date, I never received a response. I mean, the matter has been resolved, but the letter has been there for a year. And when I came to speak to somebody at a meeting months, months, months later, you know, it just was very clear to me that that letter was never looked at. So and that's just one example. But there are several other people who are saying that this some kind of procedures need to be established for people in order to be able to hear the problem. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 3: That's it. Speaker 0: That's it. That's our speakers. Okay, so we, um, we've had some suggestions for direction to staff. Do we want to go down the line and people add whatever more they want to add or because I'm also mindful that it is now 1120 and we still have a few more items. So I'll start with you. Sure. Speaker 9: So I mentioned this before, but some sort of stakeholder group or some sort of direction to one of our already established boards to help lead a discussion about transitioning. And I do think that that's really important and we need to work together on this. I think the housing authority has an interest in this. I know that they do. I spoke with Vanessa about this as well as our tenants groups, APC. I think we have a lot of different projects that are coming about and Eden Housing, I think there's a number of different groups that that really need to get together and talk about this, this need and in terms of the gray area of transitioning from full independent living and the stage before you get to skilled nursing. And I think that that's something that we could get some really creative solutions out of and some of the cases that have been brought forward, really there are some issues related back to this. So that's why that was one of the things that is, is one bit of direction we could give. Another is, you know, I do think that we are unique in that the housing authority is not under the cities, but people come to the city. I think we all need to be on the same page. Having this appeal process posted on our website as well is where the grievances can be filed. Age, HUD, you know, if there's, you know, the release forms, those sorts of things where the city could link up and have that information I'm all for, let's get the information out to people so that they know and also so that we can, you know, kind of understand where things are at in the process. I also think, like I said before, there's just an overall code enforcement issue when we're talking about habitability issues, whether you're in the housing authority or a tenant, just, you know, or anybody really , we've had a number of code enforcement issues come up. I think this goes back to what are we doing about code enforcement generally? But I think that also the city needs to have something on our website that says this is where you can report these things. I think calling the police is not in a. This eerily the correct use of our police resources. But we need to fill that gap of making sure that we have some sort of code enforcement availability out there. And then there's a city record of habitability issues, whether your door locks, things like that. And the other thing is, I think, you know, for this appeal process, for the Section eight, you know, who identifying who are the hearing officers, who's sitting on on these panels? I think the more we can get retirees, I just you do a lot with your limited staff and I give you credit for that. But I also think, you know, making, you know, identifying what the positions are. And I think to the extent that we can have it be retirees, and I don't know what the cost of that is or if there's a way for some of our rent funds to pay for that to make sure that it's as unbiased a process. I think it insulates everybody and it provides you know, I get that you need to have specific knowledge. I don't want to serve on those ports, but I think having that sort of process, I think also, you know, and I'm open to hearing other other suggestions, but I think leaving this direction open ended to say what are the other options that even staff might be able to recommend of of things that we can do to kind of get to the underlying issues. I don't want to be focused on solving a specific issue for a specific tenant, so much as I want to be focused about how do we improve all of these things and the root of it, not just the kind of the superficial what's been presented to us. So those were some of the things that I talked with staff and housing authority and activists about, and it seemed like there was some consensus on those items. Speaker 0: I'm just go down the row. Councilmember Knox Right. Speaker 1: So I guess my first question is who is who will be doing if we give direction to do a lot of this work? Who in the city will be? What staff will be doing this work? Speaker 4: I can give you that answer better at the end of this at the end of your discussion, because I'm actually hearing a few things and I had some thoughts too, so I can give you a. Speaker 0: Better I will call you and we're all making our comments. Okay. Speaker 1: So I think he left. I wanted to thank Commissioner Cam Aoki. Tom Aoki. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. I was looking pretty disappointed. There you are. Thank you. I wanted to I wanted to thank you very much. Speaker 0: For coming this hour. Speaker 1: I thank you for coming. I really appreciate appreciate that. I very much appreciated your comments. I've learned a lot just through this discussion over the last couple of weeks about, you know, I am a big fan of communication and it's clear the communication is not happening. Well, not not from you. But when I found out that a lot of the comments we're hearing and the kind of the stories we've heard haven't really been were even relayed back to board members, etc., and that folks who are coming to us for comfort, for conversation and discussion, have never talked to board members in the past at all, let alone about the specific issues. It suggests to me that there's a lack of clarity and some conversation that needs to happen about, you know, who does have. Who does currently have that accountability role. I agree completely with the comment you made about the idea of a third party outside. I call it an adjudicator, but somebody who can facilitate meetings and help. I think that would go a long way. So I was very heartened to hear that. And I wanted to thank you for for your work as well. You know, I will actually second just about everything that Councilmember Vella said as as ideas. I have spoken with Ms.. Cooper as well about some sort of task force or something, because I think that that is a big systemic issue, that that is going to just increase as our population is growing and as the housing crisis continues to deepen further. And again, within this appeals process and whatever else I do, I do really want to push for the kind of this the importance of having this be outside and not in. I understand that HUD wants you to save money and use internal people, but I just think it sets everybody up for as the you know, I'm sure 90% of these go well and they work out and whatnot. But whether it's after that, informal, if it's an internal person, there's somebody before you go to court that they can work with. It's a third party. I think that that would be a very useful thing. I you know, I have been asked and I'm not overly on board with the idea of bringing the housing authority back underneath us and significantly changing the structure before we look to see how we can kind of. You know, bring into the sunlight some of the some of the transparency. You know, again, it's but I will also it's frustrating because we do hear one side of the story and we don't get to hear the other side very often. And the stories are heartbreaking. And, you know, and I believe them. These are people who are sharing their experiences and whatever else, you know. But but I think I think we have not. I think we need to figure out how we how the housing authority can possibly listen to some of the feedback that is is being given and identify ways to work through those things. You know, I also reflect on the the example that Councilmember Odie used from his past job of somebody who had had an unsuccessful informal hearing, went and got a positive response from the judge, and then a negative response from the appeals court. And what I heard at the end of the day was that the process had actually worked and it had it had ended. And no amount of city council or anybody else had been involved in that would have been able to get it to a different result. You know, I I'm obviously a fan of our elective system and whatever else, but I don't think that elected officials necessarily need to be the end result of every single decision. And I'm not sure. I'm not sure we are the right body. But I would like to see, you know, as this, because I'm sure this conversation will continue. I would like to see some kind of engagement around some of the issues we're hearing and and clarity brought and maybe systems looked at and changed so that hopefully we aren't going to be back here having this conversation again. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Brody. Speaker 5: Oh, you want to go down the line? Okay, that's fine. I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. Rather than giving specific solutions, I want to focus on outcomes. And the outcomes of the referral were to increase accountability and to reduce conflicts of interest. And I think the vice mayor added transparency. So whatever our staff come up with, given the conversation that we heard today and the concerns from the residents, that's what I like to see. Again, I think I said this earlier, I don't think wholesale transfer of the housing authority under the city council and disruption is the answer. So I wouldn't even spend any time on that. And I appreciate Councilmember de Suggs discussion earlier and there may be legal issues. So I expect you guys to come back and say, well, you can do this, you can do that, or you can't do this because of some legal issues. So I appreciate that. Just a couple closing comments. So I think whatever outcomes can can accomplish what we're what we're seeking to do here, because I hear I hear Catherine and the folks that talk to her and the folks that talk to me and this is me, I'm not speaking about anyone else or indicting anyone else. I will never stop fighting for the most vulnerable people in our city. That's my promise to you. So when you come to me and you want someone to be your advocate, I will be that advocate. Sometimes it shakes up the system. Sometimes it makes people unhappy. But I'm going to continue to do that. So be prepared. If you're on the opposite side, I that's where my values lie. I think as a society, we are judged by how we treat our most vulnerable, which is the our seniors disabled, our young people. And as a council, I think that's how we should be judged, because those with money are going to be able to take care of themselves no matter what. So I will never stop doing that. And so I will continue to advocate for you. And as you ask. I do want to appreciate. Kenji, you took time to talk to me on Friday with Vanessa. And I would like to have you had a couple more minutes because I think you were starting to get going there. So maybe we can continue that conversation. And Mike, which I think he left, but I'm happy to sit and talk to you, you know, without staff. So it's just you and me having coffee to learn more. But I'm focused more on the outcomes and I appreciate everyone's work and I appreciate all the hard work that people do do at the Housing Authority and that you all came out tonight, you know, until 1130. That shows a lot of loyalty and there's a lot of good work. And I don't think we needed an hour and a half to hear about it, but I do appreciate it. But there are some issues that need to be addressed, and I hope that we can we can take the time to address them. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desiree. Speaker 6: In 2012. Former city manager John Russo put the Alameda Housing Authority on a path of complete independence by separating the Housing Authority and its governing commission from the city council. And I think we should continue with that separation, with that independence, because the housing authority has proven itself to be successful since 2012. We heard tonight about their involvement, the role that they play in, for example, site A in providing project based vouchers that assist in the cash flow of that very financially constrained project. So I want to continue with that independence and I want to close by saying, you know, the attempt to to incorporate city council in the appeal process that we thought what that we saw or some other entity is not as easy as you would think. Just to repeat from the outset that I indicated, it's Congress who establishes the laws. Then HUD then kind of helps interpret that into kind of the federal register language, bureaucratic language. And then the local housing authority then incorporates HUD's direction in terms of policies that are implemented in the what's called that administrative plan. And the first, when it comes to evictions, the first set of policies that we saw had to do with program violations, because this is at the end of the day, involves taxpayer money. And so families who are participating in this program have obligations, family obligations with regard to maintaining their involvement. Now, the second level of evictions that you saw in that schematic had to do with lease violations. So there's a whole different set of procedures with regard to lease violations. That's when, you know, housing units aren't meeting on how to build any codes. Now, here's a difficult. And I'm going to end on this. At the last part, you heard about informal hearings. It's not easy to involve outside entities because if you involve, for example, Oakland housing authorities in our informal process, they have completely different policies. So we might be they might be interpreting what's right for Oakland in the context of Alameda. So it's not that simple. There's a reason why we have internal staff involved in the informal hearing process. But there are guidelines and checks to make sure that through that final stage in formal process, that the tenants are treated fairly. Because at the end of the day, what matters with regard to the housing choice voucher program and the project based program that we have, what matters with regard to the housing authority is not simply the money that allows for families to live in affordable housing situations, but also having rules that are equally applied and that are transparent to all. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And I believe the vice mayor wanted to add to his comments. Speaker 1: I just wanted to add one comment, I think, Commissioner Aoki, but I also want to thank Miss Alvarez, Miss Jordan, Miss Boston and Ms.. Mertz and Vanessa, for all the work you do, do I know that these are not difficult or these are difficult conversations? I think everybody knows that you're working very hard and bringing a lot of value and whatever else. And while we're here talking about how things could be better, I can tell you every job I've ever been at, some some things can be better. But you're also I just want to make sure that it was also clear that your work is appreciated. And thank you very much for being here tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have heard a lot of good input from my colleagues, so I don't need to say too much more except to thank everyone who spoke from all sides of this issue. I do think that the idea of a mediated conversation between tenants we've heard from and housing authority staff is a good thing. I very much support that. I think that probably would be unanimous if we took a vote on this council. Other items have been raised. The code enforcement piece, I would just say to council, this may come up in a priority setting workshop how to how to address this. And then again, we have a very valuable resource in the Housing Authority Board, and it saddens me to know that they are not a very frequently used resource. And so I would encourage all those involved that rather than circumvent the system and go straight to your favorite elected official, we all want to be that favorite elected official , but there are people who actually are there with the training and the expertize and they are set up to to perform those functions. And then, as Mr. Tamaki reminded us, there is a process for an independent review, the ability to file a complaint any time to an independent agency. You do not have to go through any housing authority personnel. And so not only are there experienced staff, there's also the ability to enforce. So in law they talk about exhausting your administrative remedies first. So avail yourselves of this opportunity. But at the end of the day, I think everyone in this room shares the desire to provide more housing, to make housing more secure, to to provide good habitable roofs over people's heads. This housing crisis isn't going away anytime soon, which just behooves us all, all the more to work collaboratively with each other rather than to attack . And I want to give our city manager, Eric Leavitt, the last word on this. Did you want to say anything? Okay. So, Mr. Levitt, you had some thought through. Now that you heard from all of us, you've come up with the magic solution. Speaker 4: Sure. I have a I have a few thoughts. Well, each of you has said, and then I and I apologize if I mispronounce her name. Ms.. Kramaric reiterated, everyone here is for the same thing. And as I listened to the Housing Authority, as I listened to that was an advocacy group, as I listened to the council. Everyone has the same goals, just coming out a lot of different ways, some from a legalistic perspective, some from a passionate perspective. It's, it's, it's, it's a variety of things, as some of you may know or not know. Way back in my career, I used housing is where I came up through, and I've overseen housing authority as a city manager in another city. So. So what I would like to do or recommend. As I think some of you are, there's been some good ideas. I think the root of the issue came up from one of you, and I think rude of the issue is the thing that we need to really focus on. And so my recommendation would be that probably we'd have to have three departments involved from the city, I think someone from the same manager's office, because we're directly accountable , responsible to the council. And this has obviously risen to your level. I think community development officer will be involved because they are the they're the department the interacts the most with the housing authority. And then legal because of the legal issues with the with the housing with the housing issues. I think those three and what I would like to do is probably start with an informal or recommend that you take action to have an informal state called a group that could then decide whether or not it becomes a more formalized stakeholder group. And that that group focus on three things the accountability, conflict of interest, or four things actually transparency. And within all those three things that hearing officers be addressed and how that's going to work within it that can can address it. And I think we ought to look at a fifth element, and that would be is there some type of informal mediation methodology that could come out of this process? And that would be my recommendation and bring that back to the council and probably back to the commission to hopefully have some type of solution. My goal would be that it would have a deadline of February 18th. Speaker 0: Thank you. Could you just repeat what those areas were? I heard I heard you say five, but I. I wrote down. Speaker 4: So focus on the three core areas of accountability, conflict of interest, transparency. But within that, look at two areas of hearing officers within that look. And I don't look at hearing officers within that also look or hearing officers hearing process and potentially look at an informal mediation process before you get into the formal process. Yeah, the one thing I didn't hear was probably the habitat habitability, habitability, habitability or code enforcement. That's the one because the rules within HUD, the rules within life safety and the rules within what people feels a decent place to live. Those are three different three different definitions at times. And so that one's a little bit more vague to be able to deal with sometimes. But that group could possibly talk about it. In February 18th. I recommend we'd bring that back to the council by February 18th. Speaker 0: Okay. It was. Speaker 2: Pretty. Speaker 4: Well it took four months, four months from. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm ready. Yes. Council vice mayor. Speaker 1: So per earlier conversations, I want to confirm if we're going to give this direction that we have the capacity and we're not bumping other things. And I'm not sure you're going be able to answer that question tonight, but maybe at the next meeting you could come back and talk about you. You know, let us let us know how this is going to impact. And the other thing I'm just going to throw out there before I put it in a motion, I think I would love what I would like to say. See it, since this is kind of a first step. And we are we are. We are. I'm assuming that the accountability is actually still held with the the the housing commission. That that before you bring it back on the 18th, that that, you know, we get that feedback and kind of know that they're, you know, if they might have other steps they're doing. And then when we come back, we can kind of, you know. Speaker 4: Do that. Yes. Okay. I just would be agreeable to that and might move it back to the first meeting. And that's fine for me. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: And so do we need a motion is a staff direction I think was the. Speaker 4: If you like, that concept. If you could do a motion saying to go for that better. Speaker 5: Okay, I can. Speaker 0: Maybe. Speaker 5: I can make that motion. Speaker 0: Well, I think. Did you have a comment? Councilmember Vela. Yeah, make your comment, please. Speaker 9: So just really quickly, I know that there's the differences in terms of what somebody likes versus and finds comfortable versus basic habitability. I do think, though, that there are a number of issues that have been raised across the board, and I get that it might be a wholly separate item, but I think that it is applicable here that at the base level I think we do need to have some sort of city accountability in terms of basic habitability that is documented and everything else, because otherwise we're going after he said, she said, and looking for a record. And if we don't if we aren't able to provide that, I think it is a big problem. So and it's not to say that I don't think that we're not looking at that, but. Speaker 0: Maybe that could be part of the Getting Housing Authority feedback. Speaker 2: To consider habitability. Speaker 0: Issues, too, when you're talking about the housing authority. Okay. So I believe a motion was about to be made. Speaker 5: Yeah, I'll make that motion. But I'd also like to see us consider an incentive program to help with that 75 vouchers. I think the one in Oakland over six months, only $70,000. So given the transfer test. But maybe that's not for today. Yeah, I'm but what I. Speaker 4: Would recommend as part of that motion is we could just bring back research of how Oakland pays for it. And then okay, with that. Speaker 5: I will move approval of what our city manager who was able to encapsulate everything that we said and distill it amazingly and effectively, I'll move approval of that direction. Speaker 0: I have a motion to have a second. Speaker 9: I'll second. Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded all in favor. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 0: I didn't hear any abstentions or I know. So that motion carries. Okay we are now just for the your exercise in time management we now have three more items that means to get it right. 12, 15, 1230. We get they each get 15 minutes. So we're going to speed talk this through and we're moving on to item six E and Ms.. Potter and you know, feel free to do a truncated staff report. Speaker 2: Well, I'm going to yes, I'm going to suggest one better. Okay. And we are prepared to dispense with microphone. Speaker 0: Microphone. Okay. Audience If I could ask you. Hello? AUDIENCE We have to get through three items in 45 minutes. If you could take your conversations to the hall, that would be lovely. Thank you all for coming. Yes, Miss Potter. Speaker 2: All right. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. And the item before you this evening is acceptance of the fiscal year 1819 annual report for the rent program. That's a requirement to do an annual report per the ordinance. We are happy to have you move acceptance of the report without a presentation. If any council members have any questions, program staff is prepared to do that. And then on the the other item was we got direction from the council in September to come back and talk about some issues around the permanent and temporary relocation schedules. And we have a recommendation which is to keep the permanent relocation schedule as is, and to revise the temporary relocation schedule to reduce the per diem expenses that are included. And we can recommend moving that resolution to without a presentation and answer any questions council may have. Speaker 0: Yeah, because as you know, I. Communicated earlier. I have some issues with one of the calculations. Speaker 9: Do we have any speakers, Madam Mayor? Speaker 3: We have one speaker. Speaker 0: One. I understand. Speaker 2: Well, if you would like to take the public speaker and then we can come back and address any questions or issues. Speaker 0: Sure. Let's take the public speaker. Who is that? Speaker 3: Madeline Howard. Speaker 0: Madeline Howard. I know. And my apologies. Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you. Speaker 9: For staying. Speaker 2: Up late. Speaker 9: So, Madeline Howard, I live in Alameda. I'm also a housing advocate with Western Center on Land Poverty. I fight for low income tenants for a living. So I just wanted to encourage the council not to reduce the temporary relocation payment. I would also love it if you gave more money for permanent, but I don't think you're going to do that. So I'll just speak to the temporary. Speaker 2: The costs that are in the chart don't actually address the tremendous. Speaker 9: Disruption that occurs when someone is removed from their home for up to 30 days. Including like some cities, there is a special payment for storage. Speaker 2: Of furniture and other goods. Speaker 9: That a family can't keep in a hotel. Speaker 2: Room. Speaker 9: I have two young children and I can't imagine living in one hotel room with my young children for a month. And so I think the calculations that were made were based on the idea that someone the cost of a single hotel room, and that's not really a realistic replacement for a family. So I just encourage the family, not the council, not to reduce the relocation payments. Speaker 2: Thank you very. Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Okay. So now we have council discussion. Yeah, I am. I did. Well, does anyone have any comments on the on this report? Okay. The. Concerns I shared with Ms.. Potter. Speaker 2: So might the council want to accept the annual report? And then we can move to the discussion of the permanent and temporary relocation schedules that might. Speaker 9: I'm going to. Speaker 2: Turn to her. Speaker 0: No, it's. The report is fine, but I'm the. It's the permanent relocation. Okay. Calculation that I. Speaker 9: That's not a may or may I move approval of the annual report second. Speaker 0: All in. Speaker 9: Favor I. Speaker 0: Any opposed abstain. Is that an opposition or abstain? Okay. So we have four approve and one oppose. And so. Okay. So then we go on to the the resolution involving the revised. Well, the recommendation is the revised is to keep the permanent relocation the same and reduce the temporary. And where I have trouble with. It's actually an exhibit it's exhibit two, which is the comparison of various cities that do relocation, permanent relocation payments. And it shows the the average percentage enhancement for qualified tenants, because the council voted that for tenants in certain vulnerable categories, they would get more. I I'm troubled that the the suggested amount for Alameda is 33%. The average is 29%. But is the average also includes jurisdictions that set limits on the amount of income that tenants can raise before they even get get relocation payments. And these are, you know, admittedly, some of. Speaker 2: The higher. Speaker 0: Probably higher income or higher rent cost jurisdictions. Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood City would be a little more mixed, although they don't they have a formula that doesn't have percentage enhancement. But I would actually favor and then so then if you remove those jurisdictions that have the restriction on who can even get these enhanced payments, the the average is 27%. And I think that it's probably more reasonable for Alameda to stay close to places like Oakland. San Leandro, San Leandro is a little low. But anyway, 33%. I just this was my worry before that. And I know staff said in the report they could find no evidence of landlords being less willing to rent to people in these specified categories where there were enhanced permanent relocation payment amounts. And it's sometimes hard to prove a negative. I'm not even sure how you would go about doing that because no one is going to admit that they didn't rent to someone who is a senior. But I just it's something we'll have to keep an eye on if we do create this extra imposition on landlords. And it's up. It is 33%. We may just have to deal with what happens when our seniors and families and folks with disabilities are having a harder time finding places to rent. So I would I would argue that at the very least, we could make our percentage increase 29%, which is the average, even when you include Mountain View in Menlo Park. Speaker 2: And. Speaker 0: Councilor. Oh, so I'm sorry. Even I'm Mr. Chen. Sorry, sir. Speaker 1: My apologies. I had a moment to look at the agenda title and it occurred to me that the agenda title provides that it's adopted mechanism resolution, establishing a revised temporary relocation payment schedule. Speaker 0: It's not even time. Speaker 1: And so it's not agenda for a full discussion on permanent relocation. So my recommendations that we can if we can keep permanent relocation conversations brief and not take any actions on the permanent relocation. Speaker 0: Sorry, that's a good point. Council wishes so ever I. I'm just going to say that this is an area where I. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: Really believe that the council should not. I mean, I will very much respect that it's not and not noticed. We're not going to discuss that. That council should not be prevented by a lack. Speaker 2: Of. Speaker 0: Reference in the title. So just going forward. Speaker 1: And so my recommendation is that if the Council is interested in a permanent relocation discussion, you just simply give a brief direction to staff to bring permanent relocation back to you. Okay. Speaker 2: Right. And I apologize from staff's perspective, because that was council's direction to us was to come back with an analysis of whether or not there were impacts by surveying other cities to having the the enhanced benefits. You adopted the resolution establishing the permanent benefits in September, but then you asked us to come back and report out the results of our survey of the cities. And so I apologize if we didn't properly allow the discussion on our findings to to be presented to the Council because that we were trying to implement your direction from September. So I do apologize for that. Speaker 0: And I would just ask, without discussing this matter in particular, why one would bother to have a table and even an average. And then I mean, I just think. Speaker 2: That. Speaker 0: That's a decision. And my colleagues may not. May not concur. Maybe it doesn't come back. But I. But I am troubled by this. Speaker 4: I think. Speaker 1: Madam Chair, the compromise is that because this is also an annual report from your staff to you about the program, you can discuss it. It's generally as part of the annual report, but not to take action amending permanent relocation amounts in changing that resolution. That's brought before you as a sort of item. Speaker 0: BE We've already approved the annual report, so we're done discussing. We never discussed. But anyway, okay. Speaker 2: And I was like, there was one comment I would like to provide to the council which may assist in kind of just the information around this discussion. And if the city's enhanced benefit was reduced to be 29% of of the basic, that is a reduction of $72 for the relocation for the studio and a reduction of $421 for a two bedroom apartment. So it may be that. Speaker 0: If we're not discussing this, we're not discussing this. Right. I the discussion should be over until unless and until it comes back. And I appreciate that you want to reply, but we just heard the city attorney's say we can. Speaker 2: I heard it, don't take action. Not that you could, but I'm prepared to. Speaker 0: No, he no he said you could generally discuss it under the annual report and I said we've already approved that template. Speaker 4: You can still talk about. Speaker 0: Yes. The temporary. Yeah. Councilmember value your question. Speaker 9: So on that note, since we can't discuss this week, do we, we have a public speaker we've already heard from. We heard her. So okay. So I did have a question about the temporary relocation because one of the one of the things that we discussed when we were discussing the temporary relocation was, you know, weekly rates. And also, how long does, you know, basically how long is the temporary relocation going to be? Because when we if you do the 335 at 30 days, I mean, you're talking about $10,000 potentially. I mean, that was one of the issues that was raised was that it would be more than the permanent relocation and to 20 if if you do it at 220, you're talking about 60 $600. And I think one of the things at least that we had come up in our discussion is how do you address this issue of a number of people being rehoused or what the options might be and and the overall cost, you know, looking at weekly options and that. So how do we come up with the can you talk about the 220? Speaker 2: So the $220, the recommendation for the revised schedule is a reflection of looking at more hotels within Alameda to get a better sense of the pricing and to look at weekly rates. So as a result of that additional survey work, it was determined that it's probably more appropriate to go with the number that's $220 a day. Speaker 9: But that only addresses the fact that as one assumes, one hotel room. So how many people are accommodated within one hotel room and then the other? Because it seems to me like if. It's a shorter period of time. You might need more per day. But if it's, you know, like if it's less than a week, you might need more per day because you're staying in a hotel versus staying finding like a month rent to another unit to be in or something like that for month. So that was part of the issue that we had discussed. And then also like how much stuff is having to get moved for that temporary relocation and what what who covers that cost? And is that built into this to 20 a day? Because I think there's a difference between like, I have to be out of the unit while they're doing work versus I have to be out of the unit and all of my stuff has to be out of the unit. Speaker 2: So the $220 a day covers the whole essentially your housing cost and not any kind of storage. The permanent relocation calculation includes storage and that kind of thing, but not the the temporary housing really looks at the annual the average daily rate. And it so it doesn't it also doesn't distinguish with between being out for two days versus being out for a month. This is this is the the look at the weekly rates because the initial temporary relocation schedule looked at daily rates. And so there was a concern that the daily rates were perhaps pushing the per diem to be higher. And the request was to go back and look at weekly rates and more hotels in the in the city. Speaker 9: Is it, Mr. Potter, is it possible to I guess this is more of a question for the city attorney, but is it possible to word it in such a way that it would? Some of the stuff seems like it's a case by case basis. And so saying to 20 a day or 335 a day doesn't necessarily address certain situations where, you know, it might be a higher dollar amount might be more appropriate or a lower dollar. Like, is it possible to say this is a range it could be between 2 to 330, depending on what's involved. Speaker 1: So, yes, but it does create an incredible amount of additional administrative burden to create a range, because what if the council sets a flat dollar amount, staff simply implements it. If you're if the council sets a range, then what likely would have to happen is that we'd have to set up a hearings process whereby folks will have to come and present evidence. And that's probably and then create an intensive process for folks experiencing temporary relocation. I think what the staff attempted to do here is to provide sort of a base range and a few important add ons like meals, laundries and pets. Um, if the council wanted to add a couple more categories or it's still work, but. Speaker 2: Or you could continue to maintain the higher daily relocation benefit that you previously approved for temporary relocations and not move forward with this reduced schedule. I mean, that's the other option to maybe take into account the higher range of scenarios that you might be confronted with. Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 1: I apologize if I missed this part of the presentation. Speaker 2: It was quick. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I know. And I was out of the room, so I apologize. Is there a reason you didn't proceed with. We we talked about the idea of using reimburse actual reimburse costs because often this cost is going to be significantly higher. Speaker 2: Yes, we we looked at that and we thought for some of the reasons that the city attorney just outlined it from an administrative perspective, it becomes it's quite the exercise. If people lose their receipts, if people you know, if there are questions, if the kind of information that needs to be provided, it just felt like it was going to be kind of administratively burdensome. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. I mean, these costs just seem very high. Especially when you get into a week or two weeks of of of. Relocating. Speaker 4: Which one? The revised or the both? Speaker 1: I mean, obviously the revised ones are lower, so they're not as high. The $220 a day still seems significantly high for probably a lot of the people who are going to be moved out of their homes. It's probably not high for a family of five, but it's very high for a family of one or two. Speaker 2: But it does reflect surveying local hotels and understanding their weekly rates as well as their monthly. It's not just the daily rates. Speaker 0: Okay. If we can just remind you, we've got two more items after this. So. Okay, quickly, Mr. Snappy. Speaker 5: Quick. I mean, also these folks, if you're paying 3000 a month, you're still paying your rent of $100. Speaker 2: So you still pay your rent. You just temperature. Speaker 5: That's clear. I mean, that's correct. My personal thought is I would just keep this the same. I mean, if if we could have contracts with certain hotels that maybe they can direct, build a landlord, you know, maybe those numbers could be lower as negotiated. But that may be too complicated. And I will say, Debbie, I think you're probably one of the most overworked and overburdened person here in the city. So if you forget a title, I'm not going to beat you up on it. So with that said, I mean, I'm prefer I'm fine leaving everything status quo. Speaker 0: Councilmember are. Speaker 6: So why even provide temporary location payment? Why not just simply require people tenants to pay renters insurance because renters insurance would cover temporary relocation payments. I don't know why we would do this. Speaker 2: So the city currently the city does not have a policy requiring tenants in the city of Alameda to secure renters insurance. I know a lot of property management companies require it. And if you're renters insurance covered temporary relocation, that there may be an opportunity to kind of sync this up. But it seems appropriate to have relocation, temporary relocation benefits when a tenant needs to be relocated through no fault of their own, while work is being done on their unit. Speaker 6: And that's what renters insurance covers. Speaker 2: But I don't believe every. I mean, we don't require. It's not a mandatory requirement within the city that it's not been an issue that's come to staff from the council. Speaker 6: I guess what I'm getting at, it just seems odd that we were acquiring small mom and pop landlords to pay $220 a day when we could figure out a way to have small mom and pop landlords work with tenants to pay, what, $15 a month. Speaker 5: For. Speaker 2: Renters insurance and not pay 90? Speaker 0: Um. Okay. Um, actually, I want to say something. Thank you, Mr. DE. So. So when this item came to us before we. We all said, wow, these seem kind of high, and do we consider weekly rates and that sort of thing? We asked staff to go and do the survey and bring the information back. They did. It may still seem high, but it's not as high as it was. And I think it's it's actually quite reasonable the way it's laid out. I would recommend that we accept this and move on. Speaker 9: Councilmember Vela Well, I was just going to say that there's nothing precluding Mom and Pop or any other landlord from requiring renters insurance. But, you know, my question for Miss Potter is if somebody did have renters insurance and they were collecting on that, is that then reimbursable under this or they're they're able to collect that. So if if there was an issue of them needing more money to cover the temporary costs, they could use their renters insurance as well as this amount. Correct. Speaker 2: So that then may be an argument for going with the reduced rate and knowing that could be supplemented if you had renters insurance. Right. Speaker 0: Is that a hand up? Council Both member? No. Okay. All right. Well, it is ten after 12. We've got two more items. Does anyone want to make a motion on this? I do favor going with staff's recommendation. Okay. Speaker 2: Well, I. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela. Speaker 9: How does this compare how does the temporary relocation compare with other cities? Do we know? Speaker 0: Well, the thing I will just throw in the. We probably wouldn't we would try not to be sending renters to other cities and limited renters to the cities because people have children in school and things. So if we're looking at other cities, presumably their rates could be a little different. Speaker 2: We did really focus internal to Alameda, looking at Alameda Hotels for the very reason of schools and commutes. We use the the meal allowance. That's the cities. And we we did the pet accommodations but looked locally on the accommodations. Speaker 9: And those were all in addition to what we had had before. Speaker 0: I know the pet accommodations we. Speaker 2: Got. Speaker 0: To we just we just recalculate it a little differently. Speaker 2: Got it? Yeah. Speaker 1: So I'd like to move this, but I would like to move with the idea with leaving open. I still think if somebody can find a place that's cheaper, that they can move somebody into that they should be allowed to pay. But, you know, if a landlord wants to put somebody in the Hampton Inn in Alameda, I you know, and it's cheaper than this and they want to pay for it straight up instead of paying to 20. That makes more sense to me. I'm not going to make that as a part of the the the action tonight. But I would like to leave open the idea that we can figure out we can kind of continue a conversation and bring that back when it's ready. Speaker 0: That's how would we do that? Anybody I mean. Speaker 1: I don't know. I would like to drop this tonight so that we don't have the higher rate. That makes sense. Speaker 2: We can we can track the temporary relocation activity we have over the course of the next 12 months. And when we come back in 12 months with the annual report, we can report out on temporary relocation activity and we can. Speaker 0: Do. Speaker 2: It with the data. And then if there is a desire to do something different, it may be appropriate to do it at that time. Speaker 1: Or we may find language that works for us that we can just bring back to council. And I'm not asking staff to do that research, but that would be my motion. I just I just still feel that this is high, but I feel like it's better than what we got. And I would like to move it forward and not have the I. Speaker 9: I think my concern would just be that so I'm willing to move forward with this tonight and do exactly as Miss Potter suggested by one concern. Be if the landlord is like trying to put somebody in a motel or something that's a substandard, you know, condition and they've got medical issues or something else. I agree. So that would be my concern with so. Speaker 0: So Councilmember, believe your motion is to approve staff's recommendation with the caveat that in a year's time the council reviews it. Okay, we have a motion to move a second. I'll second all in favor. Speaker 2: I. I. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that didn't pass. Does anyone else want to make a motion? And I'll just remind you, we've got Schumer items in about 18 minutes to hear him. Speaker 5: Point of information if we do change status quo, right? Mm hmm. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Speaker 2: And maybe. And maybe this will help the annual report for this current year. We'll probably come back in less than 12 months because it's already October, so it could be less than 12 months. I don't know if that helps. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So you don't even want to make a motion to continue with a higher amount or two? We need to. We don't need to, but. Speaker 9: It's going to be done. Speaker 1: I know. I look, I would I'll make a motion, bring back the housing report, but I. I would like some option when that housing or I would like a direction that that that when that housing is some sort of actual cost. I, you know, come back with that housing report. Speaker 2: An analysis of a system where you could reimburse on our actual cost. Speaker 4: Thank you. What was the most. Speaker 1: Move forward with the the staff proposal? But when the housing annual report comes back, that there actually be some sort of reimbursement option for for consideration in adoption. They just need a second then. Speaker 4: So I guess in is second then. Speaker 0: You do have a second. Speaker 2: I'll second. Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I, i the motion passes and I'm sorry to abstain in a per so it passes with three in favor, one opposed, one abstention. And now we are going to quickly. Thank you, Miss Potter. And I second what the vice mayor said. Okay, everyone, now we've got to run on to the safer for six F's. Speaker 3: Recommendation to accept a $1.6 million grant from the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER Program and adoption related resolution.

Council Referral

Consider Directing Staff to Present Options to the Council on Increasing Accountability of, and Addressing Potential Conflict of Interest Issues at, the Alameda Housing Authority. (Councilmembers Vella and Oddie)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10152019_2019-7320

Speaker 3: Clerk. Consider establishing implementation plan for creating the Shoreline Ecological Park on the west side of Seaplane Lagoon and allow me to come clean on a city paved park because that it was placed on the agenda at the request of councilmembers Odie and Isaac. Three speakers. Speaker 0: Okay. And we have speakers, right? Yes. Um, could I possibly suggest that we hear a speakers first? Because we've kept for so long? Speaker 5: I think the referral explains itself. So let's hear. Speaker 0: It. Speaker 3: Richard Banger, Linda Carr Loney and Marjorie Powell. Speaker 0: Yeah, sorry about that, folks. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council City staff for staying alert this late and continuing on to finish the agenda. Thank you, Councilmember Odie and Councilmember De Saag for referring this. We've had a lot of progress and success with the redevelopment of Alameda Point so far site, a very terminal groundbreaking and I think now is a good time that we break ground to repurpose some of our shoreline. And the scale of this project, as you can probably see without any estimates, is going to be a big project. And it's it's big enough that it's probably not going to be tied to any mega project, mega redevelopment project that's going to absorb the cost of this deep park project. So that's why we shouldn't be waiting for some some big, big project to come along that's going to pay for this. We need a separate track where we seek grant funding and we need to start now. There's no no need to wait anymore. It's it's called out in our Climate Action Plan. There's all the reasons have been spelled out in the in the referral. And so the only $0.02 I would add is if you decide to go forward and create an implementation plan, including a with a proposed request for qualifications that the qualifications need to include some experience with floating wetlands, which is mentioned in the description of the EPA park in the town center plan. This isn't an untested idea. It's it's it's a tested idea. And it would be something we could implement here. And I would hope we would find somebody with expertize in that. And also, of course re purchasing that shoreline to meet the goals spelled out in the Deep Park plan. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank your next speaker. Speaker 3: Linda Cardone, and then Marjorie Powell. Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you again for staying to listen to to listen to us. I live in Alameda. I am also the president of the board of Golden. Get out of my society. We go and get out of Bonn and it's Alameda Conservation Committee I strongly support starting to plan for D pave park it's it would offer great recreation benefits great wildlife benefits and it would absorb carbon which and provide a living shoreline buffer. It has all kinds of incredible benefits and it's been five years since it was first planned. So I don't know, we just feel like it would be really a good time to at least get the planning started because it's going to take a long time to raise the money and build it out. So thank you. We urge you to make the referral. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, Speaker Marjorie Powell. Speaker 2: Hello. Speaker 0: Good morning, you hearty souls. Speaker 2: Thank you. It's actually been interesting to sit and listen. And I appreciate the time and energy that you all put into this week. But my name is Marjorie Powell. I am in Alameda resident, a member of the friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve and it's in part because of the Reserve. But I am urging the Council to move quickly with finding a team to put plans together and do some grant writing to get some funding to actually implement this part. There are a couple of additional reasons. One, Linda mentioned the sea level rise and the need for wetlands. If you look at any of the reports of projected sea level rise, that end of Alameda will be clearly impacted. It's also given the number of recent reports about declines in birds, it's really important that we make sure we have plenty of green space, appropriate green space for birds. And as Alameda urbanized and that land that was once naval air station becomes more urban that we include parkland and wildlife areas. For the not just the birds, but the other animals in sea life there. And I also urge you to consider very seriously removing both of the buildings that are currently in that area. Thank you. Speaker 0: And thank you very much. Thank you to all our public speakers and for your stamina. Okay. So Mr. Desai, Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Odie, this is your council referral. Yeah. Yes. I'm sure that you're. Speaker 4: Aware, Mayor, that Amy Wooldridge is here to answer any questions you have on this. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 4: Of our park. Speaker 0: I assumed it wasn't just an exercise in stamina, but thank you. Yes. A recreation parks director is out here. People, we have 7 minutes. Who wants to say what? Speaker 5: Quickly. Quick. I'm not going to repeat the referral because I think it's pretty obvious. Thank my colleague for for joining me on it and Richard, for working together with me on it. I've been very passionate tonight, so I'll try to rein it in. But if I do, I'm still passionate about this. It's in our in our waterfront plan. This is in our climate action plan. We restructure our leases around doing this park. So I will just read from one of the public letters that came in and our former colleague, Mr. Matarese. It's all well and good to talk about the idea of these parks again. But the time the time for this kind of talk is done. Council needs direction and include deadlines. So I think we need to have our staff bring back a plan and give us a commitment on when they would bring us back this plan. And we can discuss this plan so we can get moving on this because like one of the speakers, that is going to take a long time for this, but we can't wait. Sea level rise is happening. We need carbon sequestration. So I hope we can we can find a place on our priority list for this. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Desai. Speaker 6: Well, thank you very much. Weekly Councilmember Odie asked me to join him in supporting this. I was very surprised because he had indicated to me that, you know, you are on your last go around on city council. This was adopted and nothing had been done since then. And in the last go around I supported this largely because there's a lot of great at that time, you know, you could see that there's was a 2015. You can see that there was a lot of great things that were proposed for the sea in and around the seaplane lagoon, starting with the at the time site A , which was in its infancy as well as the ferry terminal. And at the time I supported the Depay's part because I thought, wouldn't that be wonderful that we're doing all this great development and planning and building, but that at the same time we're doing kind of a building through the D paved park. So so I supported it back then and I was surprised when Councilmember Ody approached me and it was about two weeks ago or so and said, you know, nothing had been done since then. And that's why I said, okay, yeah, for sure. I'll definitely sign on. So I look forward to moving forward with this because I think it is part of the whole development of the Seaplane Lagoon area, even though it is a building. Speaker 0: Council, comments. Speaker 9: Councilmember Vella So I'm happy to support this with one caveat. We've talked about kind of looking at everything together and where it falls with that and I think we have a number of parks planned and different things. So I do want to get this plan kind of underway, but I would also like it to come back or at least I don't know, Amy, if you want to. Speaker 0: Yeah, maybe this will do it as long as we have you here. Could you perhaps come in? I don't want you to feel that this was time wasted. Do you want to just share your thoughts on this, since you are the recreation parks director? Speaker 2: Sure. I absolutely support do pave park. It's it's an important amenity. I do want to take into perspective and I have an updated project list of what's currently happening with LAPD, PD, and I can go through super quickly, but it just gives the scope of work of what staff is working on. And so I would be interested in looking at prioritization from this council and maybe I bring that back as a separate item, not at, you know, 1230 at night, but but as an item. So you can see the scope of what's being worked on. And it's not a lack. Speaker 9: Of desire, it's a. Speaker 2: Lack of staff time. Everything from the City Aquatic Center to Jean Sweeney Park, Estuary Park, Enterprise Park, the pathways is short for inside. So just to name a few. Speaker 9: In the in for the sake of time, perhaps part of the direction is that it comes back along with a full report from. Speaker 0: The president and vice mayor. Speaker 1: So I have two, two questions. First point number five is about the VA. Is the intent to actually for us to have a planning process for VA land. Speaker 0: You wouldn't recommend that. Speaker 1: Working with the Department of Veterans Affairs? Speaker 5: I think the intent was to find ways to collaborate, considering the ideas, to dig up cement, to reuse and recycle instead of like discard. So it's not limited to the VA. I think you know that inside AA they took a lot of cement and reused it and you know, and stop waste. That's one of our main goals is to kind of look at the entire lifecycle. Speaker 1: And it doesn't include the wetlands that are planned for that kind of area on the VA land as well. Speaker 5: We're not you know, I think number five is just the recycling payment thing, if that's an option. Right. There's a whole different issue about wetlands. Okay. Speaker 1: So I'm passionate about happy happy to see this moving forward. I was very involved with it, with the planning of it when I was at the planning board. I, I am concerned, given just the list of and not completed parks that we are already looking for funding on that we're going to start planning and fundraising for one . But I think it's a good opportunity. I like the idea of a prioritization discussion, but I actually would suggest that maybe that starts with, I reckon, Park Commission. I think that's the reason they exist in that we have asked them to add this to that conversation. I'm also just going to flag there are actually the there were never plans for taking down Building 29. In fact, that was a specific part of the discussion at planning at the planning board and the city council and both parties decided to leave it there. It's a huge chunk of cement that is very expensive and problematic. And I would be very uncomfortable, including that we're going to start moving, look for plans for moving people and ripping it down. I think that there's a lot more discussion before we could start there, but if we have a motion to. Speaker 0: You would separate that? Speaker 1: I would separate I would separate that out. I think it's something that can always be discussed, but I wouldn't want it to be specific. Speaker 0: Okay. In the one minute we have remaining. So the recommendation I'm hearing is to actually have this item start at the Recreation and Parks Commission and then come back to us updated. Speaker 5: I mean, as long as there's a date and I mean, I'm fine with that. I'm not sure I would like six taken out, but maybe you can see potential demolition instead of, you know, committing. But at some point, when would we think we would have this part priority type session? Would that. Speaker 2: Uh. Um, I think I'm thinking of what we have on the Recreation Parks Commission. I can probably bring it to them in December. And then that means to, based on how that conversation goes to council in January, February, where they have a very full November agenda for the commission. Speaker 0: I think that's a date. Speaker 5: That's a date certain, I guess. I think a date certain. Speaker 0: Great. So is that sufficient direction to start? Because it is 1230 and we only voted to go to 1230. Speaker 9: Yeah. Yes, I'm fine with that. But I also would just like to say, if there's a community group out there that wants to work on this, there's that parallel track exists. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 9: And we're. Speaker 0: Into it. And they should probably reach out to the Recreation and Parks Commission and director. Okay, everyone, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for your time. Speaker 2: And effort to. Good one. Speaker 6: Oh, yeah. Speaker 2: Okay.

Council Referral

Consider Establishing an Implementation Plan for Creating the Shoreline Ecological Park on the West Side of Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point, Commonly Known as De-Pave Park. (Councilmembers Oddie and Daysog)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7295

Speaker 2: Item six Adoption of resolutions appointing Adam Assessor, Tim Karas, David MC, Remy Motueka, Mike Rose, Lynn Fettig and Deb Severns as members of the Economic Development Advisory Panel. Speaker 0: And so any of those individuals who. Well, I guess we have to first vote on that, don't we? Okay. Sorry. Okay. So council this is these are my appointees that you heard at the last meeting to the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel to have a motion to adopt this resolution. Madam Mayor. Speaker 3: I would like to move approval of it and just say that I think that's a stellar group that you put together. And I look forward to what they what. Speaker 0: Could impressive president they thank you and and for all. Speaker 3: Your. Speaker 0: Appointment. Thank you. But as with all of our appointments, we do so appreciate you going the extra mile because everyone is a busy working person and you represent a particular sector and you give more. You go above and beyond to give your time to help advise the city on economic matters. And we very much appreciate that. So I have a motion to have a second. Speaker 7: To. Speaker 0: Have a motion and a second all in favor. I any abstentions or a position that was unanimous. Yes. Is realized. Okay. Speaker 2: So three here, maybe four. So I'll come up. Speaker 0: I see. Speaker 1: Look, we weren't sure about later. Speaker 0: Yeah, I see. I Debbie Stebbins from Alameda Hospital. Madeline Sadek from Chamber of Commerce. Tim Karras, president of College of Alameda. They'll represent the whole group. Speaker 2: Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution, the United States Constitution, the state of California? And the quality? Speaker 1: Take a look. Speaker 6: Yeah. That's good. And then I think, Oh, yeah. Speaker 2: Because it didn't. Speaker 6: Even have my head high. Speaker 1: You're too good to see. Yeah, well. Speaker 0: Okay. We are moving on to item six B. Speaker 2: Okay. It's a public hearing to consider the proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Initiative, adoption of a resolution finding that majority protest does not exist. Directing a property owner ballot, proceeding for the city's 2019 water quality and flood protection fee, and directing the city manager to vote yes for the city owned parcels and introduction of ordinance

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Appointing Adam Elsesser, Brock Grunt, Tim Karos, David Mik, Remy Moteko, Mike Rose, Madlen Saddik, and Debbie Stebbins as Members of the Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7257

Speaker 2: Okay. It's a public hearing to consider the proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Initiative, adoption of a resolution finding that majority protest does not exist. Directing a property owner ballot, proceeding for the city's 2019 water quality and flood protection fee, and directing the city manager to vote yes for the city owned parcels and introduction of ordinance . Amending the Algerian Civil Code by adding Article four to Chapter 18 to establish the water quality and flood protection fee. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I think I start first. Okay. So to the audience that thinks this might seem scripted, it is there is a legal procedure and language. And I'm I'm not going to be too spontaneous here, but we will have a chance to hear from anyone interested. So good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for being here. The public hearing this evening is the conclusion of the notice and protest period for the 2019 water quality and flood protection fee process. Notices of this public hearing were sent out on August 14, which began the notice and protest period. This public hearing gives property owners and residents another opportunity to obtain additional information about the proposed fees and services and to provide any additional input or comments to the city and to lodge a written protest against the proposed fee. After the end of the public comment portion of this hearing hearing the protest period will close. The procedure for today's public hearing will be as follows. Number one, first, we will hear reports from city staff and consultants about the city's need for stormwater services and the proposed fees, ordinance and ballot proceeding. Two Next, we will open the public hearing so that the public can speak about this measure and ask questions. Three At the conclusion of the public comment period, there will be a final call for written protest to be submitted, and then the public hearing will be closed. The clerk will then tabulate and announce the total number of protests submitted and whether a majority protest exists. If there is no majority protest, the Council may adopt the resolution finding that there is no majority protest. Consider introduction of a stormwater fee ordinance and direct the city clerk to proceed with the balloting process. All protests must be in writing and must be submitted prior to the close of the public hearing written protest, which must contain your name, the address or parcel number of your property and a signature should be submitted to the city clerk. So as that you so Miss Zorba. And, um. And so now will the staff and the consultant now make their presentation? Speaker 12: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I am Liam Garland, Public Works Director and happy to be here tonight talking about one of the most significant items in my time here in the city of Alameda. Tonight, we're discussing the potential for Alameda to decide whether to adopt a water quality and flood protection fee. Tonight, what I'd like to do is walk through a slide that basically shows where we've been and looking at this issue where we are today and where we might be in the near term. And then talk a little bit about the scenario of moving forward versus not and finally, talk about the immediate steps in front of us tonight. If you look at the left side of this slide, you'll see the bottom part is cut off. Sorry about that. You'll see that the discussion about the mismatch between our existing stormwater fee, which has been flat for 15 years and the stormwater systems need for revenue. We first really started discussing that back in 2015. Since then, we've had two adopted capital budgets that highlighted the issue of that mismatch between our the revenue we're getting from our existing existing fee and those stormwater needs. We had a discussion in early 2018 in which we talked about city wide infrastructure needs, and these stormwater needs were part of that discussion. We came back in, I believe it was April of 2019, to approve a contract to get Jerry Bradshaw and SSCI started on the underlying fee study. It was at that of that council meeting, that council directed staff to explore two potential approaches for a stormwater fee. That all culminates on July 16th, 2019. So not too long ago, where council approved moving forward with a property related stormwater fee. Interestingly, on that same night of council had its first chance to really engage with the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. And one of the most important near-term actions recommended in that Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, particularly on the adaptation side, was to fix the mismatch between the revenue, the existing revenue for our stormwater system and its needs. Out of that meeting per council's direction, we initiated the first step of a two step process to consider for Alameda to consider whether to adopt a new stormwater fee. That first step started with mailed notices to all property owners in the city of Alameda as of August 14th. That essentially opened up the process that we're closing today, and that is to have a written protest submitted. And if those written protest, a majority of property owners submit a written protest, then the city council cannot move forward on a ballot. Let me stop for a moment and just go back in time again, which is to talk about the remainder of August and September, where staff engaged with local community organizations to let folks know that this process was going on. Held two community meetings to further inform the public of posted online and in various social media about various aspects of the stormwater system. And now coming back to you tonight to hold the public hearing, should council decide to move forward with the balloting process for the second step of this process? Those ballots would go out on or about October 10th. So not too far from now they would be out and have to be delivered back to our city clerk by November 25th. Then they would be tabulated and the majority vote of those votes cast would win. So if there are more yes votes than no votes cast, then yes would win and vice versa. Those results would come back to City Council at the second meeting in December. And if Alameda did approve the fee, the that would be on Alameda property tax bill in November 2020. And that was a lot in terms of timeline. But it shares a little bit about where we've been, where we are and where we might be headed. If if Allen means do have the opportunity to to weigh in on the fee and the fee is successful. There are three main community outcomes. First, we're going to be able to continue a lot of the significant work we're doing to protect the Bay by removing trash and pollution from getting into the stormwater system and into the bay. So this is 200 inspections we do every year of construction sites and various businesses to make sure that they're implementing the best stormwater management practices possible. It's installing over 250 trash capture devices over the past several years that also require four times visits per year to clean those devices, to make sure that we're getting that trash out of the system and that they're not leading to flooding. It also, if Allen means you have the chance to support the fee and indeed do, it also means a more sustainable storm drain system where we have help to solve the mismatch between the existing revenue and those stormwater needs. It also means that public works can continue. It's 24 seven emergency response with our storm drain maintenance workers out before, during and after storms even in the middle of the night to make sure that storm drains are clear and that the 11 pump stations 126 miles of storm drain and 96 acres of lagoon are operating properly. And finally, our Allen means if if they do get the opportunity to support the fee, they'll be helping to protect property from flooding, especially given that the fee includes revenue dedicated to capital projects. And we know from the adoption of the last capital budget that $0 in stormwater funds went to stormwater capital projects. We also know that there's more than $30 million in high priority needs in our stormwater system and that it's especially important to be addressing those capital needs given sea level rise and climate change. What happens if Allen Medians don't have the opportunity to take action or have the opportunity and there's a majority of no votes? We don't know exactly what would happen in that instance, but we know there'll be some mixture of measures. Overall, the fund will be depleted. Our levels of service will be reduced. We'll have a more reactive program with longer response times. We'll be reducing our storm drain maintenance both before, during and after storms. There will be less street sweeping, and we'll continue the status quo of not having stormwater funds available for capital projects. You put all that together and that increases the risk of a catastrophic failure in our stormwater system. It also means that the city is less prepared to adapt to climate change and sea level rise. Finally, the next steps for tonight are obviously to hold the public hearing on the water quality and flood protection fee. Adopt a resolution to either of a majority protest or not. Further, I'm going to spend a minute on the third ball in bullet point here, which is to direct a property owner ballot proceeding and to direct the city manager to vote yes for city owned parcels as detailed in the staff report. There's about 111 parcels out at Alameda Point for which the fee free of charge would be around $320,000. We think about half of those fees will be passed on to our lessees out at Alameda Point. And then there's another 138 parcels in the rest of the city with total charges of about 50, almost $56,000. You might be wondering why it is that government parcels are charging a fee, and this is because it's a prop proposition to 18 compliant fee. There are no exemptions under the fee and those charges have to be have to be charged for government owned parcels versus private property owners. Finally, the last action considered for tonight and recommended by staff is to introduce the ordinance underlying the water quality and flood protection fee. This ordinance summarizes the administrative procedures for staff and this Council to, on a yearly basis, make sure we set the right fee, that we get it to council and then to the county to make it on the property rolls. With that, my report is finished. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 0: So, Councilor, at this time you can ask questions. Who's got a question? Speaker 9: Councilmember Desai The CPI adjustment factor is set at 3%. A CPI adjustment factor for the fee is set at 3%. I'm wondering, is there any reason why we should differ from what the Prop 13 allowable 2% increase? I mean, what's the argument there? Speaker 12: Well, first, I want to make sure I get clear information out to the public, which is that there is a cap on the annual adjustment of 3%. If the I think it's the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index is less than that. That is what that annual cost increase would be, but it's capped out at 3%. I'll just add that if you look at construction costs, they're escalating from year to year, well above the cost of the CPI. So it's important that we at least get up to that that 3% level. Speaker 0: And the other questions, Council member Odie. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple quick questions. So you alluded to this in the staff report. The this is all going into the stormwater fund, right? Speaker 12: You will there'll be a new closely related fund called the Clean Water and Flood Protection Fund. And all of these all the revenue and expenses will be tracked to that one fund. Speaker 3: And then can you just remind us what the purpose of that fund is and why it's underfunded today? And you know what what we're going to see kind of going forward if this is approved. Speaker 12: Sure. So the existing stormwater fee has been flat for more than 15 years because there was no cost escalator or no CPI increase that could be applied. So that's challenged, number one, with the fee. And then the other challenges with the fee was that fee was never designed to capture all of the capital improvements required of the stormwater system. And it's certainly given it was back in the early nineties when that fee was first contemplated, was not thinking about climate change and sea level rise, which we know are urgent issues. Speaker 3: Thank you. And then two other quick questions. There was I read through the protests, and I think if you protest, does that mean you don't get to pay the fee? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear you say no. Okay. And then lastly, I heard you mentioned that we as the city are going to pass on some of that fee to tenants. If if that was a discussion we wanted to have as a council for property owners, we could do that. Right. You could not today. But we could have that discussion. Speaker 12: You could? Yes, that's true. Let me make sure that I'm being as clear as I can, which is there's some confusion with the word pass on out. So I'm going to say back in a slightly different way, which is that what we've looked at is that a fee as applied to an apartment building would result on an average sized apartment building with an average number of units here in Alameda. And if that fee went from the landlord and was covered through rent increases, it would be 1/10 of 1% of an increase. That is well within the annual general adjustment that is provided for under the municipal code. Does that does that answer the question? Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Speaker 0: As other questions. Council members. I have a couple, Mr. Garland, and thank you for your presentation. I to read all the letters that the protest letters that were attached. There were a few letters in support, I will say. But of the the protest letters and I also attended part of the presentation you and staff did at Lydecker Park, which was as that very informative. So what is the continuing themes in a lot of the letters I read is was the question of why only property owners but not renters pay this fees since everyone will benefit from clean storm drains and protection from flooding and sea level rise. So can you answer that? Speaker 12: So with a property related fees such as this, the way proposition to 18, it requires that property owners only be balloted to decide whether that fee can be applied to property owners. Speaker 0: So it's by law that this form of fee can only be borne by property owners. Okay. And then the the fees that are collected, assuming this is approved, will go into a special fund. Can the city divert revenue from that fund for other other uses, say, to backfill the general fund if it gets low? Speaker 12: No. So by law, all of the revenue and expense related to this proposed fee has to stay within that clean water and flood protection fund. It can't be moved by staff to another fund. It can't be moved by the council. Nor can the state or county or federal government appropriate those funds for a different purpose. Speaker 0: Thank you. And finally, there's no sunset clause in this measure. Do you want to speak to that or would you please speak to that? Speaker 12: Sure. So when we looked at the stormwater systems needs and we looked into the future, we didn't see the needs in the stormwater system diminishing over time. In fact, with sea level rise and climate change, the needs in the stormwater system are only going to grow. And so that is why there is not a sunset provision there. There is a protection, however, for property owners paying the fee, and that is because of Proposition 218. The Council is bound to only set the fee to recover revenue for the stormwater systems needs. So let's assume for a moment that I, your public works director, am wrong and that sea level rise and climate change are not going to be issues in decades to come. Well, then future councils will have the opportunity to lower the fee, which is permissible under proposition to 18, to make sure that that fee is lowered to the amount of needs that are within the system. So if the needs diminished, then the fee diminishes over time. I don't see that future, but that that is a possibility. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Other questions? Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: Mr. GARLAND. There have been in some of the protest filed, there was a reference to the requirement that the program fee expenses are fairly distributed among property owners. And a question about, um, you know, the definitions for multi-family residential. Could you speak? Sure. A little bit. Speaker 12: Let me start dancer and I'm going to ask Jerry Bradshaw. Speaker 7: And I think how those categorizations occur in and what happens if there's a question about whether or not it was properly categorized. Great. Speaker 12: I'm going to start the answer, and then I'm gonna have Jerry Bradshaw come up and finish or amend the answer. So. Oh. Essentially, what the fee proposes is to take all of the stormwater systems revenue needs and then fairly apportion them out to property owners per their contribution to the stormwater system, meaning their properties are of rain runoff that enters into the stormwater system that essentially looks at different land uses and grouping up of those parcels to make certain assumptions about impervious surfaces, remember driveways, roofs, things like that that do not catch runoff and keep it on site, but instead tend to push it off into the stormwater system. That means that the calculus behind the fee is really looking at how to fairly apportion that across those different uses. It doesn't require that it's perfect. And in terms of looking at any particular parcel to make sure that the percent of impervious area for that parcel fits in with the land use, just that it be relatively close and not necessarily perfect. And with that, there's also another built in mechanism in case staff and our consultants get something wrong, which we don't think happened in this instance. But in case we do, there's a way to essentially protest your fees on an annual basis and have the substance of that protest. It's called the disputed fees provision. It's within the ordinance that's in front of you tonight so that we've got to look at the substance of that fee as applied to the parcel and can make changes if they're warranted. Jerry, would you like to add anything to that? Speaker 0: Sure. Good evening to you. Introduce yourself and speak right into the microphone, please. Speaker 4: Jerry Bracha with SCA Consulting Group. I am the engineer on this that design the fee study for you and thanks for having me up here in general. The the as Liam said, the the the the apportionment of this fee across the different parcels that based on the contribution to the system, unlike your water system, we can't measure how much water comes off. It's much like your garbage rates and your sewer rates. You have to model how much contribution the different properties make. And in doing that, we have to look at the data that's available to build this model, a way to administer it reasonably, so you don't have to redo it every year. So the typical way, in a pretty fair way, time tested, is to create different categories. And that's what you have in before you as the different categories of land use as we close to them on land uses because apartment buildings, commercial properties, offices, schools, those groups tend to have similar characteristics. There's obviously variations within a group, but we have to create some sort of group of buckets to put people in. So within each bucket, you may have some parcels that are up at the high end of impervious and some at the low end. Yet they all pay the same rate. So there's it's not perfect, but there is no perfect system. Even if you drill down on an individual parcel basis, there's going to be flaws and you just have to go back to a reasonableness argument on that. So based on that, that's sort of the basis of how we do this fee, just like you do your sewer fees and your garbage fees. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Any for the council questions? Both Mary Knox White. Mr. Becerra. Mr. Garland. Speaker 11: Mr. Garland. Just a clarification, because you started to say that that there's a protection built in to Prop 218 that says if you don't need the money, you can't collect it, essentially, correct? Yes. Okay. You then said that council future councils have the option if they want to reduce the. But if the end of the day, I think the protection you meant is I just for clarity sake, the protection you meant to put out there was that if the money is not needed, we can't collect it in the future. Speaker 12: Yeah, that's true. In other words, if there's stormwater, the needs of that stormwater system for whatever reason, decline over time or diminished, then the revenue and the fee have got to diminish with it legally required. Speaker 11: Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai. Speaker 9: Question So what thought was given to doing basically a door tax approach? Because a concern that I have has to do with, say, you have a three story multifamily apartment, maybe 500 unit 400 unit, multifamily apartment, used to be called Harbor Isle Summerhill. So what consideration was given to a door tax approach as opposed to this impervious surface approach? Speaker 0: Looks like Mr. Bradshaw. Speaker 4: I didn't quite catch you. You said the vortex or. Speaker 0: Door tax. Speaker 4: On rain falls down and it falls on whatever down there on the ground. So if you look down the way the rain hits it, it doesn't matter. For buildings, one story tall or ten stories tall is the amount of impervious surface that projects up to the sky. So you can have apartment building with ten units that can sit on the same sized parcel with the same basic footprint as one that has 200 units that might be 15 stories tall. So based on that, if they're on the same half acre parcel, for instance, or three quarter of an acre parcel, they would pay the same fee. And usually it works out pretty, pretty fair, I think, within a class. Speaker 9: So what you're saying then is on a per square foot basis, regardless of use, land use type, single family home or a multi-family home on a per square foot basis, per square foot of impervious surface basis, it should be relatively the same. Speaker 4: Yeah. And actually, if, if you calculate this for the center point or the average point of each class and work it backwards, it comes out to two and three quarters cents per square foot. Guard loss of class. Now, we don't put that in the study because that's not the rate recharging. We're charging on a per parcel or per acre basis for convenience sake and for the sake of having these categories. But it does work out the same across all classes. Speaker 9: It's just that the Summerhill Summer House apartments are just a larger impervious surface. So on a discrete basis, they're going to obviously pay much more than I will pay. Speaker 4: Right? Speaker 0: Okay. Any further questions before we go to public comment? Okay. So I now open the public hearing for the proposed stormwater fee. If you wish to speak, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the city clerk. Please be ready to speak as soon as the person before you has finished. You may only speak once during this hearing. All comments are limited to I believe it's going to be 3 minutes, because right now we have just five speakers. So listen for your name. Be ready to be on deck if you're the next speaker. And let's get started. That wasn't in the script. Speaker 2: Allen Teague and Edward Payne are the first three. Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members and staff, particularly Liam and his team. Messenger Last January, I expressed my hope that the city would set a bold course to protect Alameda from both the near and longer term effects of sea level rise. I am pleased to acknowledge that a great deal of progress has in fact been made. The resolution before you tonight will give us all a very real chance to be prepared for the near-term effects. Absent absent a majority protest, I urge you to vote for the resolution, and I thank you in advance for doing so. As for the longer term effects of sea level rise, please continue to work at the regional level and state level to ensure that the Bay Area has a plan and the ability to carry it out. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Medved. Our next speaker, Mr. T. Speaker 1: I can help. Speaker 0: And please give your anything to the clerk, not to individual council members. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I? Who is their next speaker? Speaker 1: Oh, it was excellent. Speaker 0: Oh, sir, you must be the one after Mr. Teague. Speaker 4: First off, thank you so much for passing the proclamation and LGBTQ Heritage Month. Well, History Month. As I grew up gay did not exist, which makes it very difficult for you to determine who you are. Thank you. First off, I want to thank Gerry Bradshaw and Liam Garland for answering my many questions. Unfortunately, they didn't ask one, which was what were the alternative rate calculations that we could do? According to the California Constitution, the local government bears the burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that the cost of governmental activity are allocated on a parcel in a fair and reasonable relationship to the parcels burden on their activity. In this case, a parcels impact on the stormwater management system. Preponderance basically means based on convincing evidence and is probable truth or accuracy, not on the amount of evidence quality over quantity. We have two neighboring pilot parcels. One is a lot filled with a 30 plus unit apartment building, and the other is a large single family home , which was converted to five units. Both lots are just under half an acre. The apartment building has almost 100% imperviousness and drains most of its rainfall into the storm drains. The five unit property has a property, approximately 55% imperviousness, and the vast majority of the rainfall is absorbed into the ground as the imperviousness is separated by pervious material between the back and the front. Both of these parcels will pay the same. Under this parcel, this property proposition. The only difference between the five unit and a single family home, which would be two, three or two or four units, is that it was converted the carriage house into two units, making it five. So the footprints of the buildings are the same as it was in 1900. This is a single piece of evidence that exhibits an unfair and unreasonable, unreasonable relationship of the impact of one parcel on the stormwater system. What I gave you was showing you that 10% of the parcels is supposedly representing 58% of the costs of the stormwater system. 10% of the parcels of Alameda. 10% paying. 58%. On the surface, that does not sound like the actual impact. So I am in favor of funding this project. I want to pay my fair share. I am not asking for my property be excluded or changed specifically. I am looking for fair and reasonable allocation of the costs. I don't see how this Council can make that finding with the current distribution. I do want to fund this project, but I would like to do it in a fair and reasonable way. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next be. Speaker 2: Here. Edward Payne. Then Ken Peterson. Then Ruth Abbe. Speaker 0: Mr. Payne. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Ed Payne. I was raised here in Alameda. I'm here speaking on behalf of six homeowners and members of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. The purpose of me being here tonight is to inform the council members of the hundreds or thousands of tons of debris that is dumped on our properties every year for years from a storm drain. I've got pictures here showing the damage to our property from this from the debris and sediment and rubbish and trash and pollutants that it keeps get dumped on to our property every year. Two surveys showed that in a period of 20 months, 252 tons of debris and trash has accumulated on our properties. Now, in all fairness, I've met with the director of Public Works yesterday morning and we discussed this. We showed them that one of the problems we have is a broken storm drain. Now, the reason I'm here tonight is just to simply inform the council members. And I my hope is, is that a solution can be obtained to stop this dumping of debris from this storm drain onto our properties. Where, you know, we're our properties are being destroyed and these are properties which we pay taxes on. And, you know, we have a right to we've paid a premium for our properties. And I think that it's fair that a solution be found. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Payne. And I, I I'm happy to hear you talking with the public works director and staff certainly has heard your comments that thank you and staff will follow up with you. Our next speaker, Ken Peterson. Mr. Peterson. Speaker 4: I think that's me. My hearing isn't very good. Speaker 2: So Ken Peterson. Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm Ken Peterson. The problem with the stormwater and the effluent is certainly is a serious problem. One of the great concerns currently with the environment has to do with plastics and the amount of plastics that are going into the waterways, the oceans and so forth, and the effect on the life of these small particles that can be ingested and get into the food chain. I was surprised to note that the containment filters that are in the system as proposed use plastic, plastic which can break down and go on into the oceans just exactly what we don't want to happen. And so I'm wondering why they choose a plastic where they can use an organic alternative such as Excelsior or Raffia or some other material which can break down and can be digested by the wildlife. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Miss Abby. Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I was a participant in the city's stakeholder process for the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, and I attended all of the meetings of that plan. I also attended all of the meetings of the proposed stormwater fee and the infrastructure proposal for that's before the city council tonight. This is really an essential part of the city's infrastructure to protect the city from the impacts of sea level rise. And I would urge the council to move forward with this ballot, to put this on to the property owners tonight. And we would look forward to a partnership with the city and getting the word out about the essential nature of this fee. It is so very important that our storm water system be able to carry away the the waters that come from the storm surge, from storms from into our storm drains and out to the bay. And and this will protect the city for years to come. If we want to ask state and regional agencies to support the city in our future, protecting ourselves from this lot sea level rise. We need to ensure that we are doing our fair share, that our residents, ratepayers, our property owners are paying for the systems that we need to maintain to protect our city. We can't expect state, regional or federal. Agencies to fund our problems if we are not ready to fund them ourselves. So I very much encourage the City Council to put this issue before the property owners and to support the passage of this ballot. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Mr. Ashby was our last speaker. Okay. So are there any other people who would like to speak on this issue? Are there any written communications to be read into the record? Are there any other communications the public wishes to make? At this time, I am issuing the last call for written protests for the proposed 2019 water quality and flood protection fee. Please turn in any written protest that you wish to have counted. Protests received after the close of the public hearing will not be counted. So do we have any protests that have been turned in in the course of the meeting? No. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. City council members. Are there any final questions you'd ask of staff before the city clerk tells us whether there has been a majority protest? Speaker 1: Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: Councilmember Bella into the microphone, there. Speaker 7: Were some questions raised. Speaker 1: About the public speakers. Speaker 0: And did you wish Mr. Galan, Mr. Bradshaw, to go back to the microphone? Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 0: Did you delegate Mr. Galan okay? Speaker 4: Yeah, I didn't. Speaker 0: Just be surprised to. Speaker 4: Hear it. Thank you. Mr. T brought up some interesting points and handed out some materials. He mentioned that 10% of the parcels, the nonresidential portion of the city would pay about 58% of the revenue. And that's true. But what he didn't have he didn't have how many acres were in the nonresidential, because this is more of a per acre type of fee than a number of parcels. Obviously, the nonresidential parcels are oftentimes much larger. 49% of the acreage in town is nonresidential and they pay that 58%. So they do pay a little more than their fair share per acre. But as you might guess, apartments, shopping centers, things like that are much more covered in impervious surface than our residential parcels. So that kind of fits and that makes sense. Speaker 0: What was that percentage again? Speaker 4: 49% of the acres in town are in that category of nonresidential, and that's what fuels that 58% of the revenues. I also did a quick calculation. I mentioned earlier that the the core element is a two and three quarter cents per square foot of impervious surface that that is universal across all classes. We don't apply that to individual parcels because it's just unworkable to have a system where you do all 20,000 parcels and drill down on each one year after year, keep track of changes to the add their driveway, all these things, it's just unworkable. That's why we do it. A statistical approach that is more durable. But if you were to take that two and three quarter, since we calculate the 55% impervious area on his particular parcel would come out to a fee of about $316. Now he's being levied 436 So yeah, he's at the lower end, but it's much closer to the 436 that he's been levied within the $85 a year he would want to be in as a single family residence on a large parcel. I did a quick one for the parcel next door, which is paved over 34 units and he would pay under that drill down number about 546. Instead of the 436, he'd be in charge. So you see, there's there's, you know, pluses and minuses within each group. But those are both much closer to the $436 that they're each being charged than to the residential rate of $85, which is what it is for a large residential parcel. Speaker 0: All right, thank you. And city attorney Mr. Shen. Speaker 8: I just want to ask Mr. Bradshaw a question and possibly to correct the record. Mr. Bradshaw, you mentioned, as you were explaining to the council, the fair share calculation you have. I heard you say something to the effect of they do pay more than their fair share. I'm assuming that's a misstatement. I think what you meant to say. So they do pay their fair share no more, no less. Consistent with your calculations? Speaker 4: Yes. That is based on the statistical approach that we take for the entire rate structure. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, Miss Vella, were your questions answered? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Vice Mayor Knox. What? Speaker 11: I think this is a question for Director Garland. My memory is that when we talked about the climate action and resiliency plan, that the stormwater system and I don't remember, but I believe the stormwater system is kind of the first system in this. City that is going to be impacted and that we do not have the funding for this. That's right. So beyond just taking care of maintaining and running the existing system. This fee is going to be needed in order to address that issue and and others. Speaker 12: That's right. And so there's two components to that. One is, with climate change, we're going to see more frequent and more intense storms. And that means our stormwater system in its capacity is just going to have to increase. And the second portion is that our perimeter is going to have to deal with sea level rise and those for those perimeter improvements. This proposed fee is a funding source. Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you. And then my second question is more of a leading question. There's 20,500 spots. There is there is a talking point out there that somehow that we have used property the city has chosen to 18 method because the city gets to vote on its parcels and somehow that's going to have a huge impact on the outcome of this. But I believe the staff report says there are 138 parcels that the city controls that we will be discussing tonight, but that there's 20,590 or 20,600 total parcels. So it's that's less than a half percent. Speaker 4: So I think that's correct. Speaker 0: Looking for a yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Question and Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 9: So my understanding is that part of this will will help cover the costs of fixing the lagoons. Isn't that a cost that's borne by the homeowners on the south side of the lagoons right now? Speaker 12: Let me explain. So the for both our South Shore lagoons and for the lagoons out on Bay Farm Island, there are maintenance agreements that involve both the affected homeowners associations and the city. And those maintenance agreements delineate difference maintenance responsibilities that get into a level of detail of, hey, if you're doing X maintenance, the city pays 30% . Homeowner's association plays 70%. And with different maintenance activities, there's different percentages that apply. And what not everybody knows is that those systems, those lagoons are a part of our stormwater system. That is where stormwater often goes, settles before it gets to the bay. And so the answer is yes that that this proposed fee could help fund some of that maintenance and capital work around the lagoons and that those adjacent homeowner's associations would still be responsible for their portion under those maintenance agreements. Speaker 9: But the city is also kicking in as a whole, so it's lessening the south side of the lagoons. The residents who live on the south end of the lagoons, they're going to have to. They're going to. There's contribution will could potentially lessen because the city, if this passes, would be kicking in more. Speaker 12: No, I'm not aware of that that the whether this fee is approved by Alameda INS or not will not change the portion which that the adjacent homeowners association is responsible under the current maintenance agreement. Speaker 9: Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Any further questions by council? All right. Um. So, um. Okay. So we've asked our final questions. Can the clerk tell us the total number of protests and whether there is a majority protest? Speaker 2: There are 20,578 parcels affected by the proposed stormwater fee. Therefore, to achieve a majority protest, we would need to have 10,290 protests after considering the protest submitted prior to a public hearing. And there were none submitted tonight. There are a total of 64 protests. Therefore, there is not a majority in the Council. May consider the resolution and fee ordinance. Speaker 0: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the resolution stating that a majority protest does not exist? Directing a property related ballot, proceeding for the city's 2019 water quality and flood protection fee, and directing the city manager to vote yes for city owned parcels and to introduce the ordinance establishing the water quality and flood protection fee. Speaker 3: So moved. Speaker 7: Back and. Speaker 0: I have a motion and a second all in favor. I opposed abstained. The motion passes all of the motions passed unanimously. Thank you very much, everyone, for being here. And I would like to just call a quick ten minute break before we go into our next item. So it is almost 835. We will start again at 845. We're moving along really well. So everybody be back on time. I'll see you then. Thank you. Speaker 4: Morning. Speaker 9: I a. Speaker 2: Call. There's brownies and cookies back. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 1: Si. Speaker 9: Si, si. Okay. Okay. Okay. Speaker 11: Now, are you driving? Speaker 4: Like I said. Speaker 1: We are ready to go. Speaker 0: All right. If I could ask everyone to take your places, please. Um, could I ask everyone to be seated or to take your conversation out to the hall? Those in the aisle? Could I ask you to sit down? Thank you. Okay. We said we'd start at 845. It's 845. We are moving on to item six C.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Initiative; Adoption of Resolution Finding that a Majority Protest Does [Not] Exist, Directing a Property Owner Ballot Proceeding for the City’s 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee and Directing the City Manager to Vote “Yes” for City Owned Parcels; and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article IV to Chapter 18 to Establish the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee. (Public Works 351)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7191

Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. We said we'd start at 845. It's 845. We are moving on to item six C. Speaker 2: Recommendation to improve the design concepts for up to six public access pathways along Front Side Boulevard in Eastridge Drive. Speaker 10: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director. So to give you a little bit of background as part of the title Canal Transfer Project in 2016, six public access pathways were identified along three on fern side and three on East Shore Drive, and they were identified as needing further community discussion and staff was directed to do a feasibility study of the recreational opportunities at those pathways. With that, we conducted an extensive public input process. We in September and October of 2018, we had 44 people attend two community meetings and and 494 people complete an online survey. We also did more detailed analysis and learned that all of these six pathways are not owned by the city, but in fact, we have a public access easement over the ownership of these pathways. However, the one at Myers, the last one at Myers, and I'm sure the city neither has ownership nor is it subject to an easement as part of during these community input meetings. There was community request for the police department to look more into security aspects of these pathways. So subsequently, the Alameda Police Department staff who are certified in what's called crime prevention through environmental design, affectionately known as Supt, had conducted a thorough assessment of all six pathways using the September criteria and issued report that's included in your packet. This information helped inform our recommendation in response, also in questions at the meeting of the City Attorney's Office after the public input process concluded, conducted further title analysis to clarify boundaries, ownership and other property rights, and also did further analysis by the risk manager. So all of this information also with meetings with the public information officer, planning and building and Transportation Department, City Attorney's Department, Risk Managers, department, police department, all of those staff in these aspects informed this recommendation before you tonight. In addition, the Recreation and Parks Commission supported the staff recommendation at its June 13th meeting, as it appears to as presented to you tonight. So jumping into the recommendations before you, this is just the overview of all six pathways that have been analyzed on pathway A the first pathway. It's on fern side near High Street. It is the recommendation is to leave it open as a viewing area to the water in its current condition with minimal improvements in the short term. If you've walked it, this is a very narrow and winding path, very decorative, very easy to walk by if you don't really know it's there . It's not in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, ADA Due to its grade and its width, it's fairly steep. It goes up and then down and ends you on essentially the back deck of the house there. The feasibility study consultants concluded there would be at least $750,000 to do improvements to get it to ADA compliance. And really it's a high number because it requires significant grading, significant amounts of retaining walls and earthwork, especially because the houses on either side have access to two, two front and side doors directly from the pathway. So what the recommendation is, again, is to leave it as a viewing area to the water in the short term to install a fencing that's 35 feet wide at the water's edge in a cone or funnel shape back to the ten foot easement to also add safety, lighting and address to the landscape there for safety. The September guidelines for landscape is that you trim bushes up. So the I'm sorry, trim trees up. So there's a three foot view clearance and trim bushes down to three feet. So you can see over them. It's essentially creating sightlines for as people walk down the path, they can see what's toward the end. And as police are driving by, they can have a better view corridor down. So longer term, we would include this pathway in the design work of the overall pathway design project and we would seek funding through grants, but it would be the last priority for funding overall for this project. Pathway B is located at four inside below. Art and Mona Vista Avenue. This also is recommended to be improved as a viewing area to the water with the 30 foot 435 foot wide at water's edge. You can see it in the blue lines here with the cone shaped back. It's about 30 feet back to the ten foot wide public easement and each of these 30 foot wide cones. The intention really is to create landscaping on each side. I kind of think of it as defensible landscape. And actually, I think that's a I think that's a term the police chief came up with. Be it thorny bushes, things like that. So you sort of have it because with residential so close, you want to create something that softens the edge there. So creates a more pleasant viewing area, but also discourages people from heading the direction they're not supposed to go toward residential. It would also include, you know, benches, trash and recycling and other potential amenities that would be designed for a water public viewing area. Pathway C is recommended to be vacated to vacate the easement. There are significant safety concerns that staff has for this pathway. I'm going to show you photos in just a second. But essentially the risk manager went down here and had had significant liability concerns because you're having the pathway open, encourages pedestrians with a blind walk up to where cars are backing out in a tight location. And what I'm going to do, skip ahead for a second, because what I did here is took this is as if you're walking down the pathway. So starting on top left is basically at street side and then you start walking closer and you have this tall hedge to the side which is on private property. So that's the owner's right to have that heads. There's nothing we can do about it. If you keep walking closer, top left again to top, right, bottom right and bottom right is where you just start seeing the driveways to your right. So if you can imagine, you have, you know, a kid on a school bike, whatever, and you're encouraging them to come down this pathway. It takes a while because of the blindness of this hedge before you can actually even see the cars that might already be pulling out of the driveway. And it's not until you're at this point where you actually see the cars coming out of the driveway or the parking garage. Plus you can see the driveway on the other side. It's been this pathway has been compared to, well, what about in park parking lots or what about in long driveways? And I really see the difference is when you're, say, the Lincoln Park driveway, if you're a pedestrian walking down the driveway, first of all, you know you're in a driveway. Secondly, you're walking parallel to where the cars are coming versus walking straight down a pathway and a cars coming out perpendicular to you unexpectedly. So one option, though, that I wanted to offer up that's not in the staff report because it just came to my attention a couple of days ago. We had an onsite meeting with Bccdc as well as some other staff. One option would be for a deed in vacating the easement to create a restriction so that there is the owners have to maintain a view corridor and that could look a lot of different ways. But essentially it would be mean that the owners could put up a gate, for example, but maybe it is only a three foot gate so that you still from street side can have a view corridor out to the the water. So that was something that could be considered. Pathway D This is a short drive and liberty. It's already a very well used public pathway. The recommendation is to improve it as a water viewing area and remove existing encroachments where you see the dotted line there on the on the on the photo is where there's an existing tall hedge and then a fence. And the recommendation is to remove those, put a fence that's pulled back closer to the edge of the existing public easement and open up that area for the public, which makes it approximately about a 40 foot, 45 foot wide public access area. We also recommend installing benches, rocks and logs for decorative seating, trash recycling. Also there you can kind of see it on this photo. There's a real rough lee poured concrete out at water's edge. Some folks think that some contractor years back just dumped some extra concrete out there like that's it looks that bad. So we would recommend removing that concrete, making it a better entry way to the water. We'd have to work with an architect in regards to sea level rise and all of that for all of these projects. But in this case, I think there's opportunities to make it in an informal access to the water for kayakers, canoes. Stand up paddleboarders. They're already using this point to access the water, and I think we can make it just an easier access for them. And without putting in a formal kayak launch, I'm recommending as part of this and the idea came up actually at the community meetings that the formal kayak launch and by formal I mean actual where there's parking and there's accessibility and there's actually a gangway to a kayak dock that kind of a more built up amenity. I'm recommending that be it to Water Park, which is at the base of the bay from Bridge. It's an existing park. There's existing parking. Rather than trying to squeeze a formal kayak launch into a local neighborhood, because a formal kayak launch really is going to draw people from all over the island. Whereas I think an informal kayak launch is something that the local neighbors can walk to and use, but then we can use an existing park for something that'll draw bigger crowds. In addition, just want to mention I did consult a local kayak operator as to where some of the best spots were on the island to launch. And he actually said to Water Park was one of his favorite spots to to launch. And I think that's an important point because he knows these waters. And also it's important to note that water park is closer to deep water. You can even see in this photo all of the mudflat there. So you'd have to if you're going to do a formal launch, you'd have to really get it out there pretty far . It's about 80 feet to deep water. Lastly, almost lastly, we have the pathway at East Shore Drive in Central Avenue. There's a pump station here as well. It's already pretty wide open. It's nicely landscaped. And so there really are no significant encroachments over the public access easement for the city to work through on this one. It's a really well-used pathway. And so we would recommend to keep it as public access to view the water and improve it with similar public amenities I've mentioned before. And then pathway F is it mires and as we've talked about, there's no city ownership and no city easement. So this will remain closed to the public. So next steps are that we would adjust the boundaries for next steps. One is to adjust the boundaries and we would survey the modified pathway boundaries to create new legal descriptions, sell the unused easement areas to the owners that are to the owners that are the underlying owners of the area. In the case of the fern side, those three pathways we would also sell the submerged land. There was submerged land that was put around people's docks as part of the tidal canal transfer. And these six owners have been waiting for this process before they could purchase their submerged land. So that would be bundled together. With this, we are will be recommending to keep the submerged land that extends out from the city easement under city easement, but allow existing docks to remain. But we can certainly put caveats that there's no future docks that can be built and added in that area. We also be recording easements with clear legal descriptions and clear statements of obligations such as city obligations to maintain these areas in an appropriate way. Lastly, we'll be implementing supported staff safety measures like fencing, lighting, landscape improvements and possibly surveillance cameras. So that's the boundary issue. And then we'll also be working on concurrently is engaging an architect to design all five pathways. Once we have a design, we'll need to submit for regional permits. As you know, we'll need to submit for the the Bccdc Army Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board. And so that permitting process for the public's knowledge takes generally at least a year. And then we would start construction once we have permits. And I just want to be clear that, you know, we have a little bit less than $1,000,000. Money goes fast. So what we'll have to do is prioritize funding based on uncertain improvements with the goal to get grants and other funding to eventually do all of the improvements. But as I mentioned before, that we'd be prioritizing on pathways B, D and E, so, you know, A, the one that's small and winding would be the last priority of the bunch. And that. My report, I'm happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Do we have any clarifying questions from the Council before we go to public comment? Speaker 3: Councilmember Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. So you mentioned existing docs, which would remain, but no new docs. What about maintenance? Because that was kind of a big issue with the whole tidal canal. Like, if somebody's doc needs to be repaired, are we going to allow them to repair that or. Speaker 10: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we we haven't worked out all the details of the submerged land, but the goal really is to to to just like the other owners had, give them ownership of the land around the sorry around their existing docks. And once they have ownership of the submerged land around their existing docks, then then they can go do get the permits through the city for improvements. Speaker 3: We didn't put any any restrictions on those property owners on, you know, adding a dock or anything. Like I said, I just want to make sure we don't have any issue. If somebody says, well, I'm repairing it, well, maybe they want to extend it two feet or, you know, replace every single plank with, you know, something recyclable instead of wood or whatever. I mean, I just wonder how we draw the line between what we consider new or improved versus what's considered repair and maintenance. Speaker 10: Sure. The intention is not, and the details aren't all worked out, but the intention certainly is not to impede, repair and maintenance. The intention was that you have these viewing areas. We want to maintain views of the water. So certainly. So the restrictions would be more on if you have a dock that ends here, you can't extend it another ten feet this way that now impedes that now is in the city. So the easement of submerged land. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. If you further maturity. Speaker 3: I mean, I'll have something later. Speaker 0: Okay. This mayor, this may not sway. Speaker 11: Yeah, sir. Thank you very much. Very helpful staff report. Really happy to see us get to this point. So thank you for all the work you've done. Just two questions. So I know that the recommendation is to to release the easement on on pathway C, but what are the other options the city has beyond giving up public access to the waterfront in that location? Speaker 10: The only other option staff has come up with. We can certainly do signage. Signage has limited capacity in terms of people actually looking at it. We see that in parks all the time. It does have some capacity in terms of kind of more legal coverage. There's also the option I mentioned in terms of putting a restriction on. So there's a view corridor. You know, we would have to look I haven't looked honestly in significant depth at other potential, you know, in terms of public works and May has knowledge about street safety and things like that, like ways to warn pedestrians. We'd have to come up with some pretty creative ways, given the blind view of how to warn pedestrians that a car is coming out. Speaker 11: So I guess I'm wondering if there's possibly if that's not where the council wanted to go today. Is there a way for us to maintain our easement without actively improving it or actually encouraging the use of it at this point in time? Speaker 10: I did my initial conversations with with legal counsel was that we could if we were going to maintain it but not do anything to it, we really should close it off and then simply maintain it. Because if we're not taking care of it, then that creates other issues. Speaker 11: Okay. But within that case, we were essentially the property owner or whoever could use it. Well, while the city is not using the easement in a future time, the city decided to come back and say there's an easement there that we would like to use. That could be a did, I guess. I'm sorry, I don't to look at you and even. But I'm looking back and forth between you. Speaker 10: And me, right? Yeah, absolutely. That would be. Yes, I believe so. That that would be an option. What we'd probably would need to do is put a gate beyond the driveways so they can easily access. But that's something we would need to work through with the neighbors. Okay. Speaker 11: And then you mentioned the fact that we may not have enough money in the money from the sale of the properties to. Fix up the water park idea really hasn't nothing here. You're just saying we should do a doc or something? Speaker 10: Right. I wouldn't fund it out of this. There's actually a a great funding source specifically for not for KAYAK launches through division of boating and waterways through the California Parks and Rec. And I've spoken to staff there and they actually don't get enough applications to even spend the money they have. So I'm happy to spend it. So I think there's other funding options for that. I'm offering it up because I know when we started this process there was a lot of interest and drive and energy behind a kayak dock and a kayak launch. And I'm offering this as an alternative for a more here's a better place, I think, to put a more formalized kayak launch. Right. Speaker 11: And so for the folks who live, because there are a lot of people who live in this neighborhood who do have paddleboards, kayaks, canoes for somebody who wanted to get on the water. Right now, you can't go out at low tide because the mud is, you know, my texture. And it's kind of dangerous to walk there. I mean, you can actually get stuck. So in the current proposal, we would not you would still have that you can use. You can if you time it with the tide, you can use it. But if not, then kind of what's being called the informal access to the water. Speaker 10: That's correct. It would still have to be timed at the tide. Okay. Speaker 11: So but tonight we could decide to say we'd like to see something. I'm going to call it more formal, not necessarily designed, you know, in the in future plans, knowing that there's no money to do that today. Speaker 10: Yeah, that's absolutely in your purview. Speaker 0: But you know, did you ever hear that when you go first, I'll go back. Speaker 9: But let me ask this question, though. We as a city weren't do we contemplating affirmatively encouraging activity like paddle boarding starting at the end of any one of these pathways? And I raise that because. I mean, are we going to like put notices that says paddle boarding is allowed or whatever? Yeah. I mean, well, so what it what's the and I'm actually raising that question because just if we're like potentially setting us up for some liability issues, I mean, I mean, there is a lot of mud out there when the when the tide is far away. And there, unfortunately, was several years ago a kid who got stuck in the mud and I think passed away. Granted, not on that side, but near the bird sanctuary. So I guess the question is, do our do are we contemplating actually affirmatively encouraging some kinds of active uses there or are we is it best to remain silent on that matter? Speaker 10: So the intention was to essentially leave his existing condition, but make it just a little more appealing location and easier, slightly easier access, but not to put a big sign saying kayak launch, not to advertise it as a kayak launch, but there's informal kayak launch locations all over the island here that were places where people launch their kayaks and paddleboards that don't have a dock. It's all over the place. Speaker 9: At their own risk, though. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And just to tag on to that. Have you talked to the city attorney's office about the legal implications of doing it, too, at a park? Or if if we were to do a formal kayak launch? Speaker 10: I don't see any legal implications with putting in a formalized kayak launch. I mean, we're putting in a kayak launch yet and small boat launch facility right now. So as long as you are. Speaker 0: See, I didn't mean kayak. I meant paddle boarding. But, you know, maybe it's the same concept. Speaker 10: But you're talking about it to water the more formal one. Mm hmm. Yeah. If you're putting in the formalized launch, it's got. It's it's has to conform and go through bccdc. And all of the regulatory permits has to be, you know, accessible. So at that point, it suffices to all of the safety and other standards that that we would need as a city. Speaker 0: I know the city attorney's office has been working on this. I mean, certainly on the lease, in the easement aspect of it. Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. Shen? Speaker 8: Sure. I think the way that, um, our community recreation staff is proposing to improve these park these pathways will likely reduce liability to the city because the city currently owns these easements. And to the extent that we can make them ADA accessible, remove hazards that will probably produce a positive benefit with respect to liability to the city in the long run. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I have just a couple of questions. And so to Ms. Wooldridge, if you know, what are the approximate sales costs of the remaining portions of the ball boats and submerged lands? Speaker 10: So we haven't determined the final costs. However, we'll be basing them on the cost of the submerged land for the other parcels, which was $10,000 per parcel. And then it will be an additional fairly nominal cost for the land side for the vacating of the of the easement. It's considered non developable land and that's a pretty nominal cost. Speaker 0: Okay. But some some revenue will be realized. Speaker 10: Yes. And it will all go back into this project just as the sale of the other submerged lands did. Speaker 0: You may have anticipated that next question, but I also emailed that earlier today. But what happens if, say, a property owner doesn't want to buy the submerged lands around their property? Speaker 10: Well, for the submerged lands. Speaker 0: Or the additional. Speaker 10: Rights from. Speaker 0: The bob out. Speaker 10: Right. I think there's pretty high incentive for homeowners to purchase the submerged land because that's where their docks are and they're needing to to to do maintenance, to councilmember out his point regarding if they're not interested in the additional nominal fee for the vacating the easement on, say, those small areas on each side. I've talked it through with staff and really we think our best option at that point would be to put up a fence around what's the full city easement, but not open that whole area to the public. Still only open to the public. The area that we're proposing. For safety reasons. Speaker 0: Okay. And then I think I heard you say that the city may install security cameras. This was certainly one of the recommendations excuse me, of the OC community policing. Speaker 10: Crime prevention through environmental. Speaker 0: Through environmental design, that one. So why wouldn't we just decide to do that? Because it's such a good deterrent. Speaker 10: Yeah, I think it's certainly something that that can and should be done. Sometimes there's a sensitivity to putting in security cameras, but they would be something that would be on a 24, 48 hour loop and kind of similar to your nest cameras that people often have at home and in their front porches and would be targeted very specifically into the pathway and not near any neighborhoods. So I agree it's a good idea. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 9: So the idea is ten feet wide path. And then when you get to the water, kind of. Go out to 35 feet wide, which implies ten feet plus 12 and a half feet. 12 and a half feet. So what does the addition of 12 and a half feet to the right or 12 and a half feet to the left? What does the addition of that? Give to the ten feet with respect to the person. I mean, what's the theory behind? I mean, why not just leave it at ten feet? Because it seems to me not many people seem to actually partake in these areas. So if you just leave it at ten feet, it's still an area that person is going to enjoy. In the same way. I mean, they're just they're looking at the water and absorbing it. So I don't know. Is there a theory behind why 12 in this way, 12 and a half feet that way? Speaker 10: Not to the specific amount, but the theory is to to see when you are at the water's edge, you don't feel quite so much in a tunnel. And it's just a more pleasant experience, especially if you put landscape on either side that it just feels a little more open once you get out to the water's edge and a little more pleasant. Sitting there rather than ten feet is pretty narrow. Once once you put in a bench that's six feet wide, you know, there's not much room to work within. So it was just to create a little bit more space. So you have room to put in a trashcan and a a bench and have and have a little bit of room for a nicer experience. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: Um, so I was listening in and I think the mayor asked a few of the questions, a few of the questions that I had had about the legal liabilities around this, and also the decisions about what to have public access to versus decisions maybe to have take ownership or have the easement, but not grant access. Um, my, I know there was a lot that we looked into in terms of visibility and natural surveillance. How much was that aspect of, of, uh, the natural surveillance and the kind of the design of the built environment? How much was that factored in to staff recommendations in terms of what was put before us? Speaker 10: Sorry, I'm not quite following that question there. Speaker 7: There was in the in the staff report, one of the things that gets looked at or that was considered in terms of how we were creating access and and what was recommended was visibility. And one of the factors that was looked at was natural surveillance. So the design of the built environment that that allows for bidirectional visibility. Speaker 10: Right. So the I mean, in regards to September guidelines and the existing built environment, it depends pathway to pathway, but it's really making sure that the landscape there's a visible corridor of above three feet above shrubs and, you know, three feet below trees. In terms of built environment. On Fern's side, there's much less vehicles visibility than you have at the two pathways on shore because you have this ten foot wide corridor. So in terms of that built environment, it is less, you know, police car stopping at the end is going to have less visibility all the way to the end than you would with a pathway that's 40 feet wide, 45 feet wide. That's where our goal is to, you know, put in things like surveillance cameras and lighting to hopefully help with the security at the end of those pathways. So to answer your question. Speaker 7: Yes. And in terms of the the cameras and the lighting, obviously, that will will capture some of it. But I think that there's been some concerns about, you know, what to do when something's in progress as opposed to after the fact or investigating after the fact. Do we have a plan for how to actually make sure that enforcement occurs in real time so that we're not waiting for people to. He victims of a crime. Speaker 10: You know, where police have this on their mental radar and as once we build it out more, that they'll still need to be driving by and walking it whenever possible. But it's similar to our parks. People shouldn't be well, you know, should not be there after dusk. It'll have similar hours. So we discourage people to be there after after dark or before dawn in terms of during daylight hours. You know, we encourage people to report, but it's it's similar to parks where we can't be everywhere. All the police can't be everywhere all at once. And so they do their best to to respond to calls when things are in progress. Speaker 0: Anything further before we take public. Mr. Modi. Speaker 3: Sorry, thank you. My colleagues comment. So I heard you say we can't be everywhere, anywhere. But I mean. Well, first of all, how many people do we know use these? Do we have some estimate on those on that number? Speaker 10: I don't. I haven't we'd have to hire someone to be a counter to come out. Speaker 3: And say and I guess, you know, if you if you're looking at a path and then it bulb's out 12 and a half feet, as my colleague mentioned, on each side. I mean, you really can't see what's going on in those 12 and a half feet. So I just wonder, you know, how much consideration we gave to keeping it at ten or some other number on what was it, B or A, you know, some other number that's less than 35, but not quite. Speaker 10: Well, certainly the council can choose any width it would like. If you'd like to keep it at ten, we can absolutely do that. I agree that that's a more clear visual corridor. If it's just ten feet all the way to the water. Staff goal was to try and come up with a compromise really that that addressed the interest of quite a number of people that we saw in the surveys in the meeting who wanted us to open every single square foot of what's under the public easement and then the concerns of neighbors and others regarding safety. And so the recommendation is aimed to be a compromise, really, of the two. Speaker 3: Because not I mean, not all of us live there and have to put up with some of the activity that goes on at the end of these parks. After hours, even though you're not supposed to be there, people are still there doing stuff that, you know, I wouldn't want my kid to see. Speaker 0: Okay. So is that all the council comments for now? Then we have five public speakers and so we have five public speakers. So you can take up to 3 minutes. Don't feel you have to, but you have up to 3 minutes for Speaker. Speaker 2: Bob Shannon, then Kevin Pad Wei, then Jeff Wasserman. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor. Council members. I'm vice president of the. Speaker 0: Will you be sure to speak into the microphone so everyone can hear you? Speaker 4: My name is Bob Shannon, and I'm vice president of the Issuers Homeowners Association. I was also an active member on on Carp, going to all the task force meetings, talking about title rise as well as FEMA and other things that would affect the issuer neighborhood. And out of those conversations and doing all the studies, the issuer neighborhood is the number one neighborhood in Alameda that is supposed to be addressed for title rise out of the whole city. And our park, I think happens to be number four. And the reason I'm here is because the work that Amy did was was excellent. What their staff came up with was excellent. However, it was short sighted in the the embankments on on site D and E, site D is is going pretty park and river. And if you if I'm sorry you don't have the FEMA maps, but on the FEMA map, which would be the same access for water as title rise and whenever that happens. In fact, the theme of what could happen before or after title rise, it's a one in 100 year event. So it could happen this winter. But what happens is the water has access through those parks and the land on liberty, the house to the left and the three houses to the right allow water into the neighborhoods that affect 300 homes. And Lincoln Park has been reaching out to Central Avenue. So any work on that seawall is going to have to include what William's idea is, which is part of flood prevention and tidal rise. And the idea of spending any money on a seawall that should be done in conjunction with public works so as not to waste taxpayers money is critical in these projects. Access to the water is also important not to happen because it's only maybe 8 hours a day that there's even the availability of excuse me, ability to even touch the water because it's an estuary. The water goes out, comes back on a king tide and there's no mud there for hours. Even the Coast Guard has been stuck out there, out there in the rowboats and which our fire department had to come in and go out and rescue them. It's important to realize that even a little bit of access off of liberty or central will cause liabilities, lawsuits, danger to kids who don't understand the tide, the tides, how they come and go, how fast the water comes and goes, because that water actually comes in from the right side or the east or the south side to the north side. So it's important to realize that even on Central Avenue, the house to the left and central, the park on central will allow water into the neighborhoods. So we need to make sure that before anything is done to those seawalls that there that the rec department is working directly with the Williams team in public works to properly design a seawall that goes across the homes and the parks at both locations. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Shannon. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Is Kevin Pettway, then Jeff Wasserman, then Rob. Speaker 1: Burke. Speaker 0: Hello, you two. I wouldn't have recognized you. My children went to preschool with these gentlemen a long time ago. You're all grown up. Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel. My name is Kevin Padua. I grew up in Alameda, and I'm a homeowner here in town. My brother Scott and I appear before you today in lieu of our mother ly Duleep Radway, whom this council spoke about in January. My mom was a resident of Alameda for 40 plus years in Love Island. She fundraised for the building of the new Alameda Library, volunteered in Alameda schools and other organizations within the city and would always pick up trash. She found when she was out and about in town, she genuinely cared for our island and the individuals in the community. One of my mom's favorite things about the island was the parks and open spaces that are accessible to nearby residents. She frequented a Jersey Park, Linkin Park and Crab Cove and was thrilled to see more open space being made available to the public. With the creation of Gene Sweeney, so much so that she kept newspaper clippings on her fridge of the progress of that park. Tragically, my mom was killed by an impaired driver this past Thanksgiving and her presence is missed every day. For the last two plus years of her life, my mom dedicated time to the shoreline access, as we're discussing here today, meeting with fellow residents and city officials. She felt very passionate about creating additional space for the public to enjoy Alameda Parks for something that brought joy to her life as she would frequently meditate, send positive vibes and just enjoy such a space so close to her home. She knew that Parks created joy in other people's lives, too, which led her to advocate for these forgotten rights of way to be used to their full public benefit as quiet, small and peaceful parts. When these front side accesses were finally open to the public and there was this condition, she visited them often and enjoyed the view . I've also visited Jackson's accesses many times and luckily I was able to share some visits there with my mom. Now, while I visit alone, I feel the calmness that these accesses bring in a breath of fresh air, bringing a style of parks to our neighborhood that is different from Lincoln and cruisy. So as I've shared with the Parks and Rec Commission, my brother, family, friends and myself, we'd like to donate three benches, one for each of the front side accesses so the public has a place to sit and enjoy. Just as my mom had always hoped. My brother and I recognize that the plans for these parks have not been finalized and we hope that these benches can be accommodated. On a quick side note, I know there was a lot of talk about pathway, see? We hope that the city doesn't vacate those easements. I imagine would be quite difficult to ever get future access to the shorefront and just wish that it's to the highest and best use for the public. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Jeff, thank you. Our next speaker is Mr. Wasserman. Come on up. Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening, counsel. My name's Jeff Wasserman. I live on a short drive between Meyers and Anthony. All. Regrettably, the public access that used to existed and tonight was given back by the city to the homeowner years ago. So that doesn't exist. Now, unfortunately, we're learning that the one closer to me on Meyers is also doesn't belong to the city, has no legal right away and can't use and the public won't be able to access in the future, which I think is unfortunate, but that may well be the reality. That said, I'd like to advocate for as much as possible for keeping all of the other waterfront access as they were. They were designed and implemented for a purpose. The people that live along the water and I'm one of them, are very fortunate that we get to have waterfront access. But our neighbors, our friends and neighbors will live across the street on the other side of the shore, drive the other side of our inside. Those who live on Hanson and Central and Tunnel and a block or two away from the water have no access at all if this water, public waterfront access isn't protected. I've heard a lot tonight and sort of inferences by some of the council members. I know a number of the people who are going to speak after me because I've watched them in previous meetings raise this amazing specters of gloom and doom and crime and homeless encampments and zombie apocalypses. If we leave these waterfront access it open. And I can tell you, I've lived in an issue for 13 years. I walk my dog there regularly, I kayak and paddleboard regularly on the water side, and nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, not to make it the make it more obvious and is, but it is the short drive. And four inside are the whitest and richest neighborhoods in Alameda. And there is no crime where we are. There's very, very little crime and certainly no more crime than we have anywhere else in the city. And I think the other people that are going to speak tonight are going to keep raising the specter of this of this crime wave and this homeless encampment, the threat that's going to that's going to crash upon our community if we open up and leave these parks open for the public that they were designed for. There's a reason that these parks were designed and and should be left open. I do agree that the the kayak area could be at the nearby park in part because on East Short Drive, it's very tidal. And you'd have to make a very long excuse me, a very long dock out into the water to get past the mud and on unfurled side. It's not it's not as tidal because it's a because of the canal but because of some of the ADA concerns. There would be a fair amount of engineering that might need to be made in order to create waterfront access. So I like that idea. But I think unlike what Amy is suggesting, I think most of her suggestions are very, very good. Let's open up central. Let's open up liberty to the public, the people that use them. Moms, dads, kids go there on bikes. Parents take their kids in strollers. It's good people. Speaker 0: That need to master. Speaker 4: There. Speaker 0: Before we go on to our next speaker, I would just note that we are all here to speak for yourself or maybe, you know, like two brothers get up together. We don't need to preview what we think other people will say. I'm just here to hear your own comments. So who's there next? Speaker 2: Speaker from Ferguson, Dana Fisher. Speaker 0: Mr. Barracks and the Ms.. Fisher. Speaker 4: Hey. How you guys doing? Uh, so it's been, I think, three years and three different councils that we've been talking about this. So a few of you have seen a bunch of towns, some new. I'm not really going to address the past silliness. I have a lot to say about it. You guys know that I send you emails. I got receipts for the, you know, various things that happened there so that that stuff is real. But, you know, we've never been in favor of closing the walkway that we live adjacent to. We just want to make sure that is developed in a way that doesn't become a public nuisance, attract more so in the recommendation, uh, the 35 foot my ah one objective is that 35 foot is the 35 foot. I sent you guys an email, you know, whatever the number is, less than 35 feet. We're looking for something that has gives us a little more visibility down the walkway for the police officers, for people to come and check it out, not build in hiding spaces behind our houses for stuff to happen. If that's done with thorny bushes softening the edges, what director Wilbur is talking about, those kind of things. Yeah, we can talk about that stuff. So in general, the recommendation we're we're okay with it, but we just want to make sure that what we're putting in there doesn't cause more of an issue than what we already experience . In the last couple of things I want to say, our public information officer, Sir Henry is kick ass. Director Wooldridge is awesome and go is. Speaker 0: Duly noted and Ms. Fisher. Speaker 10: Good evening Counsel. I'm Donna Fisher. Full disclosure, I am on pathway C. Not at the moment. I wasn't planning to speak tonight, but I'm really only speaking not in totality, but to address a few of the council questions. And I thought this would be my opportunity. First one is on the liability and insurance issue that Amy brought up, and we have consulted with insurance advisors. Amy and Lisa are aware of that. And like the city's risk managers, we were informed that the city cannot cover us for a public park. It makes sense. And we have also then asked the city, please indemnify us via the same. Speaker 1: Form that you would. Speaker 10: Have us indemnify you if the tables were turned. Basically, I believe the answer is, and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but the city self-insured and will cover you. But to us that's not indemnification. I want to point out we're the ones with the three garages we also have on our property in front of one of the garages that shows in Amy's picture a parking space slash driveway separate from the path parallel. So you could not possibly fence it off. Meaning on either side of the ten foot wide pathway, you could not put a fence to block off our parking space and garage because we wouldn't be able to get in at all . I mean, there's no way to fence off our property. I leave for work at four and I live to go rowing actually at four in the morning. Sorry, I'm retired now. I leave at four and five in the morning. I get up at four and I always now have to open the garage, slip out and make sure one of the late night party goers we're not talking homeless people. We're talking actually people you said you weren't doing things you wouldn't want your kids to do, but to make sure nobody is blocking it. I don't like walking out there alone in the dark. I like to get in my car, lock the doors and then open the garage. I've stopped doing that at five in the morning. So I do want to tell you the liability issue is real for us. It's parties. At the end of the dock we did or at the end of the pathway we did put in motion sensitive floodlights back there. We also have them at the garage, but we put them at the end. They go on several times a night. It's in my bedroom windows. I don't mind that it wakes me so much. I mind that someone's back there. It scares me. But one other thing I want to point out, because this has been the subject of some prior meetings, is about encroachments. I will tell you, in our case, it's important to note that all of the improvements have final, unconditional approved permits. They were all done before we actually purchased the property. And none of these are encroachment permits. They're total building permits, swimming pool permits, deck permits, gate permits, swimming pool requirements. So I want to end this with saying we have come a long ways. We all of us since 2016, when this first reappeared, after two prior times going back about 65 years. It's time now to bring it to closure. Thank you for listening. We hope to get good resolution. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Fisher. It was our last public school year. Okay, so I will close public comment now and we will deliberate as a council. So who wants to go first? Councilmember Odie, I think I see your hands, which. Speaker 3: I will go second. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 9: Well, I just wanted to quickly band on my comments about the 12 and a half feet to the right. 12 and a half feet to the left, and the ten feet in the middle. To me, it seems as though that whatever is at the wings should be less than ten feet. I don't know what the number is, nine feet or eight feet, because it's the center that is the place of attention, so to speak, of the person who's experiencing that area and whatever as to the left or whatever to the right is just an opportunity to kind of like. You know, move this way or that way. Whereas if you make it 12 and a half feet this way or 12 and a half feet this way, you're basically saying that that is a place of enjoyment that is equally to that or if not more so than the center. So. So to me. The edges can't be greater than the center width of ten feet. You know what? What the number is? Nine feet, eight feet, whatever. I don't know. So that's just kind of my observation. I think the most important observation for me is I see this as basically a neighborhood passive park where people are, you know, go there to enjoy the serenity that this has to offer. So we are not and I don't think we are, by the way, but we ought not to put any expectation that this will then trigger, you know, more of the city enjoyment of these areas. If people of the city, citizens of Alameda want to enjoy our waterfront, we've got many areas to enjoy our waterfront. But I think this is really for the residents who live out there. And I think actually the data bears that out. The data shows that, you know, there were those pie charts in the pie chart shows that, you know, people who responded online. On average, you know, they only went to the place one time a year. Well, it's not average. The median, the 5050 percentile person. If you calculate, if you do the math, you know, they would only go there one time a year. Now, the people who attended the workshops, you know, of course, they're going to you know, they're more active. And maybe there are residents who live closer by. They. Access any one of those parks no more than 1.9 or two times a year. So two times out of 365 days. So to me, that's kind of like quantitative expression that this is truly a neighborhood kind of place for and, you know, passive enjoyment. So so to me, when you add that observation with the first observation as to why the edges have to be less than the middle ten feet. Well, it's compliments that always supplements or whatever. So those are my two observations. The Passive Neighborhood Park and the edges should be subordinate to the middle. Ten feet. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. De SAG, Mr. Councilman. Rudy. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks to the speakers who came out and everyone who worked hard on this. I think Donna mentioned we have come a long way on this. I mean, I remember back when we started there was you know, we were all the city was all righteous in their belief that we owned the property and people were going to start tearing stuff down. And I thought that was a little excessive and a little punitive. And I suggested that we take each of these individual parcels on a case by case basis. And I'm glad that that was done because we see, you know, that each of them will have a different solution. There's no cookie cutter one size fits all solution. So I appreciate all of the staff work that was done to get to that point. And Amy and Lisa, I think you also did a lot of work on that, too. I understand. So just quickly going through this, I mean, and path a, I mean, I, I think that's a good recommendation. You know, I'd like to see us get grants sooner rather than later if those are possible. That's kind of a winding hilling one. So whether the con is 35 or 30 or ten or eight or whatever, you really can't see it. So I mean, I'm pretty comfortable with a staff recommendation on that one. And B, you know, I do think we should cut it down from 35 feet to, you know, my colleagues said ten and now I think he's saying eight. But, you know, I'd be fine with ten. Could be convinced of some other number that's less than 35 on C it's kind of hard to tell based on the the drawing if you know some type of gate is is feasible like a wrought iron gate that still preserves the view. So I don't know if that's feasible, if it is. It'd be something to think about. But if it's not feasible based on the way the driveways are, then it's just not feasible. So. And then d any, you know, minor improvements that I think will enhance those. I spent a lot of time on that end of town last fall and I found these little areas very refreshing and a nice place to stop and take a break while I was meeting all the neighbors that lived out there. So I'd like to make sure they're still there next time I do that. So I am concerned. No, the whole reason they started was because people had deteriorating docks and there was an issue that they're built with permits without permit, bccdc blah, blah blah. So we decided to resolve it so people could upgrade and fix their facility. So I just want to make sure that we don't impede that by putting any undue restrictions on this, because we still want to make sure that, you know, those those structures are safe. So those are my comments. I'm supportive of pretty much everything I'd like to see B B, smaller, you know, perhaps back to ten feet. And I would like to see if feasible a gate on on C whose name. I'm sorry, just a view gate. Not like a entering and out gate like, like on Lincoln Park when we have that, that beautiful fence. Speaker 0: And now Councilmember I mean Vice Mayor Knox way. Speaker 11: Thank you. Can I ask a quick question? We're not voting or giving direction tonight on the on the water side parcels, correct? I mean, I know that that came up, but it's not noticed and that'll come back at another time, correct? Yeah. Speaker 8: That's correct. Councilmember. Speaker 11: I will I will save my comments on that later. So I would like to thank staff, you know, that this this this discussion started at the planning board when I was there. And I'm pleased to say I think we're ending up almost exactly where the planning board in that first meeting where we discussed these parcels, suggested it should not for the most part. You know, I think there have been I appreciate all the all the all the speakers, Kevin and Scott. You know, I met your mom through this process. She it turned out she'd been swimming with my mom, with my wife for years. And somehow they got talking about this and realized that there was this connection. So I'm really glad to see you here. And I've been thinking about a lot about her as well. You know, I. I think I agree that we can talk about the 35 feet and bring it down. But I think that the goal here is we have people paying $10,000 to access the water, to protect the access that they have to their water, at their house, at their houses. And for me, I come at this from a different I have what I think is a slightly different perspective, which is, you know, we have the opportunity to provide people in this neighborhood is, as Mr. Desai mentioned, as Councilmember de SAC mentioned, access to the water as well. People who don't who don't live on the water, I don't think it has to be called a gold plated and whatnot. I think benches and just a nice places is enough. But I think sitting on a bench that is one foot from a six foot fence and one foot on the other side from a six foot fence is not a very compelling place. And so, you know, I very much appreciate Director Orange's presentation and description of what she's thinking, whereby there are these wings, but they're actually planted so that they create kind of a sense of space, but they are also planted with thorny bushes and whatever else. You don't have people inhabiting that space. So whether that's, you know, a 30 foot wing or 25 foot wing or something like that, I think what we want is a space where just like at the end of Central and just like at the end of Lincoln Liberty, people feel like at certain times they would like to go and just spend some time and feel like it's a place where it really is a respite and whatever else. So I would encourage us not definitely not to go less than ten feet, but I think that we will be very disappointed with ourselves if we if we if we go down to ten feet, we're going to find out when that space opens that we've created an inhospitable space that was supposed to be a rest of it. You know, I personally believe that we should protect our public access to the water. We don't know what's going to happen in the future. I don't necessarily mean that we have to build it and what not. But I think that we are making a mistake that a decade from now or 15 years from now we will regret in giving up the easements, these easements along here. I mean, we're already talking about one that, you know, one that's disappeared down on East Shore, another one that everybody thought existed. It didn't. Right. And there's some disappointment around that. I think we should protect protect the easement. And I'm happy to say that that can be one of the last ones we look at, whether or not we want to do something, commit if we need to, that we're not going to do anything with it for a while. I would also like, you know, I hear about I hear the mudflats, but the water boat launches near the place where people have had problems in the mudflats. I mean, I, we live on an island and I think creating places for people who don't live on the water to access the water from their homes is a good thing. And I think we should not foreclose that idea at the at the Liberty spot. Again, I don't know that we have we don't have the funding to build something there. But I definitely think that we should keep open the idea that someday we might put in a boat launch so that we don't have to worry about the tide in that area. For people who want to walk down there with a big plastic kayak or a paddle board or whatever else. So I would encourage us to to to keep that open. And I'm not sure, again, if the water plan is actually on the council. I know it's a recommendation in here related to Pathway A, but it wasn't you know, I'm happy to support that as a recommendation as well as a separate one. But beyond that, I really I think the staff recommendations are great and I'm looking forward to supporting this moving forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vella. Speaker 7: So I think that I want to thank staff and the community for all of the work on this. I think this has been a very much an evolving project and process and I think where everyone's learning more and more as we go through this exercise. That said, I want to make sure that what we do is done in a in a thoughtful way. And I think that there was a little more given in the presentation than I think was reflected necessarily in the in the staff report. And so I want to make sure that that's captured some way so that it's not just there was a comment made at council that this is what it's going to look like. I think we need to make sure that it's a little more clear in terms of what we're going to do relative to the landscaping and things like that, to make sure that that these are usable spaces. Because I think that that's ultimately the goal is to have a functional, usable, safe spaces for the public to enjoy. So I think that we maybe need to come up with kind of more clear direction about the landscaping to make it safer, that sort of thing. Or even just I think I think we've all we all appreciated Amy's comments on that. I think there's a way to capture that a little more in the direction that would be helpful, I think the other. Thing is that, you know, the the the bigger areas that we want to give water access. I do think to the vice mayor's point, we do want to preserve these. But I also think that we need to caution people who are using this. I, I grew up rowing on the estuary. I've seen people get stuck out there. I also think that some of these issues can be addressed with good signage that lets people know this is tidal. Be careful, enter at your own risk, that sort of thing. And that we design it in a way that's adaptive. So we are doing a lot of work on our on our seawalls. I'm sure Amy can work with Liam to address, you know, sea level rise in terms of pathway B, I think narrowing it, it seems like that's part of the plan as far as what Amy's. In terms of the usable space, I want to make sure that that we don't have kind of these areas that are hidden or places that just aren't going to be safe. I also go out for a lot of walks over the four month old at home. He's been making us walk about 5 to 6 miles a day. He likes to be outside. So we've been exploring the shoreline all over town. And I one of the things that I I've noticed, even with myself, is there's certain areas where where I'm not as comfortable going down just because once I get down there, I realize , oh, wait, there's, you know, somebody over here, one of, you know, doing different things that maybe make it feel a little less welcoming after that one time. I don't want somebody to have that experience where they go down one of these pathways and they go, I don't ever want to go back there again. I want these pathways to be inviting. And so I think we really need to hone in on the design for pathway, be a little more. I think that there's a way to kind of deal with that space a little more uniquely so that it's not just kind of 35 feet and whatever happens. I don't I don't necessarily want to narrow to ten feet. I don't think that that makes sense. That might be a little claustrophobic. And I think that there's a way to to design and landscape it so that it's not just kind of these open wings. Some of the comments that we've gotten from from folks in previous meetings were more around, you know, 18 feet, 20 feet of usable space and kind of making sure that the landscaping is a little tighter around those ends. So I think if we can do that for Pathway B, I'll feel a lot better about that. And then I want to make sure that we keep our options open for, for liberty and and make sure that we have plans that are going to allow for us to adaptively reuse on the water side if we need to in the future. Speaker 0: Okay. So I thank you public and colleagues and city staff for all of the input. This is an item, an issue that we have looked at a number of times over the years. And it is another opportunity. Speaker 1: Where or a. Speaker 0: Situation where the council is called upon to achieve a balance of a lot of different competing interests. I will say that I am pleasantly surprised to hear neighbors who held some very strong views and come around to realizing that a compromise can be achieved. And I and I do just want to say to the Padre brothers that, of course, I knew your mom from the time we were you kids were all in preschool, and she was one of my stalwart volunteers when I co-chaired the library campaign. And you might or might not remember, she actually designed our float in the 4th of July parade one year. It was a bookworm and it was really cute and a lot of work. But anyway, so I and I, you know, I'm certain that we will find a place for those three benches that you all want to donate in her memory. I think that's just fitting. So I, I, I think so. The competing interests that we, we need to address are that these are public paths in public easements and rights of way. And we do need to keep our waterfront open to the public. We're an island. It shouldn't be a well-kept secret, and. Speaker 1: We. Speaker 0: Really try hard not to put one end of town against another. These do happen to be in the east end of town. But anyone you know, hopefully you get in your bike or hop in a bus and go explore different parts of town. But we also want to be respectful of the safety of the neighbors, safety of pass users. But I think that staff has done a really good job of striking that balance. And I tend to agree with the city manager's recommendation in the staff report where he says that he concurs with the recreation parks directors recommendations. I believe this is a difficult issue to work through and that the recreation parks director and others worked through to come back with the best possible solution solutions that meet the competing values facing the City Council. So I am prepared to support the and again, these are, as I understand it, design concepts. The next steps, as I understand, are that an architect would be brought in to actually design the paths. And I think that might be the time when the finer grained details like landscaping come into play and does this. Well, these plans go back to the planning board. What are what are the different steps in the approval process? Speaker 10: Yeah, thanks for asking. I wanted to clarify that. So what we've done in past projects, what I've done in past projects is so that we're currently at the very high level, 30,000, 35,000 foot level. We would do what we call schematic design, developmental design with the architect first, where they come up with some, some design options for each of the different pathways that would go before the Recreation and Parks Commission and then would come to you before as council for final approval on the general design concepts. After that, we'd get into the the detailed designing and construction drawings. So you would have a chance to look at those details of landscape and exact width at water's edge and all of that before it's finalized. Speaker 0: And not back to the planning board. Speaker 10: I certainly can. It's not generally in the purview of the planning board. Not all park projects go to the planning board, but I'm more than happy to bring it. Speaker 0: Okay. So yeah, I don't want to hold up the process unnecessarily, but I think for council there's there've been some differing opinions for instance about the width of the ball about I'm one who supports not narrowing them, but Vice Mayor, you want to chime in? Speaker 11: I'd like to make a motion. Speaker 0: Could I finish my sentence? Yeah. You have the first opportunity. Okay, so I. And maybe you will cover this, but again, I am I think a lot of time has been spent not only by staff, but also. With public outreach and we are never going to find that project that everybody is on board 100%. But hopefully we find that solution where we've listened to everybody and come to the best possible compromises. So with that. Vice Mayor. Speaker 11: Sure. So I'd like to make a motion in its six parts. The first part is that we recommend that any wings in future designs. So the part that's beyond ten feet be planted with, I believe the term was defensive plants, but to keep people out of them. Right. So the idea is that the ten foot area is the place for people. Site A, we approve, site B, we approve, but shrink the cone from 35 to 24 feet. The idea being that at the end of the cone there's six feet for planting, but that allows for some space for planting as the cone narrows, as it gets back up to the ten foot length. So you're essentially of six feet on either side and then a ten foot lane site C that we maintain but not actively pursue the use of the easement site D that we approve the staff for. Can you repeat sorry? Yes. C would be to maintain, not to give up the easement. Not not to vacate. Okay. Speaker 0: To go back to your second and third ones, I was saying I wasn't expecting quite so much detail. So go slow. The number two. Speaker 11: Side approve as as as proposed by staff. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 11: Three site B approved as a as proposed, but with a 24 foot. Speaker 1: Cohen That'd be ten. Speaker 11: 12. So six, six, ten, six. So you'd have a six foot planting at the end? Ten sixes. 22 sorry. 77 so we could we could call it 22. Sorry. Yes, math clearly not working at this time of night sight. C would be maintaining the easement but not actively pursuing its use. Site D would be approved the staff recommendation but also identify the site for future onsite on water access. So just not for closing. This is on water access and site e would be approved the staff recommendation. Speaker 0: I would ask staff a question and I appreciate the um, what was number six. Did you get that. Speaker 11: You. Speaker 0: Approve, say you approve. Okay. So my only concern about being quite specific about this specific footage in this area is going to be planted with defensive defensible plants or defensive plants, whatever they are before the architect has even had a chance to consider. I just I don't want to tie the hands of I think I understand the concept you're trying to get at. You want to make sure that it will only be put words in your mouth. I think what you're saying is that you want to make sure that areas that are out of direct sightline from the street are going to not be used. Speaker 1: For. Speaker 0: Ulterior purposes. So that's why you input things like defensive plants in know but I'm just wondering whether that's whether maybe the concept rather than the actual footage is specified. Speaker 11: Well, the footage is specified in the staff recommendation. We're just changing 35 to 22. And I guess I was trying to find a place between eight feet and 35 feet that seemed to, you know, to just seem to come up with a space that probably is, you know, nice. I heard no no support for 35 and on the other side of you. Speaker 0: So yeah. And I, I don't have architectural training, but I do think that you go out and look at a site and then do your design, but does anyone else want to? Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. So sorry. Speaker 3: I mean, I could support almost all of this motion. I think if we're going to. If ten is too narrow, then I mean, 18, I'd be comfortable with voting on four for B C, I guess that kind of keeps it in limbo. I mean, my my whole thing is I think we need to get the title on these properties resolved, so we need to pick a number. I kind of agree with the mayor. I'm not sure if we need to design what pushes go where from this dais at this point. But you know, there can be a suggestion. I like the idea of keeping our options open on DH, so I appreciated that part of the motion also. I mean, see if we're keeping it closed. I mean, I'm not sure why we wouldn't just vacate it, but I mean, I could go either way on that one as long as we keep the view available for people. That's all I care about on that. Nancy. Speaker 0: Thank you. Three other comments. Yeah. Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 9: You know, in terms of. Pathway B, I'm in favor of having four, ten, four. In other words, eight. Now, I'm not altogether opposed to 24 because that was my my. Actually, that was the first thing I penned down, which 24 would be seven, ten, seven. But the reason why I support for ten four, which is 18 feet, is because. At the end of the day, we had a member of the voice of Alameda, a citizen, you know, bothers to not only email us that this is what he'd like, this is what do you think his family would like when he also attended the meeting? And, you know, there's something to be said for showing up. So for me, I'm okay with four, two and four. Frankly speaking, I think that for purposes of elegance, which is a word I will use one more time. I do believe if we're going to do four, ten four on pathway B, then we've got to do 410 four on pathway. That's just that's just my $0.02. Finally, I think in terms of Pathway C, um, you know, we just, we just have to vacate it. I think it's time to move on. I think there's been given plenty of reasons why we, we need to vacate it. Um, so I will accept staff's recommendation on that as well as on staff's recommendation as well as on pathway D and F. Speaker 0: Um, so I. I don't think you were intending that as a substitute motion. I don't think you were taking it as such. Is that correct? Speaker 11: I'd be happy to try for 20 feet, but I know that I am. Speaker 0: Okay. So. And I'm just wondering whether we should be going through this pathway by pathway and if the city manager wants to chime in with any thoughts? No, he doesn't. But I just I'm hearing such different things from different people, and we've got to give our staff direction. And but again, remember that the schematic design will come back to us. But I mean, I guess we need to tell the architects. Okay. I'll wait for the conversation to end. Speaker 1: Go ahead. Speaker 0: If someone wants to speak, please do. Speaker 11: I was just asking you a question. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: I'm just wondering, it does seem like we have an agreement on several of these. If we could maybe move that portion of the motion and then continue deliberation on the. Speaker 0: Okay, to my point. Let's start one by one and just go over and I think that we might be able to set aside the ones that we need to come back to. Okay. Okay. So starting with, uh, pathway. Well, actually, there's a table that helps us with that. Speaker 11: I'll start by withdrawing my motion. Speaker 0: Okay. I'll start fresh. Stand by. You might make a substitute one, but the summary report. Okay, everyone. Pathway A, this is the one that is not ADA compliant. Approximately $750,000 to make it ADA compliant. Recommendation is keeping it open to allow public viewing, but it would be our last priority for funding their agreement with that. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 11: If we move approval and e because I think everybody said they approved. Speaker 0: Gosh, do you mind if I just go through this? Just hear me. I don't want to jump around too much. I want to get through this list. Okay. Is there agreement on on pathway A, because we'll vote on it. But go ahead, Councilmember decide. Speaker 9: My only concern is I don't think it should be 35 feet. I think if we're going to do something that's pathway B is something much south of that, then for purposes of elegance, you know, we should be the same. But, you know, people can vote the way they wish. Speaker 3: So like a motion. Speaker 0: Okay, let's can I have a motion and. Oh, yeah. And everyone, be sure you're speaking into your microphones. Okay. Do I have a motion on approving pathway, a per staff recommendation move. Speaker 11: Approval pathway per the staff recommendation. Speaker 0: I'm sorry I didn't finish what you're saying. Speaker 11: It's it's a wholly different thing. It doesn't have the visibility issues, the pathway B has because of the Hill, etc.. I think we should maintain access to the water. Speaker 0: Hey, do have a second? Speaker 1: Second. Speaker 0: All in favor. I that's three in favor I oppose. That's four in favor I oppose. Abstain. Okay. Pathway A is approved is recommended. That's a 4 to 1 vote. Okay. Pathway. Um. Okay. Pathway B this one. Uh, improve pathway is viewing area of the water modified bulb out to be cone shaped extends approximately 30 to 35 feet wide. It's what is engineering 210 at the pathway at viewing amenities such as benches, trash, recycle receptacles, uh, create safer configuration, improved visitor experience at safety improvements council. Vice Mayor, you had, you said of this one. Speaker 11: I would move approval of site B as per recommended by staff with the one change of 35 feet to 20 feet. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. And thoughts about that. That's actually a motion. So 35 to 25 feet, you're saying 2020. Okay. Councilmember de so given. Speaker 9: Yeah, I'd like to offer an alternative motion simply again, just to honor the fact that the resident bothered to show up and, and email us and contact us to and just make it for 10th floor. Although I'm sure the resident would love they would be satisfied with five, ten, five or ten four is what we got in the email. Speaker 0: Okay. Is there a second for that substitute motion? Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 0: Okay. All in favor of councilmember deserves to understand what it is, but say it again. Speaker 9: Recommendation except at the width. Making it for ten, four. Speaker 3: Or 18 feet. Speaker 0: 18 feet total. Okay. Okay. Um, we have a motion. A second. All in favor. Speaker 7: I ah, vote in favor, I. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that's 3 to 2, so. Okay. So pathway B is narrowed from 35 feet wide to 80. 80. Where is it? 18 or 20? 18? Speaker 4: 18. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: Okay. Um. Okay. Pathway. See? Speaker 1: Um. Speaker 0: So, uh, this recommendation is to vacate the easement via a recorded document. Sell the vacated easement area to adjacent property owners. This is the site that has the driveways on either side. Counsel Uh, Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: Madam Mayor, I believe the Vice Mayor had previously made a motion which I was prepared to second, which would be to maintain and not vacate. I do hear what Councilmember Ody has said. I think that there's an opportunity for us to, um, do exactly what he's proposing, which is to allow for that, that public viewing of the area. But I also think that doing that doesn't necessitate that we vacate. And so I think that this allows us to, um, you know, adapt in the future should the need arise. Uh, and, and for that reason, I'd be willing to make the motion. Speaker 0: Okay. So so that motion again is that the set to be maintained by the city but not vacated and notwithstanding the concerns about pedestrians and cars backing out? Speaker 7: Well, I think we can we can work on those issues. I think I think exactly what we're I just don't want to. I think that we can address those issues while still maintaining these. Speaker 11: How I'll second the motion so we can discuss it. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Ever motion a second? So can you can you amplify how you would how you would address those conflicts? Speaker 11: So I'll say. I mean, she's looking at me. I'm not interrupting her. I got, you know, in my 43 seconds, we have places all around the city in which driveways back, garages back out directly over sidewalks, etc., that have very low visibility. I'm not compelled by the safety concern that is raised in this. At the end of the day, these things have existed for years and there have not been collisions that have happened. And I think that we can put some safety and safety things in there to make it easier. But I don't think the safety issue is, you know, we have people driving and walking through parking garages all the time. Like, I just I don't think the safety issue is is as great as has been raised. Speaker 0: Okay. Other comments, Councilor? Speaker 3: I guess my comment is if we're if we're not vacating the easement and there might be three votes for that, I would like to narrow the the cone on that one also, because we're narrowing the cone on the other one. We should narrow the cone on this one down to 18 off. Speaker 7: So and I don't I don't have a problem with that. Speaker 0: Okay. So that's an amended motion. Speaker 11: And as the second day. Well, I will second that amendment. Speaker 0: Okay. Uh, any other comments? Okay. Hearing no further comments. All in favor. Speaker 11: I. I. Speaker 0: Opposed. I oppose any others. Speaker 3: Oppose. I'll vote yes. Speaker 0: Okay. So the motion carries three to what do you. Where are you, Mr. Tantrum? Speaker 9: A basic recommendation of vacating. Speaker 0: Opposed, oppose. Okay, so the motion carries 3 to 2. Okay. Pathway D, this is the East Shore Drive at liberty. Uh, recommend expand with the public path. Make improvements for viewing the water stress, existing encroachments complete pathway fencing. Just existing fencing is needed currently use public pathways. Speaker 10: Um. Speaker 0: Expand width of pathway on southwestern side. You all have read this. Um. Speaker 11: I'm of approval of the staff recommendation with the one addition that we identify this site for future on water access. Speaker 3: I'll second that. Speaker 0: Okay. There has been a motion in the second as as noted, amended and just amending the staff's recommendation all in favor. Speaker 7: I. Speaker 0: I was that unanimous? Yeah. Okay, that one passes five. Oh, okay. Pathway E, this is East Shore Drive at Central Avenue. Recommend improved public viewing area with amenities adjust fencing if needed. It's already well-used. Public pathway to the water include increased public amenities such as benches, picnic tables, trash, recycle receptacles. Speaker 7: Motion move approval the staff recommendation for city. Speaker 0: As is. Speaker 7: Right as it's okay. Speaker 0: Do have a second? Speaker 3: Sure second. Speaker 0: I was motion is second in discussion all in favor I any oppose abstain measure e passes unanimously. Speaker 3: At a mayor. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: I'd like to have reconsideration of the the C just because I wanted to hear more what you your thoughts on it. Speaker 0: Oh, um. Speaker 3: And I think as. Speaker 0: Opposed to you put in the majority so you can okay. B you need someone else to, um, don't you? Speaker 3: Well, yeah. And you need three votes to reconsider. Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll vote for that too. Okay. Um, you want to hear more from. Speaker 3: Oh, I mean, I thought you were gonna vote yes, so I was just curious on. Oh, I didn't really hear your your not. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: She wanted a chance to convince me. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 3: I, I'm kind of on the fence on this one, so. Speaker 0: Okay, well, um, I would. I would go with the staff's recommendation on this. I have walked that path and I know that area. And, um, I respectfully disagree that it's analogous to walking across a driveway or walking through a parking garage because this is an area where and I think the photos were pretty clear that you could be walking along way up. Maybe you're a little kid. You didn't even realize that a car is about to come out. Um, it's just there, and there's driveways on both sides. And I. I do think that we should be opening up as much of the waterfront and these public access paths as we can. But I'm also a realist, and I just don't see a scenario. I mean, maybe, God forbid, an earthquake, you know, makes the houses tumble or something, but I don't want to see that. But those houses and those driveways and those garages are going to continue to be there. And they're very close to the pathways. And so and I listen to Councilmember Vella and I'm picturing her pushing her stroller or, you know, having that cute little baby in the snugly. And I want her to be safe just like anybody else who uses it. So that's why I mean, I love that we're doing this, but I just don't think this one is our best candidate, because I also am concerned with the safety of pedestrians or kids on tricycles or, you know, moms with babies, dads with babies, what have you. So that's my thought. Okay. Anybody wants to make another motion, I would entertain it or not. Speaker 3: I would like to keep some type of view access. So I'll try a motion. Try a motion. I will motion to approve the staff recommendation but pursue somehow maintaining the view if feasible. Speaker 0: Um. Yeah. Um. This, uh, council. Ms. Wooldridge, did you want to, uh. Um. Well, the city has an access easement. Do you want to. Do you have any thoughts about maintaining a view corridor or anyone or what city attorney's office want to come? Speaker 10: I connected earlier with with Miss Maxwell and she looked it up today and it confirmed that we we can vacate the easement. So then we don't have liability and other issues, but put a restriction on so that we're still requiring a view corridor. Think of it as kind of air rights. Right. Like capture that correctly. Speaker 0: This is Lisa maxwell from the city attorney's office back there. Speaker 7: Okay. Can we please hear from Lisa. Speaker 0: Coming up later? Yeah. Ms.. Maxwell. Sorry. Speaker 1: I did. A little quick. Speaker 0: Reset. Please talk right into the microphone. Speaker 1: Sure. I did some research just that this afternoon. Speaker 0: This microphone that. Yeah. Speaker 1: Maybe introduce the concept and it is comparable to a covenant or a recorded easement. Speaker 4: He would just record. Speaker 9: A documentation, a. Speaker 1: Document that basically covered the property that allowed us to limit folks from putting up a very tall fence or trees that block the view corridor or just prescribe some parameters so people could see straight down. So it doesn't sound too complicated. Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions for Ms.. Maxwell. Does that does that satisfy you? Yes. Okay. So your motion again is. Speaker 3: To approve the staff recommendation with that extra instruction to maintain the. Speaker 0: Into the microphone. Speaker 3: So I'm sorry. Speaker 0: If I forgot. I know to. Speaker 3: Just remember what it was. Yeah. Speaker 2: What you just said to prove the staff recommendation with instructions to maintain the view. The Oak View corridor if you want to. Yeah. Speaker 9: I'll second. Speaker 2: This. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela, the motion has been moved and second in discussion. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: Well, it's not. I just want to make clear that the staff recommendation is to completely vacate. And so what Ms.. Maxwell talked about was, you know, adopting a covenant. So I just want to be clear that it doesn't seem like we're completely vacating. We're actually still putting some sort of restrictions on the land. Speaker 1: So my thinking would be we vacate the existing easement because it accomplishes different things than what we're now trying to accomplish and instead work with adjacent property owners to record against the property a easement that accomplishes the purposes we're currently discussing, which are to maintain the view. Speaker 0: Okay, I get that. And Mr. Lovett. Speaker 4: I'd recommend, if we do that, that we negotiate this alternative view corridor easement before you start the fire. Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Good, good sequencing. Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. It would be a condition. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you for your both. Thank you. Thank you. So I believe I had a motion in a second. Okay. So any further discussion? May I have 0 seconds? Speaker 11: Can I have you? May I'm just I'm not going to be supporting this because I don't think giving away public easements to what the water is the right thing. But also, I just want to call out, there's not much of a view here, so I don't think this is a very long, narrow tunnel. I just want to be careful that we're not really adding huge value. The view is when you get out to the end and we're removing that ability. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I write the motion on pathway C passes three to I was at 3 to 2. It was okay. And now we are on pathway f, which should be easy. I think the city has no rights to this pathway. The recommendation, no legal interest, no ownership, no easement. The recommendation is that pathway f remain closed. Speaker 4: As a recommendation, so. Speaker 11: We have to take action. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 11: I think, I think the point was. Speaker 1: Take us to. Speaker 4: Do. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, but we do we agree with. Okay. We're not going to get past it. So is that sufficient for. Speaker 8: It might be helpful for the Council to just affirm staff's recommendation? Speaker 0: I think. Speaker 3: The move affirmation of steps recommendation on pathway. Speaker 0: F. Okay. I have a motion to have a second. Speaker 11: And sorry. Now I'm not understanding a. Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 0: Mr. Chen said. He said it would be helpful to have affirmation of staff's recommendation. So that's what we're voting on. But if I if we don't have legal. Speaker 7: It's an affirmation that we don't have the ability to take action. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I oppose abstain. Speaker 11: I'm going to abstain. Speaker 0: Okay. That was approved for a yes and one abstention. Okay. I think we have. Oh, you know, I have one question for Ms. Wooldridge before we close this one up. Are we going to need an increase in recreation Parks Department budget to cover additional maintenance? Because we're taking on maintenance of these pathways, as I understand it. Speaker 10: That's correct. And I can't express how much I appreciate you think about maintenance. Well, we worry. Speaker 0: About a lot of things. Speaker 10: Right? I've preached it enough. We'll be bringing something back in the midyear. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Okay. I think we've covered it right. Okay, everyone. Thank you. That was not easy, but thank you for getting through that. Item six C is close. We move on to six D. Speaker 2: Introduction of ordinance amending the Elimination of Civil Code by adding Section 13 Dash 12 use and occupancy of damaged buildings and structures. Use of placard or signs to Chapter 13, Article one.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve the Design Concepts for Up to Six Public Access Pathways Along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7181

Speaker 1: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department. So as described, we are presenting a 66 year lease for 466. No. Speaker 0: Just now. Speaker 1: That's another 166 month lease. That was so for it in 66 month lease. Speaker 0: Are you paying. Speaker 1: With an option to extend for another five, four, five years for 23, 15 Central Avenue that is formerly was in wine bar and we're transforming it into a wine retail facility. And it's more than just that. And yesterday, the mayor sent some questions over because she's super detail oriented and about what and what the operations would look like in the wine facility. Her concern was that it was just a run of the mill retail shop and that she wanted really something special in that location. So I thought I would give you a few little bullet points that we sent to 202 mailers out for that. For that space, we received 90 inquiries and that some in response to the mailer and just people driving or walking by. We had 35 showings of the of the building of the space. And we received four offers. Of those offers, two couldn't provide us with adequate financials, and we went forward with negotiating with two. And then we countered both of them with the same offer, and one dropped out. And so we moved forward with the Park Street wine cellars. And actually wine cellars is not going to be your run of the mill retail shop. It's going to be a destination. The people who run the facility have a great history and doing and doing just that, running these facilities or running a wine a wine retail shop. They're going to specialize in primarily European wines from Italy, France and Spain, and they're going to have very high end California wines that the idea of their operations is focused around creating a destination rather than being dependent upon foot traffic. They their program will include educational wine seminars, wine and food pairing seminars and Wine of the Month club. They are going to be hosted in their facility and they're going to allow the patrons the opportunity to taste and explore the latest arrivals that come into the shop. And their staff will discuss the wines and give background on each of the wines that are being offered there, and every wine will be able to be sampled in their facility. They are definitely focusing on having the personal touch. One thing of note is Mr. Massy is he won't be dependent on wholesalers coming in and telling in trying to tell him which wines to buy because he himself is a wholesaler. So he'll be able to be very specific in the types of wines that they offer in that shop. Recently I asked to. Mr.. Mr. Massie, how are you different from the shops that are in your look in in the vicinity. And he said that because he is a wholesaler, he can make sure that his wines are of the highest quality and also the fact that they are really going to be a personalized focus on the client, the clients who come in and offer like different sorts of educational opportunities for people to feel like they are wine experts themselves after they leave. The last thing that I like to talk about, I know first of all, the mayor asked about the operating hours and Mr. Massy is proposing to be closed on Sundays and Monday through Thursday, be open from 10 to 7 and Friday and Saturday, 10 to 9. And then finally, finally, Mr. Massy, their marketing program. And then they are asked because they they do have a wine, a website up already. And there was concern about, you know, putting the cart before the horse. And the masses are really trying to create a social media marketing plan they are dependent on. They want to create a a buzz about their app or their coming and then make people want to come and visit and have that experience of wine learning about wine pairing so different wines from different regions. So they really want to create and they have a history of doing this, a space that people will want to come to. So it we believe that it fits in with what's happening on that street, with that with the theater and then our new burger shop, that it's something where people will want to come and spend time and then meander around Park Street. So we think it's a really good tenant opportunity for us. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'll just make a quick comment because it's true. I sent Ms.. McCann, I bet she's used to my lengthy emails with questions. And my primary concern was the staff report was pretty sparse. And I just wanted to know who are these folks and why do they think they can make a go of a wine shop in this area? And going forward, when we're considering a lease, I'd love to know more than the monthly amount of rent and the the length of the lease and the names of the lessees. Because. Not only for my own. Purposes in order to make an informed decision. But in this case, we're considering city owned property, and we need to also inform the public. And so I did a little Googling and I found this website, and I was a little surprised that it was out there. But it was it's very nice and it's very informative. And so I know that for more than ten years, Mr. Massy operated a wine business outside somewhere in the Houston, Texas area. And I believe that in 2011, he and his wife and family came to Alameda. And I think that's great. I just feel like I probably shouldn't have to do quite so much sleuth work. But you know me, I will. I will. And so, I mean, I'm I'm excited about this prospect, but let's hear from other council members. Council questions, comments, motion. Um. Speaker 3: I'll make a quick comment. Speaker 0: Yeah. So there's a time. Speaker 3: I mean, I don't want to micromanage, but there are other parts of the world that produce great wines. South Africa produces great wines Lebanon, South Korea, Australia. So anyway, and I've tried Sugar-Free wines, which are actually quite interesting. So just this just I'm trying to cut back on sugar, but I'm of approval of the item. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. So, so we have a second in discussion or. Okay, yeah. Speaker 7: I'll, I'll go ahead and second. Speaker 0: Okay. And then Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: Yeah, I think to the mayor's point, I think a little background is sometimes helpful. Just to give us context about, you know, one of my concerns is always going to be, you know, how is this going to be viable? Are we going to be back at the table, you know, relatively quickly? Are there going to be issues that come up? And I think having that context is always helpful. I know that staff in the past has offered prospective tenants the ability to write us a letter or something like that. I think those sorts of things can be helpful just so that we have some a little more context because we're not at the bargaining table with you. Right. And I think really what we're looking for is how is this going to kind of envisioning what the what the business is going to be like? And, you know, hopefully that the lease that we're negotiating is something that's going to be successful for everyone. Speaker 0: And I see that we have the applicant in the audience and I see his hand is up. Perhaps that means you'd like to increase because. So is that all right? Speaker 1: Just before he comes up, I would just say I apologize that that the staff report was not as thorough as it should have been. And now I know that the council really wants a lot more context and details. And so in the future, you're going to get what you ask for it. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. So, Mr. Massie, come on up. Speaker 4: Good evening. Evening. My name is Christopher Massey. And I'll just start by saying that I've been in the wine industry for 35 years and I'm a certified Somalia, trained in Burgundy. And that's why the focus on the European wines I trained there in 1989 and 1990, and my focus has always been on European wines. And I do realize, of course, that there are other places in the world and you will see a smattering of just about everything in the store, from South Africa to Lebanese wines to Finger Lakes wines to just about anything you can imagine is going to be in the store. It's only 700 square feet, though, so we've got to have a focus. And my wife and I will run this the same way that we ran our stores in Houston, and that's with great care and attention to detail and with a customer centric focus. And that's why we launched the the website was just to get the information that were coming and it's just kind of a marketing and it's all we're real, we're very marketing oriented sales and marketing kind of oriented. And so that's, that's why we launched. It's just, it's just an informative piece. If you look at it, it's really here's all about Christopher. If you read the website that's yeah. Speaker 0: I got that an opening for 2019. No it was, it was very nice again. That is how I learned about it. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: About you and your experience. Speaker 4: It's, it was more that than anything else. And so I can assure you that this this endeavor will completely fly. We've been chomping at the bit since we put in our letter of intent and, uh, May 17th this when we put in our letter of intent. So we are ready to go. Speaker 0: I think if you feel like you've said enough, I think there's a motion about to be voted on. Excellent. But perhaps the vice mayor has a question. Speaker 4: Any questions? Speaker 11: I don't have a question. Okay. I just want to say, I've sat through a few of these meetings and I would like to restart and say I'm really I don't drink wine. You probably won't see me in your in your I don't drink at all. So you won't see me in your store likely. And I say just go there with my wife, who does. But I'm excited and I'm wishing you well. Thank you for supporting this. Thank you. I just want to make sure that we we launch out of this vote in a positive way. And thank you. Thank you. You hear nice. Speaker 4: Things. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Speaker 0: And I, for one, am excited about a locally owned business. So thank you. And Councilmember Vela made the motion. Someone seconded it. Yeah. Nice to meet you. Me? Okay. All right, so we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I All right, that was unanimous. So congratulations. Welcome and good work. Council. Okay, let's see. Where are we? We've got item seven City Manager Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Execute a 66-Month Lease with One Option to Extend the Term for 60 Months with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc. for the Premises at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122 (Historic Alameda Theatre Building). [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Commercial Revitalization 227)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09172019_2019-7180

Speaker 0: And. Whereas, John spent more than 20 years with the Red Cross Task Force and is currently the Red Cross liaison to the City of Alameda Disaster Council. We just did a meeting together recently. And. WHEREAS, John proudly served as an assistant fire chief in the Alameda County of Emergency Services Fire Department. And. Whereas, John chaired a family and business disaster preparedness campaign in Alameda called Together We Prepared, which reached 20,000 individuals and. Whereas John was co-chair of Alameda is holiday toy program for 20 years ensuring that every child in Alameda, regardless of their family's circumstances, received a toy. And. Whereas, John served as a commissioner on the Alameda Municipal Power Public Utilities Board for eight years. And. Whereas, John served on the Northern California Power Agency and CPA Legislative and Regulatory Committee. And. Whereas, John spent over six years as a co-chair of the Alameda Housing Authority Board of Directors, I just want to say this is not in the script, but it is so heartwarming to see someone who has given back so much. That's like another lifetime, really, that you spent as a as a community volunteer. And I'm just looking around the room and there's lots of representatives from organizations that you've. Yes, I see you that you've you've worked with. So now therefore be resolved that I Marilyn, as the Ashcraft mayor of the city of Alameda, do hereby recognize John McCann's many years of dedication and service and thank him for sharing his time and talents with the city of Alameda. Thank you, John. Perhaps you'd like to say a few words. Well, that, John, say a few words and I'll present his proclamation. Yeah. Speaker 4: Just a just a couple of words. Yeah. Well, first of all, I brought Karen up with me because that's the. Speaker 2: Support system that allows me to do. Speaker 4: All of this. Speaker 2: And it came from Red Cross about my last night there. Who as well? I'll meet you upstairs. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 2: Well, that's important because that the ability for that to happen. Speaker 4: The thing that cut through all of my volunteer work, both with the Red. Speaker 2: Cross and different. Speaker 4: Elements of the city, is. Speaker 2: The amazing amount of talent that I've come across. And professionals within the city, within the Red Cross. The Jim Francis of the world. Speaker 4: I mean, the level of professionalism, the level of Laura. Laura. Laura and I go back as far as we can go. I mean. Speaker 2: But if you take a look at the how. Speaker 4: Smart these folks are. Speaker 2: And how dedicated. Speaker 4: They are, you know, on delivering. On promise. Yeah. Delivering a better life for the citizens of the city of Alameda. Making Alameda safer for one at all. Yeah. That's why I have a passion for doing what I do. So I. Speaker 2: Thank you for providing me the opportunity and the city and the platform. Speaker 4: To do what I've been doing. Speaker 0: Thank you. You did it well. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you for everything. Speaker 7: You're working group. Thank you. Speaker 0: Took our different microphones. Our our next proclamation is O and we have a recipient. Do I have Michael Chinaski, naturalist for the East Bay Regional Park District based at Crab Cove. Oh, hi, stranger. Nice to see you, naturalist. So this is. And you're going to receive this proclamation, and I'll see you on Saturday. So whereas a coastal cleanup day recognizes that we need to protect Alameda is ecological health and beauty. And. Whereas, Alameda INS take great pride in our city's natural beauty and support a clean, safe environment now and in the future.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Recognizing John McCahan for His Contribution to the City of Alameda. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09172019_2019-6452

Speaker 0: Whereas for more than 132 years, Alameda Municipal Power or AMP has been a valuable community asset that contributes substantially to the well-being of Alameda residents through environmental stewardship, customer programs and services, economic development and safety awareness. And. Whereas, the residents of the City of Alameda highly value local control of community services and have chosen to operate a community owned, locally controlled, not for profit electric utility. As consumers and owners of the electric utility residents have a direct say in utility operations and policies. And. Whereas, AB provides homes, businesses and local governments, government agencies with reliable, efficient, cost effective and clean energy and its local operation and workforce continue to make our community a better place in which to live and work. And. Whereas, AMP is a dependable and trustworthy institution whose lower rates translate into significant savings for all Americans while directly contributing to the city of Alameda. Economic Vitality and quality of life with annual transfers of more than $5 million. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that AMP will continue to work to bring lower cost, safe, reliable and clean energy to our homes and businesses as it has since 1887. And be it further resolved that our community joins hands with more than 2000 other public power systems in the United States, in this celebration of public power and recognition that Alameda municipal power is good for consumers, businesses, the city of Alameda and our nation. Be it further resolved that I marylynn as he Ashcraft, mayor of the city of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the week of October 6th through 12th 2019 as public power week 2019 in the City of Alameda and honor Alameda Municipal Power for its contributions to our city. And as I'm reading that, you're right, we're a little ahead of time. It's next month. But as I believe our investor is and McCormick couldn't be here in October, so we juggle things around. So why don't you tell us a little about AB and yourself. By the way, she's a member of the Public Utilities Board. She's an engineer. She's really smart. Take it away. Speaker 3: And I think that says it all. Marilyn, thank you. And know Mary Ashcraft, council members and staff, thank you very much for the proclamation tonight. And I'm Anne McCormick, president of the Public Utilities Board. I've had the pleasure of serving on the PBE for many years, and we look forward to Public Power Week. It's an opportunity that we have to continue to educate the public on the value of a municipal owned utility. We always have work to do explaining how that's benefited us historically. Being the oldest municipal utility west of the Mississippi, 132 years old, and having invested very early in renewable and carbon free resources that are serving as well now our current value rates are 20 to 25% below PGE and our power will be 100% carbon free by the beginning of 2020. We have best in class efficiency rebate programs and electric car programs, but probably more importantly, our future value, the value of maintaining our commitment to local control, the work. Speaker 8: That we have. Speaker 3: To do in conjunction with the city on our Climate Action Plan, we've we've made tremendous strides on our carbon free portfolio. It's allowed us to hit all of our goals for the city. But the heavy work is yet to be done decarbonizing our buildings and our transportation sector, and that's going to take resources and. Speaker 8: Contributions beyond AMP. Speaker 3: In coordination with the city, and we look forward to that challenge. It's a value we bring to Alameda and one of the very special things about living here. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I think. Okay. So now we come to oral communications and this is a time where speakers can address the council on any item that is not on the agenda. Do we have any speakers? Speaker 1: We have four speak. Speaker 0: We have four speakers. Okay. So then you get 3 minutes and the city clerk will call your name and just come on up to the podium. Be sure to begin to the microphone. Okay.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring October 6 through 12, 2019 as Public Power Week 2019. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09172019_2019-7236

Speaker 6: I pulled this item in order to remain consistent with my previous opposition to this, largely because I feel that the changes that were adopted in conjunction with a series of other changes are incredibly burdensome to especially the smaller mom and pop landlords. When alternatives exist, I believe, to not only assist renters in crisis, especially when it comes to excessive rent increases, but also alternatives that also support the smaller mom and pop landlords. I will continue to oppose this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. To have a motion to for final passage of this ordinance and everything else that was read. Speaker 2: So moved. Speaker 0: Has been moved by Councilmember Otis, seconded by Councilmember Vela and Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: Councilmember de san. Speaker 6: Nope. Speaker 1: Not quite. Speaker 9: Yet. Speaker 1: Odie. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 3: Bella. Speaker 1: Yes, Mayor. As yet? Speaker 0: Yes. The motion passes. Four, two, one. Thank you. Okay, that is the end of the consent calendar. We move on to regular agenda item six a. Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Brian Temper of the May 28th and July 22nd. Planning Board decisions for a 172 room, hotel and restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway and adoption related resolution. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have plenty director Andrew Thomas, who's going to address us. Good evening. Speaker 10: Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Knox White, members of the council, Andrew Thomas, planning director. I'll introduce this item for you tonight. This is an appeal of a planning board decision to approve the final. Colors and materials and landscape details for a hotel at Harbor Bay. The appellants. Let me just introduce this by saying the our zoning code establishes the planning board as the body responsible for making final decisions on design review and these sorts of issues. The zoning code allows for an appeal process. The purpose of the appeal is to determine whether the planning board essentially made a mistake, whether they made a decision that was inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning code. As you know from the staff, court staff is recommending that you uphold their decision tonight. This has been a process that has been a long one and the planning board has been very careful in this process. The the community planning process began in late 2018 with a series of neighborhood meetings where the property owner and hotel proponent met with different groups at Harbor Bay. I should just for anyone who's tuning in at the last minute, this is a new hotel proposed immediately adjacent to the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal on Harbor Bay Parkway. It's in the Harbor Bay Business Park. This land is zoned for commercial uses and hotels are permitted by. Right. So really, the city's discretion here is simply the design of the building. The planning board had a study session in October of 2018 to just to review the overall design of the building, the size, its compliance with the zoning code to make sure it met all of our zoning requirements.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Adding Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers’ Decisions and Administrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently Suspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a Restated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8. (Community Development)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09172019_2019-7204

Speaker 10: Right. So really, the city's discretion here is simply the design of the building. The planning board had a study session in October of 2018 to just to review the overall design of the building, the size, its compliance with the zoning code to make sure it met all of our zoning requirements. And then two months later, they had another public hearing and approved the project in December of 2018. That decision was then appealed by the neighbors of the project. The City Council held a hearing on February 5th, considered the appeal, considered the Planning Board's decision, and upheld the Planning Board's decision. That decision that the Planning Board made to approve the project had two remaining items that the Planning Board had asked the applicant to do, which one was to come back with final architectural design elements for the building. So the scale, size, height was all approved, but they wanted to get more details and an articulation on the building . So they asked the applicant to come back with that. They also wanted more detail and some fine tuning to the landscape plan. The City Council, at your hearing after upholding the planning board, said, Yeah, we absolutely agree. Planning Board, you should keep working on those two items. And we would also like you to take one last look at the setback of the building from the water and consider pushing it back ten or 15 feet. You didn't tell them to do it. You asked them to just consider whether that was a good idea or not. Two days later, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a board of Directors Board of Commissioners, held a public hearing to discuss this very same project and determined that it was completely consistent with their guidelines, standards and rules, and that it met their set back requirements and provided an appropriate set back to the water from Bccdc perspective. We then followed that up with two neighborhood meetings. Then on May 28th, the planning board held another public hearing, and at that meeting they considered the staff recommendation, which at that point was to not move the building back any further. We did not feel that we should push the building closer, push it back away from the water, because we felt the distance from the water was appropriate. And equally important, we felt that to push it back towards the neighbors would simply make the building appear even taller. So and there was at the neighborhood meetings on February 16th and May 11th that we had had prior to May 28th, there was no no support and no requests from the neighbors to pull the building back towards them. So we made that recommendation at May 28th. The planning board did not get any public speakers asking that the building get pushed back towards the neighborhood and they approved. The building setback. That decision was then appealed. And that's the one of the decisions you're considering tonight. But they did not approve the final designs and the final landscape at that at that meeting. We then had two more community meetings. And then on July 22nd, the planning board reaffirmed and re-approved the project setback and the final architectural details and lighting. So this is a project that the planning board has worked very hard on. And as I said earlier, we feel they they made the right decision. The appellant makes three arguments. One is there weren't enough community meetings. The planning board is required to have notice public hearings. They held those public hearings there. They completely fulfilled the requirements of the zoning code in terms of public meetings. All of the extra neighborhood meetings I just talked about were extra meetings. So there is no requirement for any more meetings. The other two issues related to the appeal are about the setback of the building. What this slide shows you is a couple of things. The the orange area shown is the footprint of the building in December. And if you look very closely, you'll see there's a there's another footprint sort of superimposed on the orange. You can see that is the final footprint. It was approved by the planning board. So you can see if you look very closely, the building got ever so slightly longer. It got a little narrower in places on the width, but the basic set back never changed. The reason the the configuration changed slightly is we were working with the applicant and the planning board was working on the applicant and the neighbors were working with the opinion to get more articulation into the design. So the design sort of you got some more ins and outs, more reveals the overall design of the building improved over this period. The actual square footage remained basically the same. The actual location of the building remained the same. We didn't move it back, as I said earlier. The another thing that has not changed is this relationship of the set back to to the waterfront. So we didn't move the building back. The thing that I'll just point out here is the requirement is that the project be set 35 feet back from the water, from the park edge. And there's actually a little red line on that drawing. You probably can't see it, but that's 35 feet back. The restaurant, which is shown on the left, is right on that red line, 35 feet. The pool and the pool deck, which you see just to the left of the hotel there, that is the pool that sits in front of the hotel between the hotel and the restaurant that sits right on the line. And you can see the little red line. The hotel is just pushed back, but it varies from 4 to 5 feet back from that red line, just as a little bit of a patio area. You can see in the inset that patio, these are people there's a drawing showing people sitting in chairs in front of the hotel. You can see behind them that building, that's the restaurant. It's just a little bit further and the pool is right behind them. So that line there, sitting on the 35 foot line, the hotel is just a few feet back. So throughout this project, the staff report and the staff described has been describing the project set back from the 35 foot line. That relationship of restaurant and pool and hotel has not changed from this entire period from December through July 22nd. As I said at the beginning, we're recommending that you uphold the planning board's decision. We don't believe that the planning board made any mistakes. This has been a site that has been difficult. Every single project that we have tried to move forward on this site has been appealed. This is the second appeal for the UN on this particular project. I think the we believe the planning board worked very hard. We think they interpreted and implemented your zoning code and development regulations appropriately on this site. I know they tried to make everybody happy at the end of the day. We still have some residents who are unhappy with the final design. I'm sure you'll hear from them tonight. But from staff's perspective, the planning board did their job and they did it well. So with that, I'm available to answer any questions. I know the project applicant would also like a couple of minutes. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I am going to see first if any councilmembers have any clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas on the staff report. Speaker 2: Councilmember Ody Yes, I do. Thank you for that presentation. I just have a procedural question. So there were two decisions, but there's one appeal and then it was amended via email even. I mean, there's that this is I mean, that doesn't seem like that's a proper procedure. Speaker 10: Well, here we are. These hearings are de novo. So you are able, as the council, to consider and make any changes you want related to the project. You're not limited to just the issues raised by the appellant. So what happened was we they had their they submitted their appeal after the first decision then, but the planning board wasn't even done yet. So then we basically had a conversation with them like, well, do you want to wait till the planning board finishes and then have one appeal hearing, or do we have to have two more, you know? So we decided to sort of consolidate. But under the regulations and the zoning code, they can continue to raise questions and issues. And even tonight, issues can come up in this hearing that you can address or decide. So we didn't hold it at a sort of a strict line like, oh, I can't say anything more. You have to stop here. Speaker 2: Well, that wasn't my question. The question was the appeal was made on the first. Speaker 10: The first. Speaker 2: Decision. And it seems to me there should have been an appeal made on the second decision as well in order for us to consider it, because there's really no appeal of that decision. I mean, there's no official petition. There's no fee filed. Speaker 10: They that's that's true. I mean, we could take that approach. I'm just not sure that it would make a difference if we could said, okay, well, this is appeal on May 28th, and if you overturn that decision, then the project does have to go back to the planning board because that was a decision where they set the building footprint. Speaker 0: So I'm going to call a time out and ask to hear from our city attorney. Mr. SHINN. Speaker 5: Councilmember Odie, it's my understanding that after the initial appeal, staff had a conversation with the appellant, and the appellant and staff reached an amicable resolution, which is to continue the appeal and collectively appeal at once. Given that courts generally review notices of appeals with a lot of latitude, my recommendation is that the council hears this appeal in its entirety. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Shinn. Do we have any further clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas before we go to our public speakers and the applicant, Councilmember Desai. Speaker 6: And I kind of submitted this earlier. So has the applicant officially gone through the process of combining the three parcels? Speaker 10: It's a condition of approval on the project. So no, they haven't merged the property yet, but they need to do it before they can do a pull up building permit. Speaker 6: The building permits. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Any further clarifying questions? Mr. Knox White Vice Mayor Lanier. Okay. So with that, I'm sure we have the applicant addresses first council or last after the public speakers. Speaker 2: Because they usually have a we have a process laid out in our rules, don't we, on this? No, I think you do. Speaker 5: The particular council member, I don't believe you have a written process laid out, but my recommendation is to give the appellant the last word. Speaker 0: The last word. Okay, we will do that. So then the city clerk, how many speakers clubs do we have? Speaker 1: We have six, including the appellant. Speaker 0: Okay. So with six. Speaker 1: I mean, the applicant. The applicant. Yeah. So the applicant is one and I think there's. A couple of people. I think speaking from the parents side. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, did you say applicant or a parent should have the last word? Speaker 5: I generally recommend giving the appellant the last word because they are appealing and they should have the final say after they heard. Speaker 0: All the comments. I think that's fine. Okay, so shall we bookended and have the day here that the applicant wanted to speak or am I just hearing in a mumble. Speaker 1: Okay. Wants to speak and then the appellant. Yes. Speaker 3: Okay. Or both. Speaker 0: I'm running this meeting. Here's what we're going to do. I. And altogether miss. Why I. That's six. Okay. So you've all got 3 minutes. Don't feel like you have to take them, but you've got him and the clerk will call your names. Be ready to come on up. It'll just keep things moving faster. But let's start with Mr. Leach and then and end with Mr. the gentleman who's the appellant jury. So. Speaker 1: Okay, so we have Robert Leach and Singh and Michael McDonough is the first three. Speaker 3: All right, come on up. Speaker 4: Hi. Robert Leach. I'm the applicant. And despite my eternal optimism with the city of Alameda, I have to say that we haven't convinced everybody in the city yet that this is a great project. But I can say that we've had a strong turnout at all the different hearings and invited people to go. Tonight, I asked my fifth grade teacher she could stay home, my third grade best friend. He could stay home. A lot of the folks, because this is an appeal and not a a vote of action. Long story short is we started the project with the idea of trying to build the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. We've complied with every rule and regulation that was presented to us in terms of height and setback and air and everything else. Any rule, we asked for no variances to build this project. We basically wanted to stay within the code because I had witnessed over the last couple of years the turmoil that creates when you ask for variances with BCP, DC and the city. So we stayed away from any variances. We designed the project to be 100% compliant with city rules and regulations. We went. There was an appeal filed or issue taken up with BCP DC. We were called to back DC. They voted 90 no in favor of the project that we were 100% compliant. It's a very nice hotel. I like to say it's the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. I also like to say that it's the first Union Hotel built in Alameda. It's the first union operated hotel with staff. And if you want to know the difference between a union operated hotel, our housekeepers make 2850 an hour. That's not just jumping over the $15 measurement that people are trying to get to these days. It's pole vaulting over the $15 measurement. So we're building a great hotel. It contributes about $1,000,000 a year to the city in terms of total tax. We've listened to everybody in the neighborhood. I've attended every meeting they had. In addition to the meetings that were scheduled by the planning staff. I attended people's homes. I went to their houses, their businesses, wherever they wanted to talk. I went and met with them. We took every good idea that we could from those meetings and incorporated into the project. I met a planning commissioner out at the site and walked the site and looked at plants and where they were and where they were insufficient and tried to do everything we could. So at this point, I think we've we've satisfied everything we can do in terms of regulatory requirements, rebuilding a very, very nice hotel. It has tremendous benefit to the city in terms of employment and revenue. And it's just frankly, it's just the nicest hotel that's ever been built or attempted in Alameda. We also decided to go with modular, which allows us to minimize any type of dust and dirt, and we can build it quicker and faster and easier. So with less impact on the neighbors. But on I appreciate your consideration on this for the many times I appear before you and thank you very much. Speaker 0: Take care. Thank you. Our next speaker. And did we just get another speaker added to this item? Okay. So you're still 3 minutes, folks. Okay. Speaker 1: Ed Singh, Michael McDonough and Pat Lambourne. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. My name is Ed Singh speaking on behalf of the Freeport Away and as the appellant, we'd like to request 10 minutes to make our case. Speaker 0: Is that a whatever? Is it? Is it? So our rules. Speaker 4: Are rules and so give it. Speaker 0: No, I. Speaker 2: We did pass rules of procedure that when we have these type of appeals that we give 10 minutes to, I believe it's each side. Speaker 0: Well that that is well and good if that's what the rule. And I know I was on that subcommittee with you. The only part that is throwing me for a loop is I thought that we had saved the appellant for last. But you're saying that you were the you're speaking on behalf of the. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. So Mr.. I'm sorry, I'm. Speaker 4: Saying. Speaker 0: No, no, no. You're Ms.. You're Mr. Singh. But Mr.. Speaker 4: Trumper. Speaker 0: Temper. Yes. He's not here. Speaker 4: He is here he was. Make comments. The, the appeal was filed on behalf of by Brian. But they have. Speaker 0: I mean. Speaker 4: Actually, you're right ma'am. Speaker 5: I would say the ten mineral that applies to one appellant not for each exactly. Speaker 4: But we understand. Speaker 0: You said okay. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 8: Okay. I don't want to go to the end. Speaker 0: And and you don't want to wait until you've heard the other speakers because you're welcome to speak now or. Sure I can. Yeah. Because if you if you heard what the city attorney said earlier, Eugene, we generally give the appellant the last word, which is why we had the other listed. Appellant I'm sorry, I keep going blank on this, but. Right. Okay, great. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We'll see you in a bit and we'll reset your time. So, Michael McDonough, your next and then I'm after Mr. McDonough is Pat Lamborn. Pat Lambert. Okay. Hello. Speaker 4: Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Knox, Wyatt and the rest of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the board of the Chamber of Commerce here in Alameda. So I'm here just to reiterate what we've said in the past about our support for this project. This is an important project for a number of reasons, not to mention the jobs that they will be creating with a much higher than minimum wage. And also for the city coffers, which the the developer just mentioned would be close to $1,000,000 a year, which I think is a very important number for our budget, for the city's budget moving forward. But also from the business community standpoint, that area out there has one hotel and a lot of people fly into Alameda for business meetings in Alameda in that area and have to stay in Oakland. This is important for a lot of the visitors and family of the business people out there and they've been clamoring for this hotel. I think we're going to have another one pretty soon out there, it seems. But there's not enough hotel space in Alameda and certainly not in the Harbor Bay area. And so we as the the as representative of the Chamber of Commerce here in Alameda, we support this and believe it's a very important project for Alameda and would urge you to uphold the Planning Board's decision. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Ms.. Lambourne, you're up. Andrew is going to speak for you. Come on up. Speaker 3: Okay. Good evening. My name is Pat Lambourn. I've been at almost every single meeting we talked about, so I'm not going to steal the appellants thunder. I would say that if you look at the May 28 minutes, it definitely says that they approved the 35 foot setback. And I think part of what the community wants to know is do you stand by what we say in public meetings and the votes taken? So the issue I wanted to address and I'm really thrilled to hear you can address it tonight, is the parking at at this at this development. Thank you for sharing the photo. This is a this is actually a picture of the completely empty parking lot at VFR outdoors. They've moved and gone to Denver. There's hundreds of empty parking spaces now at 2701 and 2801 Harvard Parkway. So I'm asking that you reduce the parking spaces and you have the power to do that. You just heard that. So originally this was 172 room hotel restaurant that adds up. That added up to 275 parking spaces, five story hotel, 275 parking spaces. In all the community meetings, we said it's over. Parked in the exhibit for the December 10th Planning Board meeting, the consultant said to the study said it was over parked there were going to be at least 100 vacant parking spaces, which they said would be made available to three parkers. No one's ever proof that that's actually going to come to fruition. So I'm asking you to reduce it by 50 go from 275 parking spaces -50. You could do that. The plans and staff reports have all been decided throughout this process about parking. No one's presented to you. Do you know how? Any parking spaces is the final account here? I don't. And I read through all this stuff. I watched the video at one point in the May 28th minutes and I can enter them into public record, if you like. Planning board member Ellen Teague pointed out a dissonance between the staff report and the actual plans they were looking at indicate that night this didn't sail through our planning board folks. At May 28, three planning board members voted no. Why? Because the plans were so dissonant with what the developer said and the information before them. So you have the power tonight. We could be looking at hundreds of vacant parking spaces at VFR door. Maybe you're going to tell us you've got it that someone's moving in and filling them. I don't know that. I looked it up. I couldn't find it. So how many parking spaces should there be on this lot? If you reduce them, you can do something for the neighbors that appealed this. You can add landscaping between the parking lot, the hotel and their houses. You can do something for the rest of us that use the Bay Trail and that which is the Shoreline Park. You could replace the parking spaces with vegetation. Right. If you go with a 35 foot setback, it's not very much. Right. How can you mitigate that? You have the power. Thank you very much. That's what I'm. Speaker 0: Asking. Thank you. Nice speaker is Donna Fletcher. Speaker 1: Then it's Ed and Brian. Ed singing. Speaker 0: All right, so right now, we're going to have Mr. Trimper go after Ms.. Fletcher. Yeah. Is this on this particular item? Okay. Yes. Just thinking ahead. Good. Good evening. Speaker 3: Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, members of the council and city staff. I'm here tonight to speak in support of Mr. Trampers appeal that the Council uphold the 35 foot hotel setback we believe was approved on May 28. The effort by the neighbors to improve the design of the Marriott Residence Hotel has been a long and winding road. To quote the Beatles, in retrospect, the community and the developer probably had different expectations of what they could accomplish. I know that for the community, we really wanted a hotel that fit into the established residential neighborhood and took its cues and design from that. And we figured that if it was a marriott residence in that it would look residential. And if it was an inn, maybe it would appear to be like a seaside resort in Alameda. But once the planning board approved the building footprint, the footprint, the number of rooms and the five stories, really all of the significant design decisions were made. And what we really had to work with was the facade, colors and materials and design details. We did the best we could with that, and we found the developer to be cooperative and patient and collaborative as well as the city staff. So we appreciated that opportunity. Perhaps this is a cautionary tale for other projects that get approved without having the final design approved because it really does limit the process coming to a harmonious conclusion. We now find ourselves at the end of the process and the neighbors are making just one last request, and that is to please to please uphold the 35 foot setback. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And so now, Mr. Trimper. Followed by Mr. Singh. It. Speaker 4: Hi, my name is Brian Trump or council members. Mayor And I'm going to be living, I guess my card, my yard's going to be behind this building. Well, wait, I don't know that. I don't know exactly where this building is going to be, because if you look at that, that was the original spot where the building was . They had little markers to chair. Speaker 0: Sorry to interrupt you, but everyone wants to hear you. Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know if I'm going to be behind the building there. As you look, as you see if you can see the plants on the right hand side there of my right, that's where my fences and that's where the building was supposed to end to the right of that fence. My house would be view if you could go to the next slide, please. But I can do it now. It's here. That's where the sticks are that indicate the end of the property. However, since then, since that time, they've said, Oh no, we needed to add a little more of the footprint because we now have changed the configuration and there's some new bars which go to the next one to there. So I was the first one to sign the appeal for this project I signed as the president of Freeport Homeowners Association. And it looks like to me that the solution to this problem was to extend this building in front of my backyard. Now, these things are obviously not exact. I don't I'm not that good at PowerPoint and things like that. But they're about that's a little I can't think of the word in English, but it's a little quick, you know, it's a little sideways of a picture. But if you go to the next slide, if you look at their own planning board, it still shows it as to the right of my house. Because if you look at where it says it's kind of like a painted in, it's the trees that are above it, sort of on the right hand side, you have four circles and then you have like a cloud. You see it says Harbor Bay Park, way up there. There's a cloud just above the three fort. So the far right, there's four trees and then there's a cloud that's the existing trees. And in the larger map that that we have, it shows where the actual trunks are. And I can count, I can look at those trunks and I can see and I can look at this map. And it this shows the building to the right of my house. So it doesn't show it just a little over from my house. It doesn't show it quite a bit over from my house. The problem is, I don't know if it's in front of my house. I don't think the city knows if it's in front of my house. I don't know if the the planning board knows where it is exactly on this map. I think that take me out of the equation. I think the city needs to know exactly where this building's footprint is. I don't think the city, the planning board staff or the developer know where the footprint of this building is. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Trump or Mr. Singh. Speaker 1: So even being in council, the city attorney and I have kind of convinced him the rules of order would require to be suspended to give 10 minutes of time, because there wasn't an appeal process outlined in that. Perhaps the council was remembering when you did a prior appeal and talked about it because it wasn't adopted as part of the. Speaker 0: Okay. I am. I think we should follow whatever the rules are that exist, but I am open to suggestion from my colleagues. And bear with us for just a minute, Mr. Singh, while we figure this out. Um. Uh, Vice Mayor, colleagues, what do you think? But let's not take up. Speaker 6: I think my opinion is. Councilmember Desai My opinion is that 10 minutes ago, the expectation or more than 10 minutes ago, the expectation was that the individual was going to give a ten minute presentation. And I don't see why we should relax from that, that expectation. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. Speaker 8: But I'd be willing to suspend the rules. This one's for. But just for 10 minutes. Not for an excess of that. Speaker 0: Councilmember O.D. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor, are you okay with that? Speaker 9: Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think everybody might be remembering what's in the Sunshine Ordinance about appeals, but I haven't had a chance to look. Speaker 0: That could be that could be. Next time we do this, we'll have those rules in front of us. So we're not playing a guessing game. So with that, Mr. Singh, you have a maximum of 10 minutes. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Oh, sorry, sorry. We have to vote. Okay, so a motion to suspend the rules to allow 10 minutes for this. Appellant So moved moved by the council approval a second by Councilmember Odie. We're going to take a voice vote. Speaker 1: Councilmember Mirza Yes, not quite. Yeah. Oti Yes, yes, yes. Step five race. Speaker 0: Proceed, please. Speaker 3: It's right there. Speaker 4: Uh, this one right here. Speaker 10: Uh, that's the pointer. Speaker 4: Okay, you got it. Thank you very much. Appreciate your granting the time for this appeal. On next slide. Speaker 1: You can advance that there with the error. Oh. Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. Here you go. Okay. Tonight, we're going to focus on the setback of the hotel. The purpose of this appeal is not to stop the hotel. It's not to delay the hotel. It's a matter of a process that we've been following all along and what's been purported to be the hotel setback, what was approved by the planning board, and then what suddenly appeared two months later after the approval is different from what was approved at the planning board. So, number one, uphold the hotel setback of 35 feet. And number two, I want to ensure that information used in the Planning for Planning Board design refused for this project and for future projects is complete , accurate, consistent and transparent. Next slide, please. Speaker 0: Is it easier for you to have staff advance? Could we. Could someone do that for him then, please? You can do that. Okay. Speaker 4: Okay. So we'll focus we'll focus on the left side of this slide. As stated previously, the hotel setback was approved at a may 28 planning board meeting. The hotel setback is 35 feet from the base property line. As stated in that meeting and 75 feet from a high water line as set by Bccdc. So measuring against my metrics is a complete, accurate, consistent, transparent, that data that was used. Yes. And I will explain why in a few minutes. However, two months later, the hotel setback was, I don't want to say revised but maybe restated at the July 22nd planning board meeting as being 40 feet from the bay side property line , whereas the pool setback is 35 feet. So I would argue, you know, is this revision info complete, accurate, consistent, transparent? I would say no to all these for the reasons that I will explain to you in a second. Next slide, please. Let's go. Oh. Okay. I'll do. Speaker 0: It. Oh, no, no. We got it. Speaker 1: Thanks. Speaker 4: Okay. Well, we'll go to in February a state of previously by Andrew. The hotel setback was one of several topics in February bccdc meeting. Next slide, please. Okay. And this was a slide that was used I don't know if it was by B, C, D, C or the applicant, but this is the proposed project site. This is the adjacent McGuire Hester building. This is Stacy went back and at that meeting they talked about the project setback at 75 feet from the high water line or 35 feet from the property line, which is right here at the edge of the Bay Trail right there. And this is consistent with the information used for the design of McGuire. Hester and Stacy went back and actually they the regulatory director said in this image, you can see how the buildings are in alignment and how the setback requirements of the third settlement agreement create a uniform consistency where each development within this area is handled in the same manner. So Bccdc agreed to the 35 foot setback. There are numerous discussions with the community by the developer and the city focusing on the hotel setback. There was no discussion of pool and a separate hotel set. Public comments were received on a 35 foot hotel setback, not a pool setback, but a hotel set by the 35 foot hotel. Setback was consistent with Bccdc. Coordination and the alignment with the adjacent buildings. There was absolutely no discussion of pool setback. Next slide, please. Sorry. Okay. The pre-meeting notes for the May 28th Planning Board where the setback was approved contains no mention of the pool versus hotel setback. It does say the planning board approved the excuse me, the planning board approved the hotel with a 35 foot setback in December of 2018, which provides a setback of approximately 75 feet to the water's edge. Hotel setback, not pool. Moving the building further back would not significantly improve the quality of the Bay Trail experience. The Bccdc staff and the Board of Commissioners reviewed the hotel proposal and determined that the setback of 35 feet was appropriate. This is in the pre-meeting information provided by staff for May 28. Next slide, please. Okay. So you can see that this is a slide that was used by city staff at the May 28th meeting to show, demonstrate, hotel setback. This is the line. It goes from the waterline to the hotel, not to the pool. Next slide, please. And the minute there was a very brief mention by the city of a pool versus hotel setback, this was after the public comment period. So no public comments could be made on that difference that that was noted at that time. And number two, I don't think anybody heard it. I did not hear and I was sitting in the second row right here. So next slide, please. The motion to approve the set back was approved. As stated board member Teague Booth approval of the 35 foot setback. Board member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. The meeting minutes say 35 foot hotel setback was approved. No mention of pool setback. But then two months after the setback approval, the city restated the hotel setback as 40 feet. I think they probably realized that they misspoke at the May 28th meeting. Next slide, please. So there is no written documentation of the pool versus hotel building setback provided to the planning board or the public until the July 22nd planning board meeting. I have to say that this is not quite right. There is a mention of it in fine print at the bottom of the project plans. Now I'm going to tell you that the project plans that are provided to the planning board are the full size plans are a scale one and two cost 30 feet. The half size plans, I believe they're half size that he's holding. Right there would be about one inch equals 60 feet. So reading looking at the difference between the pool setback in the building setback would be very different. A difficult reading. A table at the bottom of the plans would be extremely difficult. And as I say, it's impossible to discern. So the pool versus hotel setback has never been explained in full and public forum. It's documented in writing that it's 35 feet. And the pool setback versus the hotel setback has never been open for comment in public forum. Next slide, please. So we based on the fact that the 35 foot hotel setback was discussed and coordinated with the public public comments received and it was approved by the planning board. We ask that you uphold the 35 foot hotel setback. And I just want to say that I don't want to impugn anyone developer, city staff, the planning board. But this is just a number of issues. And I think Patricia raised some of them, too, of inconsistencies in information that a developer brings before the planning board. Sometimes you can handle it through planning board resolutions. I understand that these are complex projects that take, you know, months to work through. But if the quality of the data that goes to the city and goes to the planning board meets the criteria that I mentioned earlier in my presentation. It would. It would not necessitate having to go back to the planning board again and again and again. And I know that there are many projects coming up on the horizon at the planning board that will be just as complex. And I urge you to work with the planning board in ensuring that the quality of the data is improved. So again, we request that you uphold the 35 hotel. Might seem trivial, but it's not. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Singh. I'm going to ask the planning director, Andrew Thomas, to help the council understand some of what we just heard. Speaker 10: I just want to clarify just two or three quick points and then I'm available to answer any questions. I'm looking at the plans from December 10th. These are the half size set that Mr. Singh mentioned. Then there was the plans that were approved on May 28th and then there were the plans that were approved on July 22nd . Every single set of those plans had what we call a site plan with a table that says has a bunch of information and says setbacks. And every one of those plans has this description of the setbacks. And it says the exact same thing on all three sets of plans, setbacks front in parentheses against from Shoreline Park. And then it says the hotel, 35 feet excuse me, restaurant 35 feet, hotel 40 feet. That has not changed. It has not changed in a single set of plans. It's been consistent the entire way. The site plan has been consistent the entire throughout the entire process. So how it was described in staff reports, how it was described by somebody like me standing at a podium, I think there was a situation where we were thinking about the project. Does it respect the 35 foot setback requirement? Remember the 30 when they say uphold the 35 of the project, upholds the 35 because it doesn't encroach. No part of this project can encroach and be closer than 35. Things can be pushed further back, but they can't come closer. So the restaurant is right on the line. The pool is right on the line, and the hotel has always been five feet further back. So it is not a requirement that everything be right on the line. It's a requirement that everything be no closer than the 35 foot line. And I think essentially, if I understand what the appellants are asking, they're asking you to take the hotel and move it five feet closer to the park. This, from staff's perspective, is would not be a good move. The neighbors who are 200 to 300 feet away are not going to notice a five foot difference from 300 feet . The people on the Bay Trail who are only 35 feet to 40 feet away, they will definitely notice it. For us at staff, it's a little bit strange because at the last appeal, the neighbors and the appellants were telling you to push it back towards the neighborhood. Now they're telling you, bring it closer to the Bay Trail. So we think the planning board did the right thing. We think the information they had was accurate and they made the right decision. One last thing. In terms of Mr. Trampers concern about that, we didn't know where it was. There have been steaks posted. We had steaks posted the actual footprint of the building. Myself and two other staff members went out there personally with the plans after the last couple of meetings and with hundred foot tape measures and measured it ourselves to make sure that we were confident that those steaks were in the right place. So we're pretty sure that the planning board and the staff are know where the building is on the site. I'm available to answering. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Thomas, Vice Mayor? Not quite any questions. When you're not on mute. Speaker 9: During the mute button. No. Speaker 0: You. Okay. Um. Okay. So then we're going to go into council discussion of this item. Who wants to lead? Councilmember de Saag. Speaker 6: Well, thank you very much. The matter that's before us can be deliberated by council member on what's called a de novo basis, which means that we are not limited to the information in our packets when making our decision. So I'm going to definitely take advantage of that. And my decision is still going to be the same that I held back in winter when council members deliberated over this matter. And the long and the short of it is I do believe that the city council and the planning board missed an opportunity to exercise the leverage that it had to get the developer to work more substantively with the nearby residents, not just the residents of the Freeport Homeowners Association, but Harvey, generally. And the leverage that I'm speaking of comes down to this is that at the December 2018 planning board meeting, one of the planning board members correctly indicated that that this project, in order to satisfy development standards, i.e. the amount of supportable square footage that it had contemplated both in December, in the December meeting and subsequently in the and the City Council meeting in February, in order to satisfy the amount of square footage contemplated at those meetings, it had to come back in, not it had to be built on not just the parcel on which it is proposed. The main parcel being 74, dash 1362, dash 49, dash eight. But it had to be combined with two other parcels because when combining the three parcels together, then, you know, you do the math. The bigger the, the amount of parcels and acreage and square footage, therefore the amount, the the increased amount of of allowable building. Square footage. So my argument then was simply this that at the December 2018 meeting and subsequently at the city council meeting at that time, the developer had not combined those parcels. So the City Council and the planning board ought to have and granted, 2020 is always you know, hindsight is always 2020. And this is what I argue back then at the time, the city council ought to have exercised their leverage and said, okay, I see you want to build this much square footage. And in order to, to, to to achieve that amount of square footage, you have to combine basically three different parcels. Now, council and planning board should have said, well, when you look at the three different parcels, one of those parcels definitely you could never build on because as I've posted on at some websites, including blogging, Bayport, one of those parcels that is just a sliver it has, it's mainly underwater and the green part is basically green area. It's, you know, just grass and and the other part is sidewalk. So that sliver of parcel should never have been included in the other two parcels. The other two parcels. Okay. The person could make a case that that those should be allowed. My point is simply this, is that those parcels were not combined. So it was at that point that the planning board and the council could have exercised its leverage and said, you know what, the residents are concerned about the massing, the building height. And so this is a way for us to to substantively discuss this with the project proponent. Now, the other reason why I also think that that the issue of the three parcels was critical was because the governing authority regarding this parcel development, this parcel is the Harbor Bay Business Park Development Agreement that was in place at that time. And when you look back at the ordinance that was in place at that time, so in March 1988, the city council had adopted an ordinance that said that, you know, if you're going to and this gets to my land boards issue, why my landlord's issue won't fly. If you're going to develop on a parcel, then the parking impacts have to be limited to that parcel except under certain conditions. And. This is what was adopted in March 1988. Well, when you look at the parking plan, a lot of the parking is not on the parcel. It is actually to the the parcel closest to the Maguire Hester. That's another parcel. And it doesn't satisfy another condition under under the March 1988 ordinance that says, well, you know, parking on other parcels than, than, than the parcel on which the development can occur under certain conditions. It didn't satisfy that condition. So I felt that at the time that the city council and the planning board could have exercised its its leverage by getting the developer, working with the developer to perhaps reduce the massing, reduce the building height. Because at the end of the day, I don't think you have to be just a Harper Bay residents or or a Freeport Homeowner's Association resident. I think at the end of the day, when you walk down the path near the hotel, it doesn't matter if the Bill Hotel is five feet this way or five feet that way . It's still going to be this large project that amounts to a monstrosity. And we had the opportunity to, I believe, exercise the leverage that we had to kind of work with the developer to take to substantively take into consideration the residents concerns. And it had all to do with the fact that at the time that the project was submitted, that the parcels were not combined. And the fact of the matter is, is to this day, the three. Speaker 3: Parcels are still. Speaker 6: Not combined. So I say to the council members, exercise your leverage now. And because the the governing authority that was in place in March 1988 says that that if you're going to build that, that you have to have the parking on this on the on the parcel on which the impact is occurring. And if you're going to have parking on outside of that parcel on another parcel, then it has to satisfy certain conditions. It does not satisfy the March 1988 conditions. So I would really encourage us to revisit this. So I would remain from the same point that I raised back in February of this year. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de so Councilman Brody. Speaker 2: Thank you. Andrew, can I just check in with you on a few things? So can you remind me how many parking places we have here? Speaker 10: It was two originally to 75, now to two. It was in December. It was 275. And it's now 260. The planning board reduced it by 15 spaces to get more landscaping in the council. Speaker 2: Didn't we reduce. Speaker 10: No, no, no. What? You. What? When it came to you to 75 with the conditions for the ferry parking and what you asked them to look at, possibly moving the building back 15 feet, which would have eliminated a row of parking. Speaker 2: Because what I thought we did discuss, I remember the vice mayor bringing up something about parking and the ferry. So how many how many spots do we have for the ferry? Speaker 10: We have approx. I mean, our guests at 275 based on the traffic studies and all, was that we would have on most days have an extra 100 that could be leased out on a daily basis to ferry riders. Now, you know, as as we acknowledged then, like if it's a monday after a big event at the hotel that morning, there may be fewer spaces on midweek. There might be more than 100 spaces for ferry riders. So we set up that requirement that they have that sort of the the computer app and the ability for the ferry riders to sort of check in early to see how many spaces were available. Speaker 2: So how many I mean, how many spaces does a hotel really need? Well, under the. Speaker 10: Zoning code, the 275 is actually meets the zoning code. Speaker 2: Right. But is how many does it really need? I mean. Speaker 10: We think that it really needs a probably about 175. It's a 172 rooms. So, you know, it's it's probably closer to 107. I mean. Speaker 2: 100 and. Speaker 10: 770. So we could I mean, if it's full, you're going to have at least 117. That's what our thought. But, you know, look, this is an inexact science. We've been studying this with all these hotels. What we're seeing is demand for parking at hotels, going down with Uber and Lyft. And this is also very close to the hotel, to the. Speaker 2: Airport. I mean, that was kind of my point with the shuttle and with Ubers. And, you know, I just wonder if that role I think it's either 30 or 32. And one of the maps that 30 to 1 said 30, you know, that whole row of parking along the street, you know, I wonder if if the place could could survive without that road parking. I mean, we passed a climate action plan, one of our goals. To get cars off the road. And one of our goals was or our guiding policies was to not let parking dictate. Speaker 4: Our, our, our. Speaker 2: Our plans and our planning. So. Speaker 10: So it was at 275 originally that met the code. The planning board reduced it by ten to get in more landscaping or 15 to get into more landscaping. It's within your power to reduce it further. Speaker 2: Okay, maybe you can check and see if the applicant is open to that if more than one council member is interested. So, I mean, that would be the the only issue that, you know, I would have based on the reasons I explained to Mr. Thomas right now that, you know, we are trying to reduce our our carbon footprint. We are trying to reduce the number of cars. We are trying to implement our climate action plan. And, you know, walk the walk and talk the talk. So I'd be open to that. I didn't hear anything in any of the presentations that convinced me that the setback was wrong or that anything was done untoward. Regarding the setback, I didn't think I didn't see anything about the colors. I don't think I didn't hear anything about landscaping material. So I'm inclined to deny the appeal. But I'd be open to a discussion on parking if if the rest of my colleagues were and you know that $1 million in total. Am I the colleague to the left? To me, I mean, that's one of his big priorities is to try to improve our total revenue. So I think this is a good step in that direction. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela. Sure. So the vice mayor, I'm going to go to you next, please. Speaker 9: I'll be quick. And Andrew, I thank you for for your presentation from my perspective. We gave the planning board direction, and that direction didn't include any discussion and consideration of removing more parking to move the building to the building to move back from the water. And it's my understanding that the planning board meetings and whatnot that the neighbors really asked for. Not to me. In fact, they put currently up to about 35 or 40 feet as to whether or not, you know, going to get there. I do want to acknowledge that that it appears some people have been confused about this a lot like they've done. Like everybody is very clear tonight. And in the discussion of the confusion around my life, I haven't heard anybody actually make the case for why 40 versus 35 is compelling, but I think that we should send it back to the planning board. I guess just can't remember which question about parking. I wouldn't want to hold this up, but I would want to see if we can maybe include some sort of condition that those spaces that are not being used for the hotel at this point in time, I think if we're getting rid of it again, if we were to get rid of the spaces, we would want to provide some benefit so that we don't have to consider screening. I think that that's something that we can also address through making sure that future part of it might be able to use it as well. So instead of eliminating the spaces, I'm not sure what the tradeoff is, just not having them which which is a terrible thing at this point. It's about through that conversation and the state community planning board and federal direction to keep the spaces for the ferry. And I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to push this project out for. Speaker 0: The general public. Thank you both, Mayor. You ready to go now? Okay. Councilman Vella. Speaker 8: I think, you know, part of how the evolution came relative to the parking aspect was to try to also accommodate some of the the neighbors in the area who had also had concerns about ferry parking spilling over into the neighborhood. And I think, you know, certainly hopefully that the we'll see that it's over parked. But I think that if that happens, we can the plan can be dynamic maybe you know, to account to the vice mayor's point. Maybe it's that there's certain spaces that get dealt with later on or it gets dealt with in phases and so it can become landscaping. But I don't think that it's necessarily something that we need to hold up approval for. I think it can. I think sending it back to the planning board over that issue at this point doesn't really make sense. And I think that that can be something that we can perhaps work out. You know, with the with the developer looking at the different usage of the site, I also think that we have seen a significant uptick in the usage of the ferry terminal. And I know that that you know, it's one thing we just had our groundbreaking actually for Seaplane Lagoon. And I think one of the things that we can be very proud of here is that there are a number of comedians who are using public transport to get to and from work, and especially as they leave the city . And so obviously we're still working on the the in Alameda connectors with the ferry terminal. And I think that that's coming along. But until then, I think we do have a need for those spots. And I think in terms of of the issue of the setback, I haven't heard an argument as to why we would bring this back to the planning board. At this point, I think at this point, I'm not inclined to follow my colleagues, the vice mayor and Councilmember Odie. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vella. Okay. So I spent six years on the planning board obviously before this project came up, and this particular project has had a lot of coverage. It's been back and back to the planning board several times. It has had a lot of interaction with neighbors. And I, I do believe all your neighbors that you you've made the Harbor Bay residents. You've made it a better project. Your input has certainly helped. I don't think everyone speaks with one voice. I know we heard it said that the neighbors just wanted a hotel that fit into the neighborhood to thoughts came to mind. Some residents didn't want a hotel there at all. And then I would just remind people that that neighborhood where this hotel is slated to go is a business park. And this is a business park that has not had enough hotel space. So what I do know from six years on the planning board and going into seven years on the city council is that you're never going to please all the people. So at the end of the day, we look at, is this good for the city, are we being fair to the neighbors? And as was brought up, our neighbors in this area have been very vocal and concerned about traffic to the ferry terminal at Harbor Bay. And I am also proud that Alameda Ferry Riders, we are the highest per capita riders of the ferry in all the wider system, which is a reason that we're one of the reasons we're getting our third ferry terminal in our city. We're an island and water transit makes perfect sense. I also know that in 2020 from the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal, instead of ferries every hour during the commute time, they will be coming every 30 minutes and there will be larger boats that take up to 300 riders. And yes, you can bring your bicycle and get there on your bicycle. But I also know, because I've worked with a lot of young families, Alameda attracts young families wanting to raise their kids here. It is a race to get children dropped off at the preschool. Children dropped off at school and our elementary schools. There's a time you cannot drop your children off earlier than a certain time. And yet the ferry, when it leaves, you've got a very narrow window there. So this is my segway to saying I do believe we have the the ability as a council tonight to designate and that of those part. I'm not here to suggest that we take away parking spaces, but I would very much like a certain number of those spaces that are beyond the number of rooms that the hotel actually dedicated to ferry riders. Is there a way to do that? Speaker 10: Mr. Thomas I think we basically have what you're looking for in the original conditions of approval. Essentially, every morning ferry riders will be able to go on their phone and see how many spaces are available to them. Speaker 0: Okay, well, it's. Speaker 10: In the applicant's best interest to make them. Speaker 0: Available. Is there a way that we make sure that there's never a time when there is no parking space available? Speaker 10: I mean, the idea here is if the hotel is filled and they and all the hotel patrons hosting call, now, we don't see that as a scenario. I will say, talking to the applicant, because you had Councilmember Ody had asked me about this and I checked with the applicant. His concern about reducing the parking tonight is he's really concerned about the restaurant and he sees an opportunity to actually fill every space right in the evening with the restaurant, the hotels and the ferry riders. I'm concerned about changing it without the ferry riders here. We made a lot of promises to ferry riders over this area. Speaker 0: Okay. So fair enough. But you're working on. I love the idea of the app. Okay. And as far as a missed opportunity to work with the neighbors, I think a lot of work has been done with the neighbors going out and actually meeting in their neighborhoods, in their homes. And at some point, this is a disincentive to developers to do projects in Alameda, which might be part of the motivation of some I don't know. But what I do know is that our city and our growing business community and we have a very vibrant biomedical health sciences, green tech industry, pretty exciting things coming our way in the near future. When these businesses have more visitors and overnight guests than our hotels can accommodate, they send their guests over to San Francisco or to Oakland. And with those guests go the money them they might spend in our city and the top tier, the transient occupancy tax on every hotel room. And yes, we're going to get around to increasing that one of these days. Mr. Desai But it's so so I don't want that to happen. And I want to be able to serve our business community. We need our businesses, we need our residents. We need to achieve a jobs housing balance. So for that reason, I am ready to say it's time to move forward on this and to entertain a motion to deny the appeal that we are considering tonight. Is there a motion or any further discussion? So I have a motion by Vice Mayor Knox White. Have a second. Second seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion? Let's vote, roll call. Vote. Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai I. Speaker 6: Am against the motion. Is that right? Speaker 0: You help me out. Speaker 2: To deny the appeal. Speaker 0: As the motion is to deny the appeal. Speaker 3: So it's no right. Speaker 1: No, no, no. I think again some of. Speaker 0: The negative. Speaker 1: Councilmember not quite. Speaker 9: High. Speaker 1: Odie. Yes, fella. Yes mayor has the Ashcraft. Speaker 0: Yes the the motion to deny the appeal carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you, everyone. And with that, I'm going to call a break and that's I'll be back here in 10 minutes. Well rounded at 915. We're going to start. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Audience and speakers. One minute morning. Yeah, it's 914. I'm swallowing my Luna bar there, so I didn't talk with my mouth. But okay, now it's 915. True to our word, we are back for the council meeting and we move on to item six. Be Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: Recommendation to approve the Transportation Commission's recommendation design concept for a two way bikeway for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project and crossover me to trail between Grand Street and Broadway. Speaker 0: And oh look it's one of. Speaker 4: Those bad pennies. Speaker 10: Just keeps coming back. Speaker 0: Nowhere else to go I. Speaker 4: Got nothing else better. Speaker 10: To do. No, this is an exciting project. We call this the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project. I think you have I've been told 17 speakers, so I heard 18. I'm going to run through these slides very quickly and then be make myself available to answer any questions. Gale Payne, who is the project manager, is here today. She's really done all the heavy lifting on this on this project. And we have also an excellent consultant team from CDB Smith who have been instrumental helping us and of course are very capable. Public Works Department has been another very important partner in this project and.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider An Appeal Filed by Brian Tremper of the May 28 and July 22, 2019 Planning Board Decisions for a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381) and Adoption of Related Resolution. (Planning and Building 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09172019_2019-7195

Speaker 10: Public Works Department has been another very important partner in this project and. Speaker 0: Maybe the city engineer to his. Speaker 10: City. Speaker 0: NJ Well of course. Thank you, Scott. Take it away. Speaker 10: Yes. Okay. So we are here to get your approval of what we believe is the preferred design concept. If you, um, we are recommending this preferred design concept. The Transportation Commission also recommended it. If you are, what we want you to do tonight is make a decision about this preferred design concept. What that will do is then kick off the next level of design. We then we get going with very specific essentially 30% construction drawings. So we don't want to be changing our mind after tonight as to what we're drawing. This is a probably about a $6 million project. When it's all said and done, we have about $5 million for construction. So the city has been investing at the front end on the design aspect of it and we've been very efficient so far, so we'd like to keep that going. This is a design for Clement Avenue from Grand to Broadway. This is a portion of our Cross Alameda Trail that was planned by this has been really a plan for 20 years. But you and the city of Alameda are now actually constructing the cross Alameda Trail. You're making great progress. The portion at Alameda Point, this trail goes from the seaplane lagoon all the way across to the Miller Sweeney Bridge. I mean, it's quite an accomplishment. This idea first came up when the Alameda Beltline closed down over 20, 25 years ago. And it's actually happening. So essentially by the middle of next year, you will be able to ride your bike in a protected to a bike lane from out from the seaplane lagoon at Alameda Point all the way across West Alameda through Constitution through Jean Sweeney Park. The Jean Sweeney Park piece is done, as you know, and we will that will get you all the way to Sherman, then the Del Monte Project, which we hope will be moving forward in short order. We hope they're doing a little segment between Sherman and Entrance Road. There's a piece that's already done. They're behind Marina Village. And now what we're talking about is this next big chunk grand Broadway. It's all on the Clement Avenue, right of way. We would love to start construction on this piece in late 2020, early 2021. Existing conditions, you know about Clement? It's a it has substandard sidewalks. It has no bicycle facilities at all, even though it is part of our cross Alameda Trail. Although you can't see the railroad tracks, they're there. They just we just put a nice little patch over the top of them. But that's not going to last for long. So we want to get those tracks out of there to create really a solid road for the future. We have speeding on this street and safety issues. We've had we have about 68 collisions over the last five years for severe but of those for severe accidents, three, you know, collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists, three were PEDs or bicyclists. Pedestrians and bicyclists. So the pedestrians and bicyclists are are the ones who are really taking the brunt of the safety issues out here. It is a truck route and we have to keep it a truck route, but it's about 1 to 2% of the overall vehicles on the street . And as you know, this area is changing. It was historically our industrial warehouse, maritime industrial area. It's changing. We've got changing uses in the northern waterfront is the Alameda landing excuse me, Alameda. A project, hopefully someday. The Boat Works project, the Penn Shell Pennzoil site, the Mulberry Neighborhood, which has built 52 homes right on the new cycle track Cross Army Trail. We are just approved the Park Street Hotel. We see that coming in for building permits in the near future. And then we have the school district has a warehouse. So this area is changing. We're going to see not only we can see the cross along the a trail coming through here with more bicyclists and pedestrians as we build those other sections. But they're going to be more people and more parks along this area. Every single one of these projects has public parks. So we see a lot more activity, not just along the stretch, but a lot more families and and kids on bikes in the vicinity going to the waterfront parks . Our goal is, of course, reduce speeding, increase safety, particularly as we start seeing more and more children riding bikes in this area. Obviously, one across. We want to complete this cross Alameda Trail since we're making such great progress. Of course, one of the things we want to make it safe and we want to really encourage people for climate action reasons and all sorts of other good reasons, traffic reduction to increase bicycling and walking as people that we want people to feel safe on this road if they are riding their bikes. I've talked about the access to waterfront. Of course we have also we need to maintain truck access. It is a truck route and we have, to the extent possible, minimized parking lots. And we've been thinking about public parking on the street as as a factor and a consideration. So what we did is we sort of looked at four different options and we kept these four options alive all through the process, just so that the public, through our task force and our community meetings, could consider the options. And the Transportation Commission, of course, there is what we call the do nothing option, which is these existing conditions you are familiar with. We then did a sort of a traditional bike lane option where we just striping lanes. So these have six foot bike lanes, seven foot parking lanes and 211 foot travel lanes. Then we have what we call the two way protected bikeway. So this is a two way projected bikeway on the north side of the street where we have fewer driveways. And then on the right hand side of the street you have parking along the two way. Bikeway is protected with parking on the outside of the bikeway. And then you have the on streets parking against the sidewalk on the south side. Once again, two lane to 11 foot truck lanes or travel lanes that are basically an Alameda truck. Truck routes are 11 foot travel lanes. We also looked at then a what we call the hybrid option since we have protected to a bike lane coming all the way from Alameda Point, all the way through Jean Sweeney Park, all the way behind Del Monte and behind Marina Square, we thought, well, there might be a hybrid where we continue the two way protected bike lane for half of the length to walnut. And then we do this sort of transition people from a two way bike way to more traditional bike lanes at walnut and then continue the bike lanes for the second half, the eastern half. But this requires a transition at at Walnut Street where we move people out of the two way and into bike lanes. It's important to realize there's there's a lot of commonality. This really comes down to how we treat the bikes and the bike access and bike safety. All three options short of the do nothing, have the same basic sidewalk street tree improvements we've got to fix them for to make them adequate. So the basic curb, gutter, sidewalk work is the same. And those three options we have to increase intersection safety daylighting stop signs, crosswalks, bulb outs, signal timing, same and all 311 foot travel lanes the same in all three obviously improve the on street parking for disabled parking loading zones. That has to happen in all three removing the railroad tracks, all three undergrounding utilities the extent we can and working with our developed partners. That's the same in all three. So it really comes down to how we handle the bike facilities lane versus to a cycle track or the hybrid option. Um, we staff throughout this entire process with the technical advisory committee that we had with the sort of interest groups and then with the Transportation Commission took a very consistent approach throughout. We've recommended from day one that we think the two way bike way is the safest for bicyclists and therefore this is the one that we're recommending . It provides physical protection from trucks and cars, not just a straight lane, but literally physical protection with parked cars and bollards. Besides continuity with the cross Alameda Trail, as I described. So trying to minimize that, not at times where we have to tell bicyclists, hey, move from one facility to a different facility, especially if you're dealing with kids and, you know, trying to keep as consistent as possible. So we like that. It also provides the best protection at the Park Street intersection, which is a busy intersection for bicyclists to be crossing. And we also believe because the although the lanes are similar in all four scenarios, by removing those park car lanes and the apparent width of the street looks narrower, which will help with the the speeding parking has been a big issue. We wanted to just be really honest about this. We we've had these numbers for everyone so they could see our recommended one removes the most amount of parking. But let me just quickly so you understand how the parking works. You've got about 300 spaces out there today. Even if you do the do nothing approach with the daylighting policies, we're going to lose about ten for daylighting. So even in the do nothing, we removed ten approximately ten spaces just for intersection safety. If we do the bike lanes option, we remove ten for daylighting and then we remove another 55 to deal with our sidewalk widening and fixing the sidewalks. So then if you look at the two way, what the recommended to a bike approach that we're recommending, we remove the ten for daylighting the 55 for sidewalks and then when we need to lose another 20 approximately along the corridor for the bikeway. Um, obviously if we do the hybrid, it's just a slightly different math ten for the daylighting, 55 for the sidewalk, and instead of 20 for the bikeway, we only need to pull out ten for the bikeway. Obviously occupancy rates will vary as we build the new projects in this area, but if you just took today's occupancies, you know, obviously occupancy goes highest with our recommended option up to about 90%, but still it would be at 90%, not over over 100% in terms of occupancy. So we are recommending the two way bikeway, as I said, Gail Payne, Thaddeus from CDB Smith has been Wozniak has been fantastic, our consultant team and of course Scott Wickstrom, our city engineer. And so our recommendation is for you to identify the two way bikeway as the preferred alignment. And what if you do follow, if you do make this recommendation tonight or choose any of them tonight, and that's what we'll we will proceed with that alternative into design drawings. I am available to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Do we have any clarifying questions from council members before we get to our 18 public speakers? Okay. Vice Mayor, keep looking at the ceiling. Okay. Okay. So then our city clerk will read several names when you hear your name. Get ready to move to the aisle so we keep things moving. Speaker 1: Okay. And the speakers will get 2 minutes because there's over seven. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes. Speaker 1: James Johnston, Pat Potter, Bonnie Lehman, Doug Letterman and Susie Hofstetter. Speaker 0: Evening. Hello. Hi. Speaker 4: Uh, my name is James, and. Speaker 6: I live near South Shore Center, and I'm in favor. Speaker 4: Of option two, which is for the 100%. Speaker 6: Protected bikeways all the way. I moved here about three years ago. Shoreline Drive has always had a two way bike lane to me. Speaker 4: And I love riding on it. Speaker 6: I was actually surprised to learn it was new. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 4: Controversial not so long ago, and it used to be. Speaker 6: Called the Shoreline Expressway, which doesn't really sound like a nice place to be as a bicyclist or pedestrian. Speaker 4: So I've enjoyed the most riding. Speaker 6: On protected bike lanes. I feel they're the safest and the friendliest option. Speaker 2: Two problems with option one. Speaker 6: For example, is a door zone. Speaker 4: We mentioned there are some trucks and car doors may throw you in front of a truck. Speaker 6: I've ridden in these normal bike lanes before and it's nearly happened to me. I've just been lucky so far. And so to avoid that, I might have to ride in the street a bit. Speaker 4: Some drivers and police. Speaker 6: Don't think you have a right to ride in the street. They're wrong. But you're on a bicycle. You have to deal with them. Sometimes you might. Okay, so maybe option one has wider bike lanes. The next problem. Speaker 4: Is people will treat it as a parking spot. Speaker 6: And then I would have to go completely into traffic to get around somebody parked in the bike lane. So option two is the only one that avoids these door zones, illegal parking and these other intrusions. Speaker 5: So, you know, one question I would. Speaker 6: Ask is, like, if you had a young child, which of these options would you feel them safest to be on? And I believe that would be option one. And even if you don't ride, you still benefit from less cars on the road, lower greenhouse gases. You know, the friendlier. We make it for bicyclists. Other people can benefit, too. Even if you don't ride. And also, I'd like to add that, you know, streets are for everybody. Speaker 4: They're not for. Speaker 6: People that just spend thousands of dollars on a car. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: It's just Pat Potters and Bonnie Bonnie waving women. Yeah. Speaker 3: Hi. Pat Potter, bike walk, alameda and the transportation chair for CASA's Transportation Commission. I am in favor of the city's proposal of option two. I think that that's what's most exciting to me about this, is envisioning what this street's going to look like when those developments come in. There's going to be children. There's going to be parks. It's not going to be this industrial freeway that that is so dangerous. Now that you've had, you can see how many accidents you've had. And four of them have involved bicycles and pedestrians. So a protected bikeway helps you so much as far as keeping people safe, keeping kids. One of the things that kids do, and this has happened a couple of times I've heard just recently, is they don't really think so much. So they're going down the bike lane and they want to pass somebody and they don't look. So out they go. There was a girl on Grand. It would school that got hit. There was a friend of mine who was driving and knew the two, the mother and the child who were on their bicycles. And the child decided, Oh, I'm going to pass Mom. Fortunately, she was paying attention and braked. So anyway, I do hope you'll vote for option two. I think it's an excellent opportunity for us to have safety and help the environment. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. This woman. Speaker 3: Creating Council members. My name is Bonnie Wayman. I'm also a member of Bike Walk Alameda and I run easy street cycling and I teach kids safe biking around town. Independent. Safe biking. Two paths point the bike lanes alone. Don't. Don't work the way we want them to. The girl that was hit on ground was just in the bike lane and a person in the parked car pulled out and hit her. One of the issues with the with the bike lanes is that like the first gentleman mentioned, people people use it as a loading zone and it's in for kids to have to go around. The Uber drivers and the moving trucks and the delivery trucks and the garbage trucks and the Lyft drivers and the people who just don't want to look for a spot. It's not it's not safe for people to do that. I wanted to mention that during camp I had a group of kids and we did the four way stop on Oak, and we did a short turn on to Clement, and a woman came behind us and I found out for my assistant in the back. She was screaming profanities at the kids. She passed out that way too close of a range at way high speed. And that doesn't happen on a protected bike lane. That shouldn't happen to a group of kids who are stopping at stop signs and saying single file. And my last point is that this this the protected bike way would be a path that would connect the east end kids to academy of alameda, to koa to near to asti. There's a whole bunch of schools that the kids there would be using this path to get across a lot more charter schools now that we need to keep in mind that kids are biking, too. And lastly, every kid riding a bike to school is one less parent driving in a car on the road, taking their kid in traffic. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Doug Letterman then Susie have center and Suzanne Dion diers. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor White and council members. I am a resident of the Mulberry Development at the corner of Clement and Willow. I am actually also a newcomer to Almeida. Happy to be here. I've been here about a month with my wife and my three year old daughter. We moved from Oakland. In Oakland. We were effectively a zero car family, and we tried to give that a shot here in Alameda. My wife tried taking the bus to work. The headways were too long for it to be very usable for her. I tried taking my bike with my daughter behind me on our commute and the street conditions. We thought they were a little too dangerous to do that at this time. So reluctantly we became a two car family. And I know that one of the stated policies of Alameda is to decrease the number of single driver trips that cars are making. It was actually discussed during the development plans for our our home. But a lot of the policies in the city seem at cross-purposes to that. For example, our developer was required to to build two parking spaces for each unit. The conditions on Clement are very dangerous, we think, to be biking on them currently. In fact, in our first week living in our place, we saw pedestrian the aftermath of pedestrian hit by a car on clement and oak. So I just want to say I'm fully in support of staff's recommended option. I think it's great. It's perfect. In the public comment phase, I wished for two bike lanes protected by parking on either side of the street. But as you said earlier, not everyone can be happy with everything. And I think this is certainly the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I hope that one day we can all bike safely to work and I can get rid of my car. Thank you very. Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Speaker 1: That's Susie. Have better than Suzanne, dear. Sun shone through. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and council members. It's great to be here. My name is Susie Hofstetter. I'm staff with Vicki Spay on the advocacy team and I'm a resident of Alameda. I actually live on Broadway barely a block off of this project. So I'm very excited. I'm here to ask you to support option two with all my heart and soul. I'm just very excited about this project. I want to thank staff, especially Gayle Payne, who has done a huge amount of work on the outreach process. She has been talking to everyone and has done an excellent job getting a really broad range of input, which I believe is reflected in option to my partner. And I live, as I said, on Broadway and we like to bike to the Alameda Point area and in other places in Alameda. And we're just so excited about the new we park trail. But getting to it is a really big challenge. And you know, often people say like, take this other street or that other street and Pacific, which is supposed to be this. That we go to has a bunch of really challenging side street crossings, and I know that staff are going to be looking at that soon, but I guess that's just to say that there is no other street, this is it. And we're really looking forward to a continuous trail facility that's just to a protected the whole way across the island. I can't just praise this project enough. I'm so excited and selfishly, it's like my home project, so it couldn't happen fast enough. And this, as others have said, this design is the one that will serve the most users, kids, older riders, people of all abilities. So that's what we're going for here. This is what will increase the mode share of bicycles in this community. So thank you for your support for option two. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Our next maybe four. Speaker 1: Speakers in tears shone through Jim's trailer. Strelow Nila Miller or no? Sorry. Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Suzanne Diers and although I'm pro bicyclist, I'm actually against this particular project as I feel it's not safe for the cyclists nor the vehicles. The trucks on this route for cyclists, for one with a dedicated route, they're the car. The cycles are going both ways. With the new projects coming in, there's going to be a number of driveways across this path. Drivers are not expecting to see cyclists cross their path from either direction. If you think about the truck route aspect, a number of properties along this route are light industrial, including the property my family owns at the corner of Lafayette and Clemens. We have two boat related businesses at that property and they are regularly bringing boats onto and off of the property. When you have a boat, the California law says the width of the boat with the trailer is eight and a half feet. If you add ten inches four mirrors on either side, that's close to ten feet wide. That means the. Speaker 1: 11. Speaker 3: Foot lane that for one direction of the vehicle would allow for this width, six about six inches on either side of the vehicle to get past parked cars and oncoming traffic. Speaker 1: Without hitting anyone. Speaker 3: For a vehicle, pulling a trailer with a boat. That's not talking about even a wide load boat. So for those reasons, the safety of the cyclists, safety of the vehicles, I think this is inappropriate for Clement. It should be routed to a different street. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Dias. Speaker 1: Our next speaker, Sean throw Jim Strelow, Zac Caplan, Nila Miller. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. Council members, my name is Sean Throw. I am the owner of the boatyard, the Grand Marina. I am the only boatyard left in the island, thanks to the city. To a certain extent. But anyhow, my boatyard does rely on large vessels coming down the street. And your proposal under a double track will inhibit that. I talked to many of my drivers who come in to and bring a fair amount of boats to us, which is a fair amount of my income. Without that, they will go to another city, to the other boatyards that still exist in the Bay Area. I don't think we want to lose the only boatyard we have. I need the business. The other interesting thing I see when I look at their slides that they showed you today, they're showing you the old Alameda development, old Alameda Marina, the buildings there, they have never drawn their drawings with the new project that you're putting in . You've approved that new project, has a beautiful waterfront walkway, bicycle way. Now, if you have a child, where are you going? To bring your child along clement and sea buildings. Are you going to go across over to the nice, beautiful boats, big wide area? I know from my boat yard on weekends, children and bicyclists and runners and dog walkers come through my boatyard all the time on the weekend. They try to sometimes come through during the week. It's not the most safe thing in the world because I have a huge operation going on with very expensive equipment that don't stop on a dime. So a kid run in front of my machinery is not a good thing, but they do that, so we have to watch out for that. So they're going to do that anyhow. On the weekend, they're going to go over to the old Svenson property. They're going to ride there. They're not going to use this. Double track. If you put the double track in, you can't take it out. My suggestion, if you want the money, which I know you do, to fix that road, do selection, whatever it is to separate lanes. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next figure, Mr. Australia. Speaker 4: Thank you. I have ridden my bike along combat for over 50 years without incident in its current state. I it's what I recommended four years ago. So I'm very happy as it is right now. You claim this is a safety project. And however, my biggest concern is the East section between Park Street and Everett, because along that section is Ted and Joe's Tow Triple A emergency service at Ulsan Plumbing. Those three businesses are all within the same block and they probably do 20 to 30 entrances and exits along their way every day. Yeah. So therefore they don't have to. Speaker 10: Look at. Speaker 4: Just one direction. They're now going to have to look at two directions. So I think you're actually creating a safety hazard in front of all those three different businesses. The Cross Alameda Trail Project has the large Pennzoil properties still on its way. Five years ago I was told that that property would be sold in five years, so that's still a roadblock in this whole project. As a taxpayer, I'm concerned about how much money is spent on duplicative projects. The official city bike route is west of Park Street along Pacific Avenue. Just three blocks away? Yeah, two blocks away is the San Francisco Bay Trail. The official Bay Trail straight on the map has been for the last ten years, Buena Vista Avenue or Bay Trail. Dawg, take a look. It's been there for ten years. They have Buena Vista as the official route. So how many different ways do we have to have going across the city? I just like disorganize government projects that spend my taxpayer money similar to the $1 billion of the Transbay terminal facility for an express train to L.A. that I'll probably never see in my lifetime. Oh, similar to that $1 billion that I'll never see again. That has been wasted. Excuse me. Spent billions better coordinate our governments and how we spend our money. Taxpayers money. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Zach Kaplan. Nila Miller. Rich CUSUMANO. Speaker 4: Hello. My name's Zach Kaplan, and I've been using bicycles as my primary transportation since 1990. And I'm all for widening the sidewalks and getting rid of the railroad tracks and planning street trees. I am entirely against option two of the bi directional bike lane, primarily for safety reasons. I find that well, for one thing, in the United States for over ten or 15 years, traffic is on roadways just kept to the right. And this is putting some cyclists facing oncoming traffic, which is not the way drivers have been trained to expect faster moving cyclists to be. When people are pulling out driveways and cross streets, they're looking for slow moving pedestrians, but not a cyclist that might be doing 20 miles an hour. So this is going to greatly increase opportunities for collisions between motor vehicles and cycles. And most collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists happen at intersections. Not not mid-block. Rear rear enders are a relatively small percentage of collisions and which appears to be what the bi directional bike lane is addressing. And it's not addressing at all the issue of intersections. It's actually going to make it worse, and I think that's a liability for the city by putting this in because it's putting cyclists in dangerous position. Also, there are convenience reasons I happen to live on Schiller's Street, which intersects with Clement, and I would have to cross two lanes of traffic to make a right turn to use that. When I use Clement as my primary way of getting the Park Street Bridge, get off Alameda, come back from the Park Street Bridge. I would have to somehow get over to the left like a pedestrian. I couldn't do it the way I do now, which is I gradually merge. I look at my rearview mirror, gradually merge. Mercia left like a hood of our driving motor vehicle. Speaker 0: So thank you, Mr. Capp. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Miller, Rich CUSUMANO and David Burton. Speaker 3: Hello. Hi, I am Neil Miller and I want to encourage the council to vote on option two. Yes, for a two way protected bike lane on Clements between grand all the way to Broadway. I honestly don't really ride my bike anymore. I used to ride a bike as a daily mode of transport when I was in college in Brooklyn. I used to ride through ice and snow. And I mean, now, after a few close calls, particularly with a truck, I got a sense of my mortality and I'm a little more nervous of a driver and or bike rider . And I think particularly on Clement being a trucker, it needs protection for children for all kinds of beginner riders. And if in my travels in places in Europe where there are there's extensive bicycle infrastructure, people feel so safe there that they hardly wear helmets because it's so rare to have an accident. So I think that we would endeavor to have that kind of safety here in Alameda. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Rich Simoneaux, David Burton and Morgan Belanger. Hello. Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Rich CUSUMANO, and I came to voice my strong support for the double sided, protected bike path on the cross Alameda Trail. There are many great reasons to improve it from economic to sustainable. But however, my primary concern is safety. And I believe option number two to be the safest option. A little over a year ago, I was biking down Clement with my 22 month old son in the back of my bicycle. We were struck by a car who fled the scene and we were riding where a bike lane like option one would be. I thank God every day that my son was well protected by his seat and his helmet. And then I took the brunt of of the damage. I had a broken tibia, fibula, a ruptured disc in my back, and my wife was on a bicycle behind us. She saw the whole thing. And, you know, seeing your family suddenly get thrown like rag dolls is traumatizing, to say the least. At the end of the day, I hope no other family has to go through anything like that. And I believe that this type of incident could have been avoided had we been in a protected bike lane away from speeding traffic. I have yet to return to biking, but I was biking regularly and I would like to return to biking for my commute and know that there's a safer option to do so. And I would really like to also know that when my son is older, he has a safer option to bike across the island. Whether that's to a school, whether that's to a football game or inclement weather, that's, you know, anywhere. So I guess I'll just I'll just close up by saying, please approve option number two. Speaker 0: And while we have you at the podium, I wondered if you might be in the audience. And your wife is here, too. No, no. But I remember it was an awful incident and it happened either on Mother's Day or Father's Day. It was Mother's Day. It was Mother's Day. And I remember thinking, what an awful experience. And like you said, thank God your child was protected and not hurt, but was so happy to see you here and that you've healed. And maybe assuming this project gets approved, he moves forward. Maybe you'll come and help us with the ribbon cutting. So but thank you so much for speaking to us and I'm glad to see you up and up and about. Thank you. Take care. Okay. Speaker 1: David Burton, Morgan, Bellinger and then Linda dares you. Speaker 4: Madam Chair, members of the Council, David Burton, a dedicated owner of Zero Cars, one bike and many well-worn pairs of shoes. I hope this will be an easy vote for all of you. I appreciate the great details provided by the other speakers outlining my option two is the clear choice. Just look to the cities goals as stated in the presentation, and it's clear that IP option to is the best way to achieve the stated goals. It's imperative that we go for the highest standard if we're to provide safe, convenient, complete routes around the island, which gives all living good alternative to driving. Not everyone will be a cyclist, but let's make it possible for as many as as many to do so as we can all Alameda is benefit when more of us get out of our cars. Building a first class cross Alameda Trail is critical to the future of the city. When complete, the trail will connect Alameda with both their main shopping streets. It will connect us to the ferry and to BART, and it will make it safer for kids to bike to schools on the west end of the island. A complete cycling infrastructure is critical to reaching our goals for carbon emission reductions by reducing transportation emissions, which are our largest source of emissions, said. You just reaffirmed his commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. Don't betray that commitment now. So I just encourage you to adopt option two as recommended by the staff. And let's keep moving forward in the effort to build a high quality, complete cycling network here now. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Green. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Morgan Bellinger's and Linda dear, then Robin. Olivia Kraft. Speaker 4: Madame Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the council. Thank you for walking the walk. My name is Morgan Belanger. I'm an Alameda resident. My three year old bicycle commute buddy helped me speak last time, but she had a prior obligation to join us tonight. I'm not speaking tonight for myself. I'm a privileged white male, an experienced cyclist capable of taking the lane. Instead, I'm speaking on behalf of the kids and inexperienced cyclists I see riding every day in unprotected bike lanes on our way to preschool. I know some of them had homework or couldn't be here this late. I'd like to share a story about a recent experience I had in the unprotected bike lane on Santa Clara near Webster on September 11th. Just after 8ami was riding westbound when I encountered a stopped minivan completely blocking the bike lane. The driver walked out of her house 30 seconds later. In that time, three men. Middle schoolers rode around the minivan and had to merge with the morning commute traffic to do so. The driver said she was just getting her bag. 30 seconds. Now, how do we discourage that behavior? Her car wasn't there long enough for one of our many to find us to give her a ticket. And license plate cameras are just silly, right? No. The inexpensive, reasonable way is to simply make it physically impossible for drivers to block bike lanes in the city with their cars . We've already made tremendous strides in bicycle infrastructure, but the tricky thing about adding bike lanes like the one on shoreline is you don't ever really know how many lives you will save or you have already saved. Please vote for option to the two way protected bike lane. It's a terrific fit for this street with its limited estuary side driveways. It will help us eliminate free vehicle storage on a street that's fundamentally inequitable use of public space and it will save lives. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Linda. Dear Robin. Olivia Craft. Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Linda Diers and I have been a resident here in the city of Alameda since 1971. To help you do the math, that's the last 48 years. And yes, I successfully rode my bicycle to school to and from for many years on our existing infrastructure. I just want to start by saying that I am not against a bicycle path. I'm very much for it, but I am against a bicycle path. I'll comment straight. I urge you to take the opportunity now, as County Council member de Sykes said earlier about the hotel project, take the opportunity now to reroute the bicycle lane as our fellow Alameda. And over here from the from Grande Street Marina said let's move it closer to the water where it's a much more desirable and pretty place to to ride. But I do want to say that Clements Street is not wide enough to handle the increase in traffic, that it will occur over the next several years . And let's be frank, there will be an increase in increasing traffic. Just because we have bicycle lanes doesn't mean that people will trade in their cars completely to take their bicycle. Alameda has several large building projects going on that are all being evaluated in isolation. We heard about the hotel project tonight. There's another 1200 units going on at South Shore, not to mention all of the construction that's going to happen on Clement Street. This will only increase traffic on Clements Street to make it a larger thoroughfare than it already is and a bigger truck Lane Park Street still will be heavily trafficked as it is today, and more and more people will use come street. Shoreline is dangerous now with a bike lane, busses are always straddling the line. So are vehicles hauling things. There are so many near-misses every day along Shoreline, and there was one this morning that I witnessed. Shoreline also is not very pretty. So we have the opportunity to out here. Please, let's take it. Speaker 0: Here is. Speaker 1: Robin, Olivia Kraft, Lorna, Sheena and Denise Trapani. Speaker 4: Hello, my name is Robin Oliva Craft. Thanks for listening to us tonight. I want to speak in favor of the two lane to a bike lane. I experience the the wonders and safety of protected bike lane in downtown Oakland. A couple of years ago I lived right near the. Speaker 5: New bike lane there. Speaker 4: And it was a night and day difference. Biking to work every day. I bike on Clements Street every morning to go to the ferry, and this morning I also had a close call where somebody went. There was a large truck parked next to the sidewalk. I had to go around them. He almost doored me and the person who was passing me on the left went into oncoming traffic, kind of all in this same moment. So I, I strongly and in favor of bike lane on on Clements Street. People are already doing crazy things on that street. We should slow it down. We should make bicyclists feel safe on on that thoroughfare. And I have taken the taken Buena Vista, the official, I guess, bike trail. And that is as scary, if not scarier than the inclement. There's just a lot more traffic there. So Clement feels like a great a great spot to me to have this to a bike lane. And I'm super excited to be writing on really nice bike lanes all the way to the ferry every morning. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm Ms.. Yes, Mr. Skinner. Speaker 3: Good evening. I would like my name is Lorna Massena. I would like to start with thanking the. Speaker 8: City Council and the. Speaker 3: Mayor for acting properly and protecting the elderly and disabled. And I'll give you a let you know the good news that my father is. Speaker 8: The case has been dismissed. So thank you very much. Speaker 3: And speaking for the bike, it was a total surprise. I heard my fellow moms speaking about the bike lanes and I'm an avid bike rider and so. Speaker 8: Is my son. Speaker 3: He's turning 12 tomorrow and he couldn't be more excited to hear about the plan. Number two, as proposed by the city of Alameda. I like. Speaker 8: The safety. Speaker 3: Of the bike riding that we have on the shoreline. I can just send my son down and say go to school and he goes there by himself. I cannot say that for any other places in Alameda. And though we love the new Sweeney Park. It's gorgeous. And it would be so nice. It would be a dream come true for my son and I to be able to come all the way to Broadway and be protected. And that protection that allows bikers, especially small children, to ride safely. And making it impossible for the trucks and the cars to cross the line is very, very important. So if we want to increase safety for our children, and I think it's especially for our children, who we have so many schools and so many youngsters in Alameda that we should encourage to vote for the option number two. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: The last speaker is Rick Stewart. Speaker 3: Thank you. Honorable mayor, vice mayor and council members. In preparation for speaking to you tonight, I wanted to understand what people's objections were to implementing the safest design. And on that portion, that's going to be a really critical component for the Cross Alameda Trail. So I actually read through all the publicly available comments that are linked to the staff report, and I can say we certainly have an engaged citizenry with a very opinionated citizenry. But after reading through all the comments and looking at all the objections, I was able to bucket them into three main area. One, there was concern for lost parking. Two, there was concern that drivers are going to have to slow down, check for and yield to people on bikes when they cross through the intersections and the driveways. And then three, there was concern by vehicular cyclists about being expected now to ride in a cycle track instead of the car travel lanes. And if you're not familiar with what a Hegelian cyclist is, it's somebody who, like me and a lot of other speakers tonight who are very comfortable riding their bicycle in car traffic. But unlike vehicular cyclists, we're advocating for safety for people who are not yet riding bicycles and who are not comfortable taking the travel lane . So we're not advocating for the status quo, even though we're comfortable in it. We're advocating to get more people on bikes. So I was going to address each of the buckets, these three buckets of objections in turn. But then I read something that a very wise person wrote today in reference to the gun control issue. And this person said that you start with a clear goal and then you judge the worth and success of specific tactics to address that goal according to it. So instead of providing counterpoints to the three major buckets of objections, I'm simply going to ask you to stay focused on the goal, which is safety. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Venue. And that was our like one more speaker. Sorry, sorry, sorry. No. Speaker 4: And it's Rick Stewart, property owner and Clement. We are super excited about all the improvements happening to the street. It's been a long time coming. We're very thankful for that. We're not in favor of the two way cycle track. Speaker 5: Primarily for. Speaker 4: Safety for riders at the intersections. I'm talking about. Speaker 5: The drivers coming out of the new Marina. Speaker 4: Project. Of course, Oak Park Street, specifically 10,000 cars a day. I agree that children are really at most risk here. Are they really going to know the controls at each of these intersections more? More importantly, are the drivers going to know these controls? There's going to be no right turn on red. That should be followed all the time. Maybe it won't. I can see large trucks turning right on to Clement from the Park Street Bridge entrance, not seeing a rider coming from the right at speed. And I think there's a potential for liability here. We're in favor of traditional bike lanes. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And that was our last speaker. Okay. So thank you to all the speakers who came out and help inform us. And by the way, I like what somebody said. I think, Mr. Pannier, about an engaged citizenry. We do indeed have an engaged citizenry. And you you help us with your comments and I applaud you for all being here at this hour to inform us. So I would like to lead I'm going to look to my left because I've been looking to my right all night. But you don't have to lead unless you'd like to. I'm happy to. Councilmember Vela, mother of a new young child who I'm sure will be on the back of a bicycle before long. Speaker 8: For the front or front? Speaker 0: Yes, for riding you. Speaker 8: So so thank you for all of our speakers coming out. I, I guess I should start by saying I spent most of my college years. I didn't have a car. I cycled everywhere. This was in Wellesley, Massachusetts, in Boston, Massachusetts, and and then in London. And I actually was hit by a car when I was in London. And you know how. And yet I've gone back to London and I still ride a bike when I'm there. And part of the reason is, in the past, I don't want to date myself here, but in the in over the decade since I was in school there, the city has evolved spectacularly as it comes to bikes. And the reason that they've evolved is because of the growing population in their urban center, trying to make it more accessible to all levels of income in terms of their commute and really recognizing what adding different cycle options can really do to the population in terms of getting people interacting, stopping. You want bike and pedestrian traffic. That means that you're going to have more foot traffic. It means that people are going to interact more. It means they're going to spend more time in their local community. And especially when you can't get public transit connectors, you know, subsidized enough really to expand to meet everyone you really need to allow for and protect cyclists as well as pedestrians, because it's how people can do that first and last mile. And here in Alameda, where we're a smaller geographic with a smaller geographic expanse, having a crosstown trail is is really important in terms of addressing some of the traffic issues that get raised, because a lot of times we can't really control the off island traffic. We don't have any control over the, you know, timing of the stoplights in Oakland or some of the regional connectors where we might have to we might be having a voice, a little bit of a voice, but we don't have the final say in those decisions here in town. What we've noticed and councilmember motorists used to always say this, you know, to monitor the traffic when schools in session across town and then monitor the traffic when schools on break and it's very different. The traffic flows and patterns are very different and there is a substantial need to allow our schoolchildren to bike to and from school in a very safe way. And part of that reason is because some of our crosstown traffic and the reason and our mayor mentioned this on the last agenda item is because you have parents like myself where we have to bring our children day care before we leave the island or we have to eventually I'll be dropping my son off at school before I had out of town. And eventually I'd like to get to a point where he can just ride on his own to school. I used to commute to school on my own, either on bike or by foot, and I think that that's something that we want to preserve and we need to preserve it as we have, you know, more different types of vehicles on the road. In terms of the. So I'll cut to the chase. I'm very much in support of option two. I think it's the safest thing and I think that safety needs to be paramount. And in terms of the decision that we make and I think the argument that it's unsafe for cyclists because people aren't looking both ways, part of the reason that there's different types of striping and painting is to signal and to indicate to folks to look in both directions and to identify that there is a cycle track there and to be to be cognizant and careful. I think the other problem is, is that, you know, we have speed limits in town that get blown all the time by by cars. I was you know, there was a mention about taking some of these alternate routes. Yes, there's alternate routes. But that's because we don't have. Speaker 3: A. Speaker 8: Full cross town trail that's protected as soon as we have that. All of those other options hopefully will fold into and recognize that the cross town. Trail, which should be the safest option. And that's really what we should be focused on. And I think that, you know, there was a time where we didn't have a lot of different other types of traffic markers. That's evolved over time, right? I mean, a certain point we had dirt roads with no signs and no stop signs and things like that. And, you know, people had to learn to kind of learn the new signals and adapt to them and respond to them. And I want to start training that behavior that when you get to an intersection, regardless of if you have a stop sign or, you know, a button that you press, that you that people need to stop and or go drive through the intersection with with care. As a as a mom who's out, I also think that this you know, I've noticed I take a walk at least once a day with my son and I'm pushing the stroller. And there's a number of children who still ride their bikes on the sidewalks on some of our streets. And that's because it is so dangerous. I see cars flying down Central Avenue. I live off of Central. And, you know, whenever I'm pushing the stroller and there's a kid coming down on the sidewalk, you know, and I just sit there and going, you know, if we had that crosstown trail, if we had that protected bike lane and that access, there would be room for the car. Yes, the car can still drive. They should be driving the speed limit, though, a safe spot for the child to ride his or her bicycle and then also a safe place for for the pedestrian for me to push my my son in the stroller and not worry about traffic coming in every which direction and whether it's on two wheels or, you know, or somebody a kid on a scooter or something like that. So I think that, you know, ironically, one of the first meetings that I came to was about our vision zero goals in terms of making sure that we were protecting everybody who's, you know, we want to eliminate those sort of risks. And as I left that meeting two blocks from here, I was on Oak and Buena Vista, and I got hit by a woman who was texting and driving and blew through a stop sign. And that's supposed to be one of our bike routes. And there was actually a cyclist who was would have almost been hit except for she fell into the bushes at the corner. And, you know, I think those are the types of situations that we want to avoid. And it worries me that we're trying to push people on these side streets where there's even less clear vision, less daylighting. It's very worrisome. And I don't think that's what we should be doing. And I think we need that crosstown trail. We need to make it as safe as possible. So I'm looking forward to supporting option two. Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor Knox White, how about you going next? Hello. He's got a little delay. Yeah. It's an app. Speaker 9: When you turn on. Speaker 0: It's that. Is that difference in the time zone from here to Santa Barbara? Speaker 3: Right. So I was waiting. Speaker 9: For the city video to catch up. I got. Oh, thank you very much. Still enjoy. I think a lot of our speakers really understand the need for us to start creating usable space for the entire community of not just folks like myself who feel very comfortable away. I think traffic, you know, unfortunately, too often I think they can get it by Christmas cards. And really what we're talking about is helping people get around the city the way they want to get it right now. I think that's probably good option to which a good solid option. I can commit to our opening both telling folks that if we find an issue with delivering both and so we can talk about that parking on whatever else that would be needed to accommodate that at a future time. But, you know, this really doesn't have to be any one moment to a person then either. And I really appreciate the outreach that I'm prepared to do for the future plans. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dysart. Speaker 6: Oh, yes. Some questions. Speaker 3: For. Speaker 0: Mr. Thomas. Speaker 6: Yes. Currently the design of Clement, is it correct that on the north side of Clement, so the tool option too has a two way bike lane and then some parking and then road. Speaker 10: That's right. Speaker 6: Okay. So if we remove the parking from Grand Oak, who do we know off on the north side? Do we know off the top of our head how many parking? So if. Speaker 10: You from Grand Oak, if you removed all the parking that we. Speaker 6: Have on the north side. Speaker 10: And just on the north side, it would be. Speaker 6: 100. Speaker 10: Okay. Estimates about 100. Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah. The reason why I'm inquiring because I am I'm struck by the concern raised by the by speakers, I believe the deers, sister, sisters about the, the closeness of the boats that are that would be driving down. And if if there's a concern about boats, I suspect there will also be a concern about trucks. So the question then is can we free up capacity or space so that yeah, I would throw that out there that that may be that would be a way to. Speaker 10: It's it's certainly something that the council could consider removing the on street parking it's a it's a rather big. Speaker 6: Most of the thing currently on the north side is Paul industrial in a lot of the part a lot of the parking is on the parcel. Speaker 10: You know that's that's true in the current situation. That's right and there you have that whole stretch by the US is that the Navy facility where there's just no parking at all. Yeah. Part of driveways are limited on the north side. So it's, that's why we put the cycle track on the north side. Did you want to miss pain? Speaker 3: Good evening. And a mayor and city council. Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator. We did that same analysis back in 2015 because we had the same question by the Transportation Commission and what it showed is the parking occupancy exceeded 100% in that area. So that's that's what it would cause is just an excess demand in parking. Speaker 6: But it would still free up. Speaker 3: Space right. Speaker 6: To see concerned like like the deer sisters are about moving boats or or if you're concerned about trucks. The other the other thing to think about is when you think about the the other parts of the bicycle, whether coming from Alameda point I mean it's completely protected over there. It's going through Jean Sweeney. It's completely protected. I mean, so we might as well go big and make, you know, the north side completely protected to bye bye by not allowing parking on the north side of of Clement Avenue. Well, I mean, I'm just Dana. Yeah. Just trying to figure out how to accommodate the concerns raised by two thoughts. Speaker 10: One is the parking lane provides a lot of that protection. I mean, that's that is that is a row of parked cars providing protection for the two way bike lane. Number two is, you know, 11 foot travel lane is a standard width of a lane in a truck route. So every UPS truck, every major truck, I mean, that is what is a very standard lane when two of those trucks are coming to each other. Close. And it's I mean, there's going to have to be some slowing that goes down. It comes about so that the trucks pass. But there isn't an issue of I mean, that's that's a very standard lane width for trucks. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 6: I guess the other thing is I think there's a bit of an elegance there, though. If you have the north side of Clément just dedicated to to the to two lane option, to bike lane option without the busyness of of the other cars parked right next to it. And I think that might deal with the issues raised by some about people making traveling westbound on Clement and then making a right turn. I don't know it's it's something you know, it's something to think about. Some residents have raised some concerns. And so let's kind of think outside of the box and try to, you know, juggle all the balls. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Desai, Councilman Brody. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, everyone who came out. And thank you, Andrew, for your work on this. And thank you, Gail. Also, I think I said this last meeting because we had a bike discussion, but my first venture into public service, I was 16. I was on the Bicycle Safety Council in Finley Park, Illinois. So to me, the most important thing for me is safety. So and and I don't think there's any question that design number two is the safest. I just want to add a couple of things. I do think that, you know, this is not the end of our bicycle infrastructure. There was a comment made by somebody that, you know, we don't have the bicycle infrastructure they have in Europe. That's right. But, you know, we're we're not going to stop it. Well, in an ideal world, we wouldn't stop at Central and Otis and Shoreline and Clement, you know, every every four lane road, I think, is a candidate for a road diet and a candidate for protecting bike lanes. You know, in an ideal world, you know, we would have, you know, these these spaces at the corners where people could see and not crash and not be blind, blinded, and we would have bike lanes. I mean, that that's an ideal city. And somebody mentioned it and I think I've said it before, and the vice mayor said it before these streets were not built just for cars. In fact, bikes came before cars. So cars do not have a 250 year history of being on our streets. They have probably the least history of anybody that that shares our streets. So I think we have to be cognizant of that. You know, anything that helps slow traffic down, you know, is a good thing for me. I don't I don't look at that as a negative. I look at that as a positive. And we have to make sure that, you know, not only our you know, I think our our newcomer, James mentioned, you know, young children. You know, my daughter turns 30 tomorrow. Not that well, young to me, I guess. But, you know, I worry about her, too. You know, I worry about, you know, people like Denise, even though she's an expert, you know, I worry about everyone who's on a bike that, you know, there's going to be going to be safety concerns . So this is the safest thing to me. And, you know, I don't want to get preachy from up here because there's always that temptation. But we got to be able to learn how to share the road with people. So a lot of these concerns about, you know, this this business or that business, you know, has too many cars, you know, by Park Street or whatever. I mean, they got to learn how to how to share the road. Truckers have to learn how to share the road. People that pull by boats on their trailer have to learn how to share the road cards have to have to learn how to share the road. Bicyclists, you know, they do a good job, but, you know, they need to learn how to share the road also. So let's all just kind of be respectful of each other when we're commuting, when we're driving, when we're taking our bikes, when we're walking and anything that gets gets us to safety and, you know, vision zero I'm all in favor of. And nice shout out for Wellesley there. That's Sarah, Sarah's alma mater. Speaker 0: Thank you. And happy birthday to Sarah. If it's Sarah. So thank you, everyone, for for being here, for all your good input on whatever side of this issue you came down on. Once again, the Council is called upon to balance some competing interests. And I do understand and hearing from the business owners along Clement that you're concerned with your businesses, that's one concern we balance. I think there's ways to address that short of just not doing a cycle track on Clement and making it part of the cross Alameda Trail. Um, and what I also see is that it's a, this is an exciting time to be in Alameda as every year I see increased bicycle pedestrian facilities throughout our city and I see more people using them, including families with young children, people commuting to work, people getting their groceries, dropping kids off at school and preschool. We want to make the the streets safe for them. We don't want any more accidents like Mr. CUSUMANO survived. And so this is one way to do it. And I think Councilmember Vella said as much that people can learn new habits. I grew up in the city and yes, I rode to school. I rode everywhere. My parents worked. And that's how I got around. It was the population was probably a little bit bigger because the Naval Air Station was in full swing in those days. But times changed. People did not own two cars and didn't drive everywhere. So now I still ride my bike. But I very much appreciate when I get to ride on streets where there are bike lanes or better still, dedicated cycle tracks. And I heard it mentioned that we do all these new developments and we consider them in isolation. I want to correct that misinformation. Not true. And let's just for a minute talk about the 1200 residences planned for Castro Center. Okay. You might have gone to a presentation. You might have seen a story in the newspaper. To the best of my knowledge, those plans haven't even been submitted to the city. So there is there is a gap between what you read in the newspaper and what actually comes to the city and goes through a long planning process . But if and when that development comes to the city, just like every other residential development that comes to the city for consideration, it will be considered in conjunction with all the existing developments. We know where new units are going in, and that's all that all goes into the environmental study, the impact, the traffic impact of new residences , new residents. We and we know that not everyone is going to be a bike rider, but we know that every year more and more people, and especially some of our newer, younger residents, are opting to have no car or one car or do most of their travel by bicycle. And as one of our speakers said, even if you don't ride a bicycle, you benefit from those who do, because that's one less vehicle on the road that's cleaner air. And if you are the bicyclist, I don't have to tell you all of the benefits. And I want to see more kids riding to school because it will help cut down on our traffic during school hours. It's good for kids to get that exercise. It helps them develop independence. But I think as elected leaders, we have an obligation to make sure that our residents are traveling around the city in as much safety as we can provide to them. And I will be quick to say, we all do need to slow down in town and observe the the speed limit. So I am very excited about this project. I commend staff for doing a great job and it's gone through many hearings, lots of public comment and I am ready to support this. The, the Transportation Commission's recommended design concept for a two way bikeway on Clement Avenue. And if anyone would like to be the first to to make a motion, I would be happy to entertain it. Speaker 2: I'll do that. Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. Vice Mayor Knox, is that you? Yes, sir. I prefer to get a motion. Speaker 9: I would like to just. I beat him to clarify one thing, please. That your staff is opposed to their lane with the 7-Eleven feet, the Golden Gate Bridge lane and all the rest of the lanes on that bridge are ten feet there. There is no concern to me is not a 25 mile an hour street that has not been built for Trump. So it's not a machine that can get left out that somehow there might be a truck concern here. We have literally built our building a common street that has built a freeway standard for trucks. With that, I would like to improve on the option to our recommendation from the transportation hub. Speaker 0: I will happily have you second the motion. Your colleague, Councilmember Odie made the motion and thank you for the clarification on the lanes. And so we have a motion is second we'll have discussion. Speaker 6: Councilmember Desai I'd like to make an amendment to it that we that we go big and that we not do that. We disallow parking on the north side of Clement Avenue from Grant Street to Oak Street in an effort to free up capacity to deal with concerns raised by some of the businesses and some of the residents about having enough with. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are you making a substitute motion? Yeah. Do I have a second? Hearing, then that motion fails for lack of a second. Okay, any further discussion? Councilmember Vela? Councilmember Vela, then Vice Mayor Knox White. Sorry, I didn't see your hand up. Speaker 8: I think that I think that the vice mayor made this point earlier, which is as the ne you know, if there is a need that develops, we can always look at potentially removing parking and it might not be in that whole stretch, it might be in certain sections of it or where needed. And I think, you know, I think if that comes up, I don't know if staff needs additional direction along that line, but I would be supportive of and I think this is still developing in terms of that aspect of it. What we're approving tonight is going with the option that would allow that. The the track itself, it doesn't have to do with the specifics as to parking. Speaker 0: Does staff want someone from step one to affirm that. Speaker 10: Will be what the motion is set forth? We will continue the design process. Right? We will be coming back to you for the ultimate construction contract. That would be that would be an opportunity for you to yank out the parking at that time. Or we could build it or you could build it and then at some future date decide, hey, we really want to pull out parking. I mean, it's that would not be hard to do later if you wanted to. Speaker 0: Okay. And vice mayor, not quite sure. Speaker 9: So just by voting yes on the motion tonight with the idea that we should come back and discuss the design of this project when we have a contract moving forward, my my my idea was that if after we implement that identified, we can make those changes. Right. But I do want to just kind of move by why why I would not support removing more parking for main with this is a safety project so we know that the number one thing we can do to maintain the flow of traffic down to the travel that our speed limit and the one thing that we can do to actually have that is narrow lane. So the idea that we remove the parking, turn away from the vehicle and drive down, come in 40 miles an hour, is actually counterintuitive, but in the project it will be a much more expensive project to maintain speed. It will remove all that parking vehicle, the infrastructure, and keep it going in order to continue to maintain the speed. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Desai, then councilmember like. Speaker 6: You in my final 6 minutes. I do want to say that this is a very exciting project. I mean, the idea that we're going to link from one end of one end of Alameda to the other in a unified bike project. I think what would make it more exciting, though, is if we took the time to remove some of the parking on the north side of Clement Avenue. And I hear what Vice Mayor Knox White is saying, that engineering wise, that maybe there are some issues there regarding speeding. But, you know, I think that comment, I think saying among the traffic planners is that it's not just about engineering, it's also about enforcement. I mean, if we know that that we have a problem there, then even even with adopting the engineering that you have, you're still going to have fast moving cars. Are you going to tell me that there aren't fast moving cars on Shoreline Drive as as skinny and tight as that is? Come on. So we're missing an opportunity, again, similar to what I said earlier during the discussion about the hotel, we are once again missing an opportunity to work with residents when there are some solutions, easy solutions in front of us. At the end of the day, if we remove the parking on the north side of a claimant, it's no skin off the back of anyone. I mean, certainly there might be some businesses on the north end, you know, such as the military depot that might be concerned. But by and large. Five years from now, seven years from now, when the development occurs, you're not going to be able to remove those cars in an effort to deal with any safety issues that they arise that might arise at that time. Let's deal with it now. You've got this rare opportunity. You've got this rare opportunity to make this elegant, protected bike path, two way bike path that stretches from the seaplane lagoon all the way down to Park Street and even beyond that. So I would really encourage us to really pursue that. I think if we don't do it, I think it's a missed opportunity. I think. I think this project is a great project, something that that aluminum can get around. But I think we can all get around. But I think we can even make it better. And so I'll just leave my comments on that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Before I go to Councilman Brody, you raised the shoreline cycle track and traffic on Shoreline Drive. And in fact, if you were to ask the police department, they would tell you that the average speed has reduced significantly on Shoreline Drive since the cycle track went in, as have the number of vehicle collisions. Councilmember Ody. Speaker 2: So in my last 6 minutes, I'm joking. I saw the ground out there. Speaker 0: Slowly, Mike. Speaker 2: I'm not going to use all of it. I mean, I think there's some merit to the idea of reducing parking because, you know, you reduce parking. You kind of encourage people not to drive as much. But, you know, as the vice mayor said, if we're building a freeway standard lane anyway of 11 feet, then, you know, I would not be in favor of reducing parking to add wider lanes. But if you know, that comes up later, you know, it's an interesting idea. The only thing I want to make sure and I think the vice mayor kind of touched on it, you know, I don't really want a repeat of central with this where we're going on and on and on and rehashing and rehashing and design, you know, and it just doesn't get done. So I want to make sure that that's part of the motion that this gets done and we're not coming back for every little thing. So I don't know if, you know, I was the maker of the motion. I'd be happy to amend it. But I know what we need to say in there. But or maybe we just have to say it needs to get done. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 2: We don't need to be debating this in five years. Speaker 0: And just because I hate to mislead the public, we Central Avenue is getting done. It's just a little more complicated because of the state highway bridge. But I see Payne nodding earnestly. That's another report for another time. But Mr. Thomas. Speaker 10: I hear as the motion, I think they're so emotional floor is they move forward with the design as drawn with the 11 foot lanes keeping keeping the parking in. I'm as a planner. I got excited also about, you know, let's go big. But if it means if the intent is to stray 15 foot travel lanes, that's that's because we got rid of parking that is counter to what staff has been recommending. So that's why I think and to go move this project forward and keep it moving, it is very helpful for the Council to give us very clear direction . This is what we want so that we will just tell our designers, draw that up and let's keep moving fast. And we don't have to keep second guessing ourselves as to what our design is. Speaker 0: Councilmember So be. Speaker 6: Clear, the lanes can still be 11 feet wide or 12 feet wide. All. All what we're doing is just putting a little more cushion between the north side and the and the north lane. There's still 11 feet. It's just now there's more cushion by virtue of not being a lane dedicated to parked cars. Speaker 3: It's. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion. We have a second. We're going to do a voice vote. Speaker 6: Councilmember decides I'm going to support this project because I think the larger objective, you know, I think this is good for Alameda, the details of the parking. I think we'll have to leave that for another day night flight. Speaker 1: I only I. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 1: As I. Speaker 0: All right. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everybody, for coming out. Remember, we just go, yay! And then we move on to the next item. But thank you all. Good job. You can go high five in the hall. We are moving on to remember my goal is to get us home the same night we started. And so with that, we move on to item number seven, City Manager, Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve the Transportation Commission’s Recommended Design Concept for a Two-Way Bikeway for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project and Cross Alameda Trail between Grand Street and Broadway. (Transportation 91819)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09032019_2019-7162

Speaker 0: Is is my hope so with that motion second all in favor I opposed abstain. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. The next item that was pulled from the consent calendar. Councilmember o.t, you wanted item five j pulled. Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to support this, but I just wanted to do it with a caveat of my own. What concerns me here is that we have public facilities that were built with public funds, and it takes a long time for some of these routes to build up and gain a fare back stability. And my concern is that you have private operators come in at lower cost. And my concern is that they don't end up uber rising, for lack of a better term leader, and we end up losing Rita. So I'd like to make sure that when this comes back, next time there's some type of car neutrality agreement or something that that protects the workers that work at these at these organizations. So I am prepared to support it. But next time, if there's not anything like that in there, I would be opposed to approving any more extensions and threat to our public facilities. Speaker 0: And just for clarification, I would add that it was noted that the we, the board of directors approved unanimously was afforded nothing, that somebody was absent. This extension agreement encouraged sideline. That's the operator of this small boat. It's almost like a water taxi and the Inland Boatman's Union of the Pacific to come to an agreement during that period of time. And timeline has agreed to this extension and is in ongoing negotiations with IAP and the IAP representative at the WE. The Board meeting described these negotiations as cordial and positive in tone, so I would be looking for good results to come forward to. Speaker 5: Hope so, yeah. Speaker 0: And of course, what we are trying to do this is. To accommodate a new life science company down at Harvard Bay Business Park that moved to Alameda from south San Francisco and still has a lot of its employees living in south San Francisco. So rather than have them get on the freeway in their cars and, you know, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and all those good things, they arrange this private service and but with the approval of Rita and yes, I think it's there's a good template and I'm hopeful that they're moving forward. So any other comments you do? I have a motion, Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: I do want to clear I do want to make sure that, you know, one of the issues that had come up before is that our staff, I think, had weighed in on this issue before we did before we had actually taken a vote. So I just want to make sure that while I appreciate the inclusion and I think that it needs to be there, that that leaders process is informed by our council direction and that we don't we aren't sending staff to try to inform that ahead of whatever gets decided. Speaker 0: Thank you. I do have a motion here for the comments. Speaker 3: So moved. Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion from the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Vela. All in favor. I opposed abstain. The motion carries unanimously. And then we have one more item. I think it was just one more that was pulled in.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Consent to the Six-Month Extension of the Landing Rights Agreement to Land at Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal By and Between San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Tideline Marine Group. (Community Development 227)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09032019_2019-7152

Speaker 0: And do we have the members of our public art commission and in the audience. Speaker 1: Yes, I think they're both here. Speaker 0: Yeah, come. Speaker 2: On. That. Speaker 0: And so we just we're looking for a council is we have a resolution to a point. Elizabeth Risch. Hi. And you you look familiar. Elizabeth Risch and Kristin Van Cleef as members of the Public Art Commission. And and then we also have members of the RAC. I will take that separately. So so anyway, I always want to be sure to thank the wonderful people who apply for these commissions. These women are so talented, you would really enjoy meeting them. And we are just lucky to have them willing to share their time and talent with the city and and help make our city more beautiful. And so so what I'm looking for is adoption of the resolutions, appointing Elizabeth Risch and Kristen Van Cleef as members of the Public Art Commission. Speaker 5: So move to. Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 0: We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I know NS opposed. You abstained, right? Yes. The motion. The motion passes unanimously and our city clerk, Laura Weizsacker, will have you signed your certificates. And thank you so much to see you again right here. Speaker 1: We're going to take it. Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties you're about to enter? Speaker 2: I do. I do. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. You may I make some exceptions. Thank thank you both. And while our Public Art Commission commissioners are signing, I want to explain, it's a little bit complicated about reappointing members of the RAC, our rent review advisory committee. So we have two members who have been serving, Simon Chu and Brendan Sullivan cheer you up. Spoiler alert. For those of you who have read the agenda items, this council may vote to no longer have the RAC because it's been supplanted by some other changes we've made in the rent ordinance. Nonetheless, there is a RAC meeting next week because there are still some outstanding items for them to hear. Now really, they could just continue to serve on that board until their positions are filled or until it goes away. But I think it's a little nicer to go ahead and reappoint them because their first terms came up. They've served faithfully and they're willing to serve again. So if that's okay with the council and if it's okay and I do, I have to I have either of the commissioners here. Speaker 1: Ms. isn't here. I don't know if Mr.. Speaker 0: Chu and Mr.. Speaker 2: Either of them are here. Speaker 0: Neither of you. Okay. Well, we thank you for your time and service, but could we adopt your resolution appointing them or do we have comment so moved. I like it. Okay. So we have a motion in a second to reappoint these to RAC members all in favor by anyone opposed or abstained. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to item six. Speaker 1: The public hearing to consider adoption, a resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration, mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and climate action and resiliency plan.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Elizabeth Rush and Kirstin Van Cleef as Members of the Public Art Commission and Reappointing Simon Chiu and Brendan Sullivan-Cheah as Members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09032019_2019-7203

Speaker 9: last three years to to strengthen renter protections and to update the ordinance. And there was a ballot measure in November of 2018 that if it had been successful, it would have precluded the council from making any amendments to the ordinance by enshrining in the city charter and subjecting it to a vote of the people. That charter amendment was not approved, and therefore, in spring of this year, the Council began the process to update the ordinance as it saw fit. And in spring council took two actions. One, it removed the sunset clause from the 2016 ordinance, which had a provision that the rent program would terminate in December of this year, December 31st , that sunset clause was removed. In addition, the City Council adopted an Ellis Act policy which spells out the guidelines for landlords who are interested in going out of the rental business. Then the council adopted two more ordinances this summer. One ordinance was to adopt what are called just cause eviction protections, essentially saying that tenants cannot be terminated for no cause. There has to be a just cause or a no fault to terminate a tenancy. And then the Council adopted an annual general adjustment, and that is essentially a maximum allowable annual rent increase bank of that rent increase and a rent registration program this evening. There are a series of other amendments that are before the council and they are being presented as two ordinances. One is an emergency ordinance and one is a non-emergency ordinance. The contents of the two ordinances are identical, except that one would take effect immediately and the non urgency ordinance would have a second read in 15 days and then take effect 30 days after that. Or in 45 days. I'm going to quickly run through the key proposed amendments that are part of the ordinance this evening. So I talked about the just cause and the annual general adjustment. Those two ordinances that were passed this summer are essentially folded into this ordinance. As I said, just cause is a requirement for rental properties. And rent registration is also an obligation for all rental units, multifamily and single family. And then the annual general adjustment rent banking. And the petition process applies to multifamily units built before 1995 under the new rent stabilization framework in the city. Rents are not regulated for single family homes, condominiums and multifamily units built after 1995. The city is not allowed to control the rents of those units because of the cost of Hawkins state legislation, which preempts local jurisdictions from providing rent control to those types of units. So those units will not be regulated when it comes to rent increases. As I go through these changes, some of these changes were actually approved previously by the Council in Ordinance 3180. That ordinance was referenda and subsequently rescinded by the Council. So we have brought back some amendments that were previously approved by the Council that are included in this ordinance and when they were previously approved by the Council as part of ordinance 3180, I will point that out just so the Council knows what was previously approved. So we clarify a number of definitions, and some of those key definitions are natural disasters. We specify that relocation payments are not required when tenants vacate due to a natural disaster. However, because there may be some dispute about whether or not a landlord contributed to a fire or two other kinds of disasters. There is an appeal process that's provided for in the ordinance and a hearing officer. If that if there is a discussion about was it a fault of the landlord or a fault of the tenant, that kind of thing can be adjudicated with a hearing officer. We are expanding under this ordinance eviction protection to Section eight housing choice voucher holders previously not covered by the termination protections in the ordinance. And then we are providing some specificity to units that are not subject to the regulations. Just to kind of clarify houseboats, dormitories, temporary housing for homeless people, those kinds of things are are made clear in the ordinance. And then we have also specified that rent cannot be increased within the first 12 months of a tenancy. It's already the case that you can't increase rent more than once every 12 months. But this clarifies that you cannot increase your rent within the first 12 months. Temporary tenancies are authorized, and this is something a concept that was previously approved by the Council in Ordinance 3180. Where are the concept of a temporary tenancy in that tenancy is authorized and it is pretty narrowly prescribed in the ordinance to qualify for a temporary tenancy. That unit must be the landlord's primary residence. You cannot do a temporary tenancy in excess of 12 months. However, in recognition of the city's long standing history and residency of folks in the military, for instances where the landlord is in active military or the tenant is an active military, a temporary tenancy can be extended for up to five years if it's in connection with a military assignment. When a tenant when a temporary tenant vacates after a maximum of 12 months, the landlord must reside in the property for one year. That's to prevent serial temporary tenancies. And then associated temporary tenancies are exempt from the ordinance, and no relocation payments are required to be paid when a tenant vacates the unit. We have made revisions to the owner move in requirements under the existing ordinance. After an owner moves in, the owner must side in the unit for one year. We are recommending that the council amend that and require the owner to reside in the unit for three years. That's a best practice. That's typically what most rent controlled jurisdictions require is that the owner live in the unit for three years. We are limiting the frequency to only one owner move in termination allowed every 24 months. So an example of this is an owner move in. There are enumerated relatives who qualify as owners. If you move your parents into one unit, you cannot. Then the next month move your grandkids into another unit or your cousins into another unit. It's one owner move in termination every 24 months. And then if the landlord violates the provisions of the owner moving requirements, the rent for the new unit is restricted to that of the prior tenant before the owner move in, termination was exercised. We have clarified in the ordinance buyout agreements. Buyout agreements have been allowed over the life of the ordinance. However, while staff thinks it's important to continue to allow that option of a buyout agreement, we think that there are some administrative things that we should require of those buyout agreements, and those include the buyout offer needs to inform the tenant of their rights under the ordinance that the tenant has the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing and that the landlord must file the buyout agreement with the rent program. A new concept that's been introduced in this ordinance is a requirement that we're calling relocation payment for constructive evictions, and that constructive eviction is being defined as a rent increase, regardless of whether it's a cost to Harkins exempt or a cost to Harkins nonexempt unit. If there is a rent increase in excess of 10% and a tenant elects to vacate the unit within 90 days of receiving the notice, essentially determining that the tenant cannot afford to pay the rent at that increased level, the tenant would be entitled to relocation benefits. This this item, the program fee passthrough is also something that was previously approved by the council as part of 3180, and it allows the landlord to pass up to 50% of the annual rent program to each tenant, and that with the caveat that any pass through must be in 12 equal installments the current year , the current year's fee is $106. If you did the math, that would be $4.41 a month to 50% of the one I was six over 12 monthly installments. We will be doing a fee study and we will be coming to the Council with a recommendation about a new fee for the new fiscal year. That will start July 1st of 2020 and we hope to have that fee study to the council in next spring. Another substantive change that is being recommended in the ordinance is the provision of relocation payments. The ordinance had a lot of discussion about relocation payments in the body of the ordinance 3148. We are essentially taking out kind of the guts of the relocation payments and suggesting that the council adopt the actual relocation amount by resolution. So you have a resolution before you this evening that would set the new relocation benefits. We have moved to a different formula, and part of this was informed by the work that management partners did for the city, looking at our relocation benefits, where they recommended that the city move to a formula that was based on the fair market rents. So the new relocation payments for permanent relocation and the resolution before you this evening deals with both relocation, permanent relocation benefits and temporary relocation benefits. So tackling permanent relocation first, the permanent relocation benefits are based on two months of first and last fair market rent. And fair market rent is based on the bedroom size of your unit, actual moving expenses and other factors such as taxes, relocation payments, our income. So the idea is to make a tenant whole and the moving expenses. Um, we did a survey and took a look at what it cost and we had an existing relocation, a moving expense that was set by the Council and adjusted by CPI. So that's the rolled up. Those are all the factors that roll up to the relocation amount. The this ordinance would eliminate the option to trade more time for less relocation benefits. And then we also introduced the concept of qualified tenant households, which are households that with seniors with seniors 62 and older minor children under the age of 18 and disabled tenants would be eligible for enhanced relocation payments, the assumption being that there may be more challenges to a qualified tenant household to finding a new place to live . So this slide shows what the proposed relocation benefits would be for the for the current year. And they're listed in they're included in a resolution. And I would just point out that the average relocation benefit over the life of the program since its inception was is between eight and $9,000 is the average relocation payment. The ordinance has always provided for temporary relocation payments, but we never came up to date with a temporary relocation amount. So once again, the resolution includes a temporary relocation amount, and temporary relocation would be provided when a unit is vacated due to a government order where there was a health or safety conditions other than those resulting from a natural disaster. And it's based on the per diem cost to be temporarily relocated in the city of Alameda. So you can see what the temporary relocation costs are. And I would point out that if a tenant is temporarily relocated, they are obligated to continue to pay rent while they are temporarily relocated. So the landlord will be getting rent but will be paying out temporary relocation benefits. Last meeting, the council adopted the the rent registry, and there was some discussion and concerns expressed about what would be the kinds of questions that would be asked in a rent registration form and what would be the privacy issues surrounding the information that was collected. And the Council requested that the rent registration form come back to it for its consideration and approval. This is a screenshot of the rent registration form. It's an exhibit to the staff report. Pretty much all the information that we are asking is public information. If there is a public records request, there is very little information that can be redacted. And most of the information that can be redacted is that requesting contact information for both landlords and tenants. Name, phone number, address, email. All of that is information that could be redacted, but information about rental housing, services provided that kind of thing. If there is a public records request, it is highly likely that the attorney's office would determine that the information for the public outweighs the privacy of the individual. I would like to say that as staff is proposing the rent registry, the only people who would have access to the rent registry is landlords who would have access to this information for their specific units. So landlords could access the information for their units, and that would be the only universe of the public accessing the rent registry . It is possible in the kind of 2.0 iteration of the rent registry, there would be an ability for tenants to access the information on their unit. And the idea is when the rent registration program, which is effective now, today, officially the annual maximum rent is that we will be notified or the rent program will be notifying both the landlord and the tenants of the maximum allowable rent increase and the maximum allowable new rent, and that the tenant would have that ability to check that information against the programs database by calling the rent program. So this is the rent registration form that staff is proposing. And we're asking the council's approval of it this evening. So in summary, the recommendation is to introduce two ordinances, urgency and honored, and see the amendments highlighted in the presentation to adopt the resolution establishing the temporary and permanent relocation benefits and to approve the rent registration statement that's in the staff report. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Speaker 0: And Ms.. Potter. And thank you for for your report. Do you want to just let the audience know about these upcoming workshops that are going to be presented for people who would like more information about these new changes? Speaker 9: So the rent program staff is running a series of workshops that start next week, but not. And I'm going to I'll ask Greg Katz to come up the rent program director and give the times and the topics for the workshops. But they will be scheduling workshops throughout the fall so that folks can get more information about the changes that are in place. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So we'll have Mr. Katz come up at some point wherever he is. Okay. And I bet we have public speakers on this item. Speaker 2: 1616. Speaker 0: So far. But while we're waiting for the city clerk's office to get the the speaker's steps organized, does anyone have any clarifying questions on the staff report? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: We're following Councilmember. I mean, Miss Potter's advice. Everybody speak right into your microphones and kind of loud. We don't want to sound gravelly. Speaker 5: But thanks, Miss Potter, for all your work on that. So just a few brief questions. So this constructive eviction, 10% increase. Can you remind us because there was a 90 day opt out provision. What is the notice requirement for a 10% increase? Is it 60 days or is it longer? Speaker 9: A rent increase in excess of 10% is a 60 day notice. Speaker 5: Okay. So it looks like there would have to be one month where the tenant would pay the increased rent. Or maybe more. Speaker 9: Well, they they can move out any time in that 90 day period if they are unable to pay the rent increase and are interested in the relocation benefits of the max. The outside date is 90 days after the notice. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Then on on the Costa Hawkins units, we had a process that required going to the rack but didn't have a binding decision so that that process is now taken away, just to be clear. Speaker 9: That's correct. We are eliminating any regulation of rent increases for the Costa Hawkins exempt units. Speaker 5: Okay. But there is there still going to be a voluntary program that people call the progress log? Speaker 9: Sorry, the rent program staff, they are all trained mediators and they are big believers in mediation and they are happy to mediate when there are two consenting parties to mediate rent increases, that is a service they will continue to provide. Speaker 5: Okay. And the the relocation average, I think you mentioned the numbers 28. And I mean, do we have an estimate of, you know, what relocation average would have been under the new proposal? Because it seems to me it's probably going to be pretty much the same. Speaker 9: Yeah, I we could probably figure that out because this new rent relocation is tied to bed unit, the bedroom, the number of bedrooms. That's not how the prior calculation was, the number of years you lived in your unit. We probably could figure that out, but maybe not at this meeting. Speaker 5: Okay. I think there were some concerns raised in the staff report about the impact on landlords on making Section eight units available. I mean, do we have any data on whether or not I know it just recently, but since we put our just cause ordinance in, if there's, you know, an uptick or a downtick. Speaker 9: So I believe you're referring to the housing choice voucher program, which is the program that makes Section eight vouchers available in the private sector where landlords rent to Section eight tenants. It's completely voluntary, and it is sometimes challenging to find tenants in a hot rental market who are willing to take a Section eight tenant. Speaker 0: Landlords to find. Speaker 9: Landlords. Thank you. When when the max rent is set by the payment standard. So we do currently have over 75 tenants with vouchers looking for housing in the city of Alameda. And the the thought is if the council were to extend just cause eviction protections to housing choice voucher holders, that that could depress the interest on the part of landlords to take Section eight tenants. We don't know whether that will happen because the ordinance is not yet in effect, but it is certainly something that the housing authority will be able to track because they'll know how quickly the vouchers can get absorbed in the market. And then the long term effect of that is if the housing authority is unable to place voucher holders with private sector landlords, they will lose the funding potential for vouchers in the future. So it is something that is of concern and will need to be tracked. Speaker 5: Okay. Well, that was my next question. Can you track that and report to us if we're seeing that? Because, you know, I would think if if that fear is true, then the opposite would have been true, that when just cause was put in and Section eight was exempted, that we would have seen an uptick in Section eight given that people could be evicted. If you attribute bad motive to landlords, you know, regarding. Speaker 9: Just correlation and you know, yeah, that's a hard thing. And I would say the item after this item tonight would prohibit discrimination based on source of income and that may provide offsetting protections to Section eight voucher holders. It remains to be seen. Speaker 5: So then I think there's also an exemption if we have contracts for housing services that provide some type of of just cause protection. Speaker 9: Right. Right. We the ordinance since 2016 has exempted units with regulatory agreements, governmental regulatory agreements in place. Speaker 5: And do we know if those are stronger or weaker than our protections or. Speaker 9: Um, and they where, for example, if you have a regulatory agreement because you are a tax credit project, you have to have just cause to evict a tenant. Speaker 5: And then two more. So housing authority properties are still excluded from this, right? Speaker 9: Most housing authority projects are subject to regulatory agreements. Speaker 5: Okay. And last question. I have. We talked about the registry. Is there going to be some report back to to the council on what type of reports you're going to start generating and providing to us, you know, with the data in the registry? And when can we expect that if the answer is yes? Speaker 9: Okay. So the ordinance continues to require an annual report updating the council about the rent program. So I would imagine that council would see all of that in the next annual report, not the annual report. It would be the annual report for this current fiscal year for the 1920 fiscal year. So would be back before the council in the fall of 2020. Speaker 5: Okay. Actually, one more. I'm sorry. So we talked about natural disasters and fire. And I recall it was maybe two years ago there was a fire on central on the other side of park. And last I recall, those units were not finished being repaired. I mean, would we consider that particular instance? And if you have to come back with the facts, that's fine. You know something where it would be a natural disaster, where nobody's entitled to relocation or an instance where there would be a temporary relocation and kind of what I would say, an incentive to get repairs done quickly. Speaker 9: Right. So the issue that would govern whether or not the tenant was entitled to relocation would be the cause of the fire if the fire was caused by some sort of negligence of the landlord versus, you know, the house next door caught on fire. And then it traveled to that that house. I do know that it's often the case that the insurance company is why it takes a really long time before stuff starts to get fixed. But if the fire is the result of no fault of the landlord or no fault of the tenant, relocation payments would not be paid. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: Welcome. Speaker 0: Any other council clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you, Miss Potter. Okay, let's move on to public speakers. And how many do we have now? Speaker 1: Now we're up to 17. Speaker 0: 17, so 18 and probably counting. Okay, counsel, we we don't do three minute speaking times when we're over that, you know, even a smaller number. So we agreed to 2 minutes per speaker. Speaker 2: That's the default. Speaker 0: That is the default. I mean, we could change it, but 2 minutes sounds good to everyone. Okay. So we suggested the audience knows. Again, we want to hear from all of you, but then we also need time for the counsel to deliberate. So my ask is simply listen for your name. The clerk will probably call three names, be ready to slip out and start down the aisle when you hear your name called. And please audience as much as you like something, don't applaud. And also no boos. No jeers, no doing the wave. You've heard me. Many of you say this before. We want everyone to find that it's a comfortable place to come and speak to the Alameda City Council. I don't want anyone intimidated. You are all entitled to your opinion. We don't have to agree with each other, but I think we do need to listen to each other and communicate with civility, hopefully. So. Anyway, with that, let's get started with our first speakers. Speaker 1: Alan Teague, Harry McCurdy and Tristan Schmidt. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker 6: You all know who I am by now. I'm surprised at the position of the housing authority of the city limit on this change has not been presented prior to public testimony. This change affects them as well as housing choice landlords and tenants. I've been an active participant in the Housing Choice Voucher system for more than a decade. My guideline has been to follow the payment standard and to keep the tenants share stable. I voluntarily lowered the rent at times. Currently, I've been willing to give marginal tenants a chance, as there are defined processes for how to deal with those when it does not work out. While I believe the situation with a Holocaust survivor is abhorrent, you could make a very targeted change and only remove the termination where a landlord wants to obtain a higher rent. All of the rest of the ordinance could continue not to apply. At the very least, you need to clarify that the HUD payment does not count as accepting partial payment of rent and the failure to pay rent section of the eviction and terminations. And you also need to waive the program fee as the tenants cannot absorb even half of the rent fee when their share is in the double digits. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Harry McCurdy. And we're taking a mic to him. Speaker 0: Okay. And I'm going to ask the clerk's office, the clerks, would you please list like three speakers in advance so people can be. Speaker 1: Ready next month? Tristan Schmidt Maybe you can line up over on this wall here, Connie, Shazia and then Austin Tam. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 6: Hello, Mayor. City council members. Yes, hello. My name is Harry McCurdy. My name is Harry McCurdy. I'm a 25 year resident of your beautiful city here in Alameda and a 25 year resident of the Dunes Apartments, a two, four, four, five shoreline drive. I have been treated well by the by the management of the apartment and the owners. On the other hand, I look at it as a tenant and say that I have a great deal of empathy, especially for somebody who has gone through what has been involved in the Holocaust, that they should be treated fairly and that someone should not gouge them with excessive rent increases. I think that Section eight is certainly appropriate use of. Money and for payment of a rent. I don't I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. I simply am telling you what my experience is and what I hope for. Speaker 8: Is for as. Speaker 6: The future. What you've already done as far as negotiations between the different parties and the different interest groups. Thank you for the work that you do. And please remain just. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for your remarks. Okay. Speaker 1: Our next speaker, Dean Smith and Connie Schultz, then Austin ten. Speaker 0: Okay. Is Tristin Smit here? Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: So maybe not here. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. I sent him, then, Connie. Oh, I'm sorry. Connie. Connie. Okay. Got it. Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening to the Council of Alameda, California. I live in Alameda for 28 years, and I am very concerned about Section eight, Section eight, voucher holder. Where I live, they don't accept a voucher anymore. They haven't for years. They have different owners quite often and now seems like they're going to be selling the property again. So I am concerned myself and some of my neighbors if they're going to get rid of us. So I will ask the Council if they can consider expanding the protection for the Section eight tenants. Speaker 6: Um. Speaker 2: Definitely be okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Next is Austin Tam, then Donna Fisher, then Michael Fisher. Speaker 10: Good evening. Mayor and city council. My name is often Tam and I want to say I am not related to Margaret Tam, who has who has been treating these tenants like trash. I want to I want to tell you how shameful and immoral, unacceptable and inhumane this has been. This is a disgrace that that's been happening to Barbara Jordan and the rest of the tenants, that it is ridiculous. If you are especially if you guys are for decent people with disabilities, you guys need to do something. A blood is on our hands because we cannot treat them, treat the most vulnerable. Mayor When we talk about treating the vulnerable, they are the ones who are invisible. They are the Barbara joiners, the mouses, the everyone else, the invisible. It's like we have to, like, literally go on the media and go on The Guardian or New York Times to get our issue across. I just ask you, you know, to to support these people and to not allow them to be to be left homeless on the streets like this is disgraceful. I mean, our grandmothers, our mothers are like people. We are we know people who are disabled. And this is ridiculous that you're going to treat them like crap and trash and treat them like like there's no one else's business. I mean, it is it's ridiculous. And there's 2019 right now. I mean, back then, I mean, this there's people with disabilities used to be in facilities, mental institutions, and and they just have no ramps and no other things. And this is discrimination. I mean I mean, this should be open for lawsuit. I mean, I'm surprised that people are so, so not disturbed by what's happening. And it's interesting that I, as a person who has a disability and disability advocates have to advocate been because people who have disabilities have to advocate for themself half the time . But I'm asking you to to do something, because we are not going to win. We are we will be will do whatever it means necessary to make sure that they are not left homeless because we are going to be guilty. Guilty, just as guilty. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Tam. And our next speakers are. Speaker 1: Donna Fisher, then Michael Fisher, then Edward Rybak. Speaker 0: Okay. Ms.. Fisher. Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi, I'm Donna Fisher. My husband and I own four apartments in Alameda that are covered by the new rent control ordinance. Speaker 9: Our tenants. Speaker 2: Like us. We like our tenants. We take pride in keeping our units the way we would want to live in them. It is getting harder and harder with these new ordinances. A few things I want to point out that must be considered relocation. Speaker 9: Payments for no fault. Speaker 2: Evictions. While we agree, there is logic to tying them to what HUD says are the rents for our area. They really need to be tied to what the rents are for. Alameda. None of our units earn any of that amount of money and they just don't. And we would never increase them that high. Also, on these relocation payments for no fault evictions, interestingly, that goes up every year based on the CPI increase. Why not seven 70% like rent increases? We shouldn't have it both ways. I also want to talk about relocation fees for temporary relocations. I think City Council needs to rereview the rates that were stated. I know they gave $335 a night for temporary hotel. Not including all the other items I checked today for hotels for Thursday night at three local hotel. I found them ranging from $50 to a high of 229. Speaker 9: For a best western way. Speaker 2: Side on Embarcadero. There is nothing that high. I don't know where the number comes from. Also, interestingly, if we use the nightly fee suggested for somebody with studio apartment one dog, if we did it for a month, it would cost us ten months rent. Also, final thing I want you to know, on the back, on the 70% of the CPI, nothing of ours has increased by less than the CPI. Even our real estate taxes year over year and I look. Speaker 9: 17 to 18 have gone up four and a half. Speaker 2: Percent. Also are utilities 50% year over year, increased usage more higher occupancy in the units. And then we had an unfortunate uninsurable situation that cost us thousands. At this rate, we won't be able to keep doing it and no one else will come in. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Rochester. Speaker 0: Now, you did well. And now is it Mr. Fisher? Yes, Mr. Fisher. We don't see time, but on. Speaker 2: Medication, he just had surgery. But whatever. Who. Speaker 0: Who put in the speaker's slip? Is. Is is. Speaker 2: Mr. Fisher came here, took the elevator up. Speaker 1: Okay, Mike. To him. Speaker 0: Okay. Would you like us to bring the mic to you, sir? Speaker 2: Or. Speaker 0: Or if I miss Fisher, if you would like to speak. Do you have his statement? Speaker 2: Okay. I guess we're told we both are the landlords there. Okay, but don't be 2 minutes for him. Speaker 0: Okay. Come on back. We will make an exception that okay with everybody. Speaker 2: Is fresh out of surgery. Speaker 0: Yes. No. Speaker 2: I'm Donna Fisher speaking for Michael Fisher, my husband. Speaker 0: Oh, stop. Okay. So we have to hear from the city attorney, Mr. Chen. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, unfortunately, your rules do not allow donation of time. Speaker 2: Okay. It's changed than it used to. Speaker 0: Well, they did. And then we made a change. Okay. And can the council not? We can't vote to overrule that. Speaker 3: The council could vote to suspend any. Speaker 2: You know. I don't think. Speaker 6: So. Speaker 5: I'll make that motion. Speaker 3: Second. Speaker 0: We have a motion and a second to suspend the rule for this. I'm going to be clear for this. When Speaker in this instance do as we have a motion the second all in favor. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: I believe that's unanimous. Okay. You may have 2 minutes. Okay. Speaker 2: So I'm speaking for Michael, although I agree with him. Michael is the manager. This has been what he does. And to him, the most important thing is the landlord tenant relationship. And it hurts him to know we may not be able to maintain to the same standards because he gets calls in the middle of the night like , Oh, something's not working there in Alameda. He goes right over. He gets calls from someone saying, I'm already on the freeway on my way to work. I think I left the iron on. He goes right over. He actually, two days after surgery, snuck out on me and drove over and somehow managed to get up steps. I'm just saying, the things you go through, you give your heart and soul. Our tenants know it and this is very much going to hurt the relationship when we're not able to continue to invest to the standard that all of us would like. I invite you to really consider what you would do if you were either a tenant or if you owned these units. Thank you. That's from Michael. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Fisher. All right. Now we're back in our regular rules. Our next speakers are Edward Ryback. Speaker 1: Lucy Russian and Lorna, Russian. Speaker 6: Good evening, everyone. My name is Edward. Speaker 0: You know, I'm going to actually get real close to that microphone because they're a little they're not as strong as we'd like them to be. And we want to hear you. Speaker 6: Good evening, everyone. My name is Edward Ryback. I've been a resident of Alameda for about 40 years. I was reading the resolution this morning and I think there are some textual issues which are incorrect, and I think there are some items which are flawed in the resolution that should go back to staff for correction or for reconsideration . The first item is you talk about relocation expenses being taxable to the tenant if they receive them. There's no information here to get the tenant, the Social Security number, to issue a 1099. There's also some time requirements to fund the relocation expenses. If you don't have the information for the 1099, I'm pretty sure that the landlord may not get it. Another possible solution is to have the rent board. Are you set in a general term to issue the 1099 because they can have the program, the software and the ability to collect the information to do it. Also, I was told by staff that there's a markup for the income taxes of 22%. If that is correct, that means a family with income, married family with income up to $165,000 is getting benefit of a tax markup. I think if this resolution is to help people who are needy or who need additional care are giving tax benefits to someone who earns up to $165,000, is should not be the the goal of the resolution. Also, there are some we've heard some comments about the relocation costs. My basic calculation for an average family, you're talking between 15 and $20,000 a month. Between the daily amount, the food amount, the pet amount. This amount is just not feasible to be paid. And again, we talk about $335 a day for the hotel, $64 a day per person. Those for people, that's about $250. If you've allowed a pet, $85 a day for a pet. Also, many people, when they move, have friends and neighbors they can stay with. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker is. Speaker 1: Mucci. Speaker 0: Mr. Vision. Speaker 1: Thank you. And then Lorna. And then Sarah. Speaker 0: McCracken. McCracken. Yeah. Okay. And Mr. Recent, will you be sure to speak right into the microphone? And, you know, we can bring a microphone to him and he could sit if he would like. Hmm. Speaker 8: You don't. Man City council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is more serious and I am an Alameda resident. I live at the in this apartment. I was in the new reason because my landlord is trying to evict me or not. Speaker 6: Well, any of. Speaker 8: It is cruel and wrong. I am good tenant. I always pay. Speaker 6: Rent. Speaker 8: On time. I am quite respectable. I don't drink, don't smoke. Don't break the law. They say in America your home is secured. Home is where your where your heart is. I have lived in my home for seven, ten years with my late wife and my son. They are both gone now. My home is all I left. It is all I need. I am an old man. I am in poor health. I have been forced to leave my home before. Before the course of war and political conflicts. I can be forced to move again. I want to make. It. Please help me stay in my home. The trial to my election course is for October 15. Please. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we'll let Mr. Putin get back to his seat. Our next speaker is Lana. Speaker 1: Richard. Speaker 0: Morrison. Regina. And you bring the microphone up to you so we can hear you. Yeah. Speaker 2: You're a mayor. Vice mayor. City Council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lorna. Regina. I am the daughter of musician. I'm an Alameda resident. And there is an ancient Roman saying justice delayed is justice denied. And unfortunately, the justice might be denied to my father and to many other residents who are relying on Section eight voucher, who are facing an imminent eviction by their landlord due to no fault of their own. They've done nothing wrong. They're paying their rent. They're good residents. Some of them are elderly, disabled or people with small children. They're facing eviction. They've done nothing wrong. This should not be happening. And as to the argument that this may preclude other people from getting Section eight housing, when I started my career, people told me that women shouldn't push for women's rights because if they ask for breastfeeding rights or a right to take care of their children, that nobody would hire them. That's pretty much the same kind of argument that and look at us today. If we ever bought this argument, we wouldn't be here in this room anymore. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Is Sarah McCracken, then Jan Santos and Doyle Saylor. Speaker 2: Are. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sarah McCracken. I am a staff attorney at Central Legal de la Raza. My office represents tenants in unlawful detainer proceedings, eviction proceedings throughout Alameda County, including Mr. Risen, whose case brought to light what I would describe as a loophole in the ordinance that you're reviewing this evening. When we advise tenants, we look for two basic things protection against massive rent increases, whether that be a subsidy or some sort of rent stabilization ordinance and just cause for eviction. That's a basic protection against losing your home for no reason whatsoever. It's a protection that everyone deserves. And as Mr. Case highlights, a lack of regulation actually leads to discrimination because without the just cause for eviction protections, someone can simply evict someone because they no longer wish to participate in the Section eight program. So I urge you to extend just cause for eviction protections to Section eight voucher holders. And I would also like to note that Mr. Risen's trial is currently scheduled for October 14th. So if you do not do so on an emergency basis, it will be too late for him. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have. Speaker 1: Jan Santos, Ben Doyle, sailor than Madeline Howard. Speaker 2: All right. I'm Jan Santos with the Seniors and Disabled Renters Renters Committee, which is part of Alameda Renters Coalition. I want I can't say strongly enough how important I think it is for you to pass the ordinance, the urgency ordinance, including Section eight. You've been hearing already this evening how important it is for some people that it gets done immediately. Everybody deserves a home, housing and food and shelter. And you have the chance to help make sure by passing this ordinance that there are some people who will not have the chance to keep their housing if it's a month from now, dictate to have the chance to help them. And this ordinance should have been passed yesterday. So please do pass the urgency. Think about it from your heart. Think about what it's like not to have a house, a home, a shelter. And think about if you're a senior disabled person. There's a lot more complications to it, and it's even much harder to survive. So please think and feel with your heart. Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Santos. And now, Doyle, sailor. Speaker 6: Hi there. Mayor City Council. I'm royal sailor. I'm a person with disabilities. I'm a depressed person. And through some of the advocacy I've done over the years, it's became clear to me that the federal regulations say that 17% of the population is disabled. And if you take a look at Alameda, that's about 9000 people. My disability is invisible. And that's often the case with the with how disability is addressed in our society. And I think it's very important that the city council is is advocating here for including Section eight, because the majority of people in Section eight are generally people with disabilities. I strongly urge you to pass it tonight. I also strongly urge you to pass the urgent part of it, because there are people are going to be directly affected by this if you don't do the urgent part. So I want to thank you for bringing this up. I think this is the right thing to do. And I'm proud of you guys. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. And our next speaker is. Speaker 1: Madeline Howard, then Catherine Pauling, then Tony Green. Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Madeline Howard. I'm a resident here in Alameda. I'm also an attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty, where I enforce anti-discrimination laws and housing. And I also do work with tenants who are facing displacement. So I'd like to really thank the City Council for all of the work you've done and all of that hardworking staff to put forward this just cause and rent control ordinance. I applaud that work and I would encourage you to keep doing this work and keep making the ordinance stronger. I can't say it better than all the tenants that you've heard from tonight, but we hear a lot about the financial hardships that landlords experience when they cannot keep raising the rent. But the hardship that a tenant experiences is homelessness. We see this when we're driving. We see the camps, people living in tents, and many of the people that I've represented when they came to me too late and I was not able to save their housing, they were forced to move to Texas and other remote communities where they couldn't keep their children in the same school. They couldn't be with their friends, they couldn't keep the same jobs. So this is a tremendous hardship, and I would really encourage their counsel to keep going with this ordinance. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: And Tony Grimm, then Richard Medlin. Speaker 2: Mayor Council. First of all, I want to thank you. I've been coming to you for years to please have gather state citywide statistics on rental housing. I'm very excited to see that coming to fruition. I will say that one of the main reasons we wanted this to happen was. Speaker 9: So that there would. Speaker 2: Be public access to the statistics. Over the last five years, we have been kind of the canaries in the coal mine telling you the level of problems that existed and that we needed protections. And if what I'm hearing is that a public portal is only a possibility and it's going to be so restricted that people have to call on the phone individually for their individual unit to check. That was one of the things that was mentioned. Also the city does reports, but they tend to be aggregates. And just. Speaker 9: As we kind of went back to the census. Speaker 2: And did a more detailed. Speaker 9: Look at those aggregate. Speaker 2: Amounts to get a truer picture of what renters were going through. If you do not allow public. Speaker 9: Access, where. Speaker 2: We can actually. Speaker 9: See a building at a. Speaker 2: Time, how do we know when from one year to the next, suddenly all the low income or the lower rents of the longer term residents have disappeared. How do we find. Speaker 9: Out when something's. Speaker 2: Going on? The realtors have all of this information and the large ones already have the report. The city has not had it, and I guess this will give it to the city. But as far as. Speaker 9: Those of us who are. Speaker 2: Advocates who are looking for the beginning of those trends and bring it to your attention, not having that public portal prevents. Speaker 9: Us from being able to do the work that we. Speaker 2: Have taken on to help the city and to. Speaker 9: Protect our communities. Speaker 2: So I strongly recommend that when it. Speaker 9: Comes to getting this first stage and space. Speaker 2: In place, that more stakeholder meetings happen. For years. For decades, Berkeley has allowed it without spoiling. Speaker 0: And I believe ice cream is our next speaker. Speaker 1: Tony Grimm, then Richard Netherland and William Smith. Speaker 0: Okay. And Mr. Nevin will bring the microphone to you. You don't have to get back up, if that's okay. I mean, you're welcome to. Well, you've got a minute to decide. 2 minutes. Okay. Miss Graham. Hi. Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening, everybody. I'm urging the council to approve expanding just cos provisions to section eight tenants. I'm basing my appeal on the Federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination among many groups. But specifically what we're discussing tonight is age and disability. The notable thing about that act is that it pertains to public housing and households that receive federal funding. I think that applies here. For the city to do this is just going to be in compliance with that law. And I want you to do it, please, as soon as you can make it, do the emergency provision, because this is a dire need that we can't wait for the next few weeks to go by, because I'm afraid that in that time there might be a lot of discrimination done by landlords who don't want to comply with this law. And you will see a lot more cases other than the ones we're hearing tonight. So let's please approve this, an emergency ordinance effective as quickly as possible. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Come on up. Speaker 6: Mayor Mish Fiddle Council, Richard Neville, a resident of Alameda, a long time and on social security a long time surprises even me. At 78. One of the things that's happened the last four years is no Social Security increase for three years and then a $7 increase on $1,000 a month, which is way less than usual, five or 3% increases. My rent went up 5%. Each year, the last two years, which is roughly seven times the increase. In my Social Security income monthly. Some mitigation needs to be put into the formula. You work out things for renters, since there are so many seniors renting in Alameda and so many senior housing attached to the housing authority . Some way of fitting in the lack of increase. From Social Security offices and other agencies into the mix where everybody wants a little more money. It's tough job to fix it in when you have less, but somehow that needs to be worked in. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: William Smith and Nancy Gordon, then Rose, Linda Fortune as the last speaker. Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the council again. I'm William Smith and I'm a landlord in Alameda, have been for almost three decades and also in a long time associate with Alameda Renters Coalition. And I wanted to echo Katherine Pauling's point about the importance of making data available. I crunched some of the numbers based on the census reports, and I was just shocked, shocked at seeing the number of low income people that have been forced out of this town in the last ten, 15 years. And I just saw in the headlines that we had the lowest number of new homes permitted in the last year in the Bay Area for decades. And so it's not going to get better anytime soon. So if we're going to stabilize our renter population, yes, it's going to be difficult on cash flow for the landlords. I know that from my own experience and it's especially difficult if you're buying a new home and you're trying to swing the payments and make those. But once you're established, you can weather cash flow because you've got you've got appreciation of your asset and that's where you really get the money. So you may have trouble with being fluid, but you've got the money and the wealth and maybe you can tap into that to tide you over. And the renters are the people that make that possible. They buy your home for you. So I certainly urge you to recommend two to pass the rent. Just cause evictions. And certainly that emergency ordinance is very, very much called for. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Gordon. Here she is. Speaker 2: Thank you, mayor and council members. As a former high school teacher. And then I became a realtor and worked about 17. Nowadays, raising kids and selling property and all that in one pocket out of the other, borrowing. Because I had a vision. Speaker 10: You know, we had a vision of where we wanted to be. Well, in my seventies. Speaker 2: I'm still working, and I am very grateful for the wonderful tenants I've had, with rare exception, and the ones who have not. Speaker 10: Been amenable and they've been bothering other tenants. If it. Speaker 2: Weren't for my ability. Speaker 10: To get rid of them. Speaker 2: I would have lost good tenants out of those buildings. Speaker 10: So we need to be able to get people out who. Speaker 2: Are creating problem for everybody else or we're going to lose. Speaker 10: Our good people. I just want to say also that most of you know that I initiated and the realtors sponsored what turned out to be seven years of benefit concerts. And we raised a lot of money when the homeless shelter was brand new, we helped them start and then we. Speaker 2: Raised money for the Meals on Wheels and the food bank. Speaker 10: So I'm somewhat of a bleeding heart. Speaker 2: I also think it's. Speaker 10: It's totally unconscionable what happened to this fellow at the Dunes. That's not right. I think there's there are situations that are extreme on both ends. And I. Speaker 2: I actually resent having to pay literally and. Speaker 10: Figuratively as a community. Speaker 2: Of landlords for. Speaker 10: The extremes, for the few. I have wonderful. Speaker 2: Tenants. Like I say, with rare exception. We get along fine and I concur with what Mr. Fisher said about their relationship. It's important I manage my own places. I want to know what's happening. Speaker 10: I give them names of people to contact. If anything goes wrong, they can contact. Speaker 2: Me wherever I am. Speaker 10: And without. And they know the people I hire can be there. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Rosalinda, for this opportunity. Speaker 0: And it's our last speaker. If anyone wants to speak who hasn't had a speaker slip, do so quickly. Speaker 2: Mayor, City Council. I am one of those small one mom and pop landlords and I am very angry at what the City Council is proposing. If you know how hard landlords work, you'd probably say, I would never do that. And if you put yourself in our shoes, you would say, they can have it. You're driving. You're going to drive all the small property owners out of business and you're going to end up with large corporations owning most of Alameda. If you don't slow down and consider the problems that you're causing property owners financially because like Ms.. Fisher stated, most of the expenses that we're incurring will increase over the 2.8%. I feel like this is like a big brother looking over us, and this is not the way it should be in the United States. I feel for the tenants because I have good tenants and I protected my tenants and we have a good relationship. But there are some landlords that need to have a process where they can be taken to court. And that's what the court system is. And you're not the court. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Oh, you know. No, cause that's the rule. Okay. And no outbursts, no outburst. Please. I'm asking for no outbursts. Thank you. So now we. Speaker 6: Thank you. My bad. Speaker 0: We have completed public speaking and thank you to all the public speakers. You did a great job. And by the way, I do appreciate all of you coming out and sharing your views and for the landlords. I that was a gutsy thing to do. I've heard from a number of landlords over the last couple of weeks that they were afraid to come out to what they thought was an anti landlord crowd. But I would say that with few exceptions, everyone did a great job. Thank you. What I'm going to do now, just because it's it's after 9:00 is I'm going to call for a break and then we will come back for council deliberation. So it's almost 915. Let's be back and we're going to get started at 930. All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you at 930. But sharp. I'm going to start at 930, be in your seats by 928. Now, whatever I do, thank you. Earning. Okay, everyone. Great job. It's 929. And by the way, I understand that it feels like a sauna in parts of the chamber. I see you fatty yourself. We're sorry. We have open windows. I guess we could open more so we could recruit Andrew Thomas. Oh, Teague, planning board member to the rescue. Thank you, Mr. Teague. Yeah. He's doing. Yeah. We delegate round here. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 0: And we delegate to experts. What can I say? All right, so we have we are now close public speaking, and we are going to have the council discussion now. So this is a meaty topic and I know there's lots to discuss. So who would like to start? I see. Mr. Modi, Sandip, Jim and Mr. Modi. Sorry. Speaker 5: No worries. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks, everyone, for coming out tonight. And again, to Debbie and her team. Thank you for your amazing work on this. It seems like it's it's Whac-A-Mole, but, you know, that's just the nature of this this type of of policy making. You know, I always say this whenever we have a discussion on rents, you know, it all comes down to me. Housing is a basic human right. Period. End of sentence. Stop. I'm going to keep saying it until everyone gets it. And I also think you judge society will judge you as an elected official or as a society and how you treat the most vulnerable. And we have a sign up there. Everyone belongs here. And to me that means everybody it doesn't matter your race, it doesn't matter your gender, your sexual orientation, your income status, whether you have Section eight or not, Section eight, whether you're disabled or or fully abled or partially disabled, anything. And if I let anyone out, I'm sorry. So. And. I usually say this too, but I think Mr. Richard said it best when he described his home. And for every tenant that's their home. That's the place they come home to. That's the place their family is. That's the place the children grow up. That's the place they go to sleep in every night. And they eat and sleep and, you know, enjoy life. So that's their home. And when it's disrupted, it's it's it's stressful. It's one of the life's most stressful things. And I was struck by the comment in open communications earlier about the disruption of moving on commercial tenants. You know, there was a comment made about that. And, you know, it's compounded even more when, you know, it's an individual who's their home. So I plan on supporting all of these. I think it's important that we have a thriving, diverse community of residents from all backgrounds, all stripes, all colors, all everything. And that's why we have that here. And I think sometimes, you know, I always look at it to be reminded that that's the value which we're guiding by. Just a couple of things. You know, briefly, I've heard concerns. I think Mr. Nolan brought them up and I've heard others bring up concerns about, you know, issues with the housing authority and treatment of tenants. And this is not something I want to talk about today, but I am going to bring something back because it concerns me. And what concerns me is what I feel is a lack of accountability because, you know, that's not an agency that reports to the city manager. That's not an agency that has our city attorney as their counsel. And that's not an agency that's accountable to basically to the city council. So I've come to terms about that and the relocation, a situation like that, that unit on Central, I'd like to make sure that the tenants there are protected because I've heard that's still a problem and people haven't been able to get back in, you know. Section eight. There are things we can do, and I'd like to consider some type of incentives. Again, that's not on the agenda today, so I'm going to bring that back. But if we find it's a problem, I'd like to see if we can do some incentives to make sure that we can get those 75 voucher holders housed here in Alameda. You know, one thing we didn't talk about, I know Debbie is probably next on your list is the capital improvement plan. You know, I think we need to make sure that we keep our housing stock, you know, in good shape. You know, there's a warranty of habitability. But, you know, right now, the scope, if I'm correct, nobody's used it or we had one application that got rejected. So I think we need to look at that because I think landlords really want to keep their their places in great shape. And I think tenants deserve a habitable place. You know, I got to tell you, I just moved into 113, 16 year old home and my second home this past week is is Pagano. So I understand that's something that we need to we need to help with and make sure that we can keep our housing stock, you know , in tip top shape. I'm concerned about the discrimination. I don't think we should have you know, I was worried when we first did relocation that we would have discrimination if we added extra categories. But hopefully the next agenda item will take care of that, you know, moving expenses. And I got to also say, you know, if you can find a mover that can move a place in 15 or 6000 dollars, I mean, good luck. I would have liked to have known you a week ago. As far as the database. I'd like to I know that we're going to bring reports back in the spring. I'm not sure if if that's too long. I would like to see some type of interim reporting based on the registry so we could start seeing if there's trends or maybe see what data is available that we can mix and match and kind of get reporting on. But, you know, bottom line, you know, no one should have to go through what this man is going through. And he's not the only one. I mean, there are other people that I've heard are having issues with Section eight and they're getting evicted without cause. So we made a statement. This council made a strong statement about protecting tenants rights and about, you know, not letting anyone get kicked out of their unit without cause. And I'm sorry there was a loophole, but I'm prepared to support fixing it. I do do want to say one thing, though. I mean, I've heard almost uniformly from Alameda landlords that what's happening over at the Dunes is despicable. So I just want to give a quick shout out to Alameda landlords. A lot of the mom and pops, they know a lot of you take it on the chin with a lot of criticism. But, you know, I appreciate those of you that have taken the time to to share that that feeling with me. And, you know, we're all one community, so I appreciate that. So that's what I'm going to do. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. You wouldn't just go down the line. Speaker 4: COUNCILMEMBER So we are right to. Feel for the plight of a Resene family. And right in our anger at large apartment complex owners like that of the dunes. But as we make policy for all of the city, we should be both moved by our hearts, but also our heads in making policy for all sides, both the renters , as well as smaller mom and pop landlords. I believe that it is not City Hall's place to make unilateral dictates, especially when reasonable alternatives exist that can protect both renters and the smaller landlords. That's why I believe the original 3148 reflected a workable solution for both renters and smaller landlords. And as I've said over these past months, rather than gut that entirely, as we're continuing to do tonight, we should and should have modified it where fixes were needed. For example, we all agreed that there was a cumulative rent increase problem to the original 3148 ordinance. In other words, the original 3148 allowed for 5% increase, one year 5% increase in another year, 5% increase in another year without triggering the rent review process, which would have included binding rent control. So there was a cumulative rent increase problem to the original 3148. But what we should have done was kept 3148 and fix that cumulative problem, to quote or paraphrase Bill Clinton. We should have amended 3148 as opposed to it as opposed to ending it completely. Now, all of this, though, is not academic in the sense that there are real repercussions to the decisions that we're going in making, the drastic changes that we are. I think when you have the smaller mom and pop land laws come not just tonight but in previous meetings, that's a telltale sign that the burdensome policy changes that we're pursuing fall differently on different sized landlord categories. And and I know this matter is settled, but that's why I believe that that we should have also take into account the special circumstances of a smaller land, smaller mom and pop landlords. And the special circumstances comes down to this, the type of penalties that they are being asked to absorb, which are similar to ones that middle or large landlords are being asked to absorb. They cannot pass that on because they are only limited. So many units that they control may be no more than four. Whereas the matter that brought us tonight, you know, the larger Dune's complex or the matter that brought us to, you know, 20 years ago when we had to deal with the when of his department situation. You know, this will or even the matter of the the apartment on next to Payton school for 70 central. I mean these are units that are are larger and that and that a distinction that we should have taken into account. But I have difficulty supporting tonight staff recommendations for the reasons that I've always said. I believe that we should have striven harder to make accommodations in both protecting renters and also protecting the smaller landlords. And we could have done that in a way that also stifled the excessive rent increases that we saw. Because the fact of the matter is, is that 31, 48, as originally perceived, actually did stifle the the excessive rent increases. So we're going much too far. And so let me give you an example of why I believe we're going much too far. You know, Sacramento is about to adopt statewide rent control. I mean, they are going to, you know, basically cap rents in an effort to fight excessive rent increases. And their standard of capping rent control is capping rent control, disallowing rents that are no more than 7% increases, plus the cost of cost of living adjustment, so long as it also doesn't surpass 10%. So their standard at a minimum is 7%. So what we've adopted and it will strengthen even tonight, is one where basically the smaller mom and pop landlords are being asked to absorb cost increases that are below. Inflation that are below the cost of living. And, you know, it's very difficult for the smaller mom and pop landlords to continue operating in these circumstances. The repercussions of that, though, is that for many of the smaller mom and pop landlords, whether people who are in single family rentals and they're selling it or duplexes and triplexes, the repercussions of all of this is that many more than likely are going to get out of the rental business, thus reducing the rental stock. When I was in grad school and we analyzed the impacts of the Berkeley style rent control and also the Santa monica rent control, and those were the impacts that we saw. And week in, week out, through these type of meetings, you know, we've had populations come up to us and say, you know, we need to preserve diversity. But when you look at the research, actually, it was the very diverse populations who Berkeley and South in the in the south part of Berkeley. It's a very diverse population that was lost as a result of the rent control there that was put in place in 1980, as well as Santa monica. And frankly, you know, one can argue that even in the city of San Francisco, you've seen a loss of the African-American population as a result of the rent control put in place there. So we really need to think not just with our hearts and that we are right to respond to the plight of the Rasheen family. We are right to respond to the plight of the families at 470 Central as well as 20 years ago or so when it came to the Buena Vista. But we also need to fashion policy with our heads that look at all sides, both tenants protecting them, and also the smaller mom and pop landlords. And for that reason, I feel that that what's before us tonight just doesn't do that. So I will continue to do not support this. Speaker 0: Thank you. Let's move this way. Speaker 3: Thank you. I. Well, I'm going to say that I think it's possible for people to have different ideologies and be thoughtful and consider all sides and look for the best way forward and come to different conclusions. For me. I'm sorry. I have a really. Speaker 0: Hard hitting microphone. Speaker 3: Yeah, I bet it microphones. And then this one really doesn't seem to like me. So I will speak up. I'll eat it so I can. I mean, I guess I could speak for myself. I am a small mom and pop landlord, and I will tell you that I support what we're talking about doing tonight. And there are some places where, you know, certain outcomes are going to be more difficult than they were today. And if we pass the urgency and it becomes law today, things will be more difficult for me tomorrow in my family than they were yesterday. But that's a part of the bargain that I that we make going into this. You know, when we are both providing housing for somebody else, we have to really kind of start from a place where the people who matter in this are the people whose homes and lives we are. We are we as the council are trying to address. So I can't sit here and say that it's easy. There are no simple solutions. If there were simple solutions, everybody would do it. But the solutions that we have been putting into place have not been working. And and for that, I am I am fairly supportive of everything that is that is moving forward here. I would like to see a couple of places that that if there was interest, I would look at making some small tweaks. I think that we did have some public comment that came in referring to the temporary relocation payments and the idea that there should possibly be some sort of requirement for for yeah. In order to get the temporary relocation payment that once a unit is re available for moving back in, that there should be some timeline for that move in. I do think that there are some reasonable concerns about how much these the temporary relocation schedule here, which I think we can address and, you know, kind of readdress it at a future time seems very, very high to me. I know where the schedule came from, but that schedule does definitely come from the federal guidelines for visiting San Francisco, etc.. At the very least, I'd like to see something that says that the relocation payments for the housing especially would be based on some sort of receipts or direct payments. So it's not just a $335 a day payment. I think if somebody is is dislocated from their home, a temporary relocation needs to happen. But the idea that it could be a $10,000 a month relocation for 30 days before you even get into the food and everything else where nobody is making that kind of rent that can cause some problems, especially since a lot of the hotels in town even have weekly rates, etc.. So if we could clarify, I don't want to I don't want to to set up a dynamic where tenants and landlords are fighting over, you know, does everybody just share one bed and therefore, you know, like, right there need to be some reasonable assumptions as to is as to as to how this is worked out. But if somebody can find a room at that on Harbor Bay for $200 a night, then, you know, at the end of the day, that relocation payment for the housing should be for $200 a night and not just a flat 335. Here you go. So if we could look at that, even if it's bringing it back in a future, because this is the resolution, that would be good. I would like to see I have heard over the last couple of months strong concerns about the use of the data from the database. I also heard some interest in making sure that we are using the data there, both from Councilmember Ody, but also from the from Ms.. Pauline using the data to inform decisions. I would like to you know, we know that public it will be a public records request. You can ask for information about apartment X, apartment Y, and we will give you the information for that. I think we need to be a little careful, just like the county is with property value information, you can get information on one or two or three. You can go individually and get the information. But if you are going to ask for the entire database for property, it's actually about a $2,000 cost. I don't think we need to treat the database itself as as a public records, but I want to make sure that if we're going to take that tact, that we have some input with the landlords and tenants interests to make sure that we're providing the reports that are necessary so that when we aggregate the information, the information is aggregated appropriately, so that so that people are getting the information they need from that. Let's see. I did like the planning board member Teague, speaking on behalf of himself, did ask. That clarifying comment about partial payment when you are dealing with HCV and making it clear that the person that that the the the HUD voucher or whatnot doesn't count towards that partial payment triggering triggering protection and whatever else. I do think that that that there's something for that. And I'd like to hear hear my council members thoughts on that. I'd say lastly, because just in case I want to talk a little bit more, I'm not going to run out of time. But I do want to say this is really important. I am so sorry that that Mr. Ryan has has gone through what he's gone through, that we have to be here for this. Like Councilmember O'Day, I've heard from every single landlord I have talked to or heard from, people have reached out. Everyone is is just absolutely offended and, you know, upset about this. This is a community wide concern. And we're here tonight. I will be supporting emergency ordinance and I hope we can get there tonight. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 2: So a. Speaker 7: Few things and I think it'll echo some of my colleagues statements. Um. I'd be fine coming back on the temporary relocation amounts. Fine with passing it as written tonight. I would be interested in, you know, hearing more about this timeline. I do think one of the things that would need to be included in it is some sort of additional notice because you have to make. You know, arrangements for your accommodation. So there needs to be advance notice and then the unit does in fact need to be available on the date listed. And if we're going to say. Speaker 2: And if I have to say. Speaker 7: That there is a timeline for move in, then there needs to be a process for if the unit is not in fact available on the date that the tenant was advised. I'd also be fine with looking at, you know, direct pay. I think the receipts thing becomes very difficult because people then can squabble about what was actually charged, who actually stayed where. And you're asking the tenant to kind of put out money ahead of time. I think direct pay would be fine, but again, that we would need to actually look at that and how that would actually work in terms of making sure that suitable accommodations are found and that it's not just, okay, your kid goes to school over here and now I found this deal and you're going to be off island and driving through traffic in order to get there. I think that also goes against our Climate Action Plan goals. In addition, so I think we need to be thoughtful about how direct pay would actually work if we're looking at that. I do think that weekly and monthly amounts are are reasonable relative to the temporary housing. It'd be a little different for the meal allowance and things like that. But again, it you know, I think we could we could look at all of those things and I'd be interested to hearing back from staff, but passing it as is today. In terms of the the partial payment would not include the money from HUD. I think that that is the intent of what we have there. So I'd be interested to hear from the city attorney of what the clarifying language would need to be or if it would be a substantive change. If we could make that change tonight and still pass both the urgency and the the regular or if we would need to come back. I do have some concerns about the database with regards to kind of wholesale access to all of the information. And I'd like I think if we could kind of get a follow up presentation once we actually start collecting the information about how it's all working and the types of requests we're getting, I think that would be informative to counsel and I would just remind staff that we do. We did pass a resolution a few years ago regarding the Federal Government's request for information and to make sure that if there are any federal government requests for that information, that the Council be notified ahead of any information being released to the federal government or any of their agencies. Regarding the housing authority. While we don't have direct over oversight, we do approve the board. And I do think there are some things that we should think about, and there have been cases that have come up where we might want to think about the compounding issues for some of our most vulnerable population and how we can work together to make sure that there is a process in place. Back when I was in law school, I worked for the Mental Health Advocacy Project and legal Advocates for Children and Youth in Santa Clara County. And oftentimes it was a group of us that would get together, including an advocate for the individual who was there to represent the individual's perspective and what the individual desired. And I think that there's this desire sometimes by different organizations or groups to do what they deem best for the person. And that is not always what the person believes is best for them. And there needs to be a process to kind of talk that through before, you know, we move in to an eviction or the loss of of a housing voucher or something like that. And I think it behooves us to kind of create some sort of process that would allow for that conversation to happen ahead of a bigger issue occurring. I think, you know, with regards to and by the way, I'm I'm fully in support of passing the urgency measure tonight. I do think that there we would face a problem. Clearly, discrimination is already happening. I want to start with that. Discrimination is already happening. And I don't want to create a kind of period of time where people can continue to discriminate and there will be other cases that come forward. I think there is a very good example, but it's an example and I think that we risk having other cases similar to that coming forward. And that is why I think we absolutely need to pass the urgency matter, the urgency resolution, an ordinance in addition to the other one. And I think this is about protecting our most vulnerable. We need to do that. It's it's part of why we have these ordinances in place. I've heard some comments about, you know, we're all being held to the same standard or you know you're that were legislate over legislating we have to legislate for everybody we don't get to just make we are not a court we are not judges we don't get to just make decisions one off to specifically legislate for an individual. And so that's why we have to think about the consequences, both intended and unintended. And I think that the staff recommendations address that. I think that there's some room on some of these to discuss further, but I think that those can come back at a later date Speaker 0: . Thank you. And I'll go last. I want to thank Debbie Potter, our economic development director, and also the staff at the Housing Authority who helped put this very comprehensive, thoughtful presentation together. I also attended a workshop at the library last week that Ms.. Potter and Mr. Katz from the Housing Authority presented. Just bringing people up to speed on these proposed changes. So I also want to say, I think all of us are horrified by the experience that Mr. Robinson had. And at the same time, I want to hasten to say that that one landlord or it's a pair of landlord in this case do not typify, do not exemplify the majority of landlords in this city. And I think that I would say our commenters made that distinction. We are we are not out to vilify landlords. We need our landlords. We don't need landlords to treat tenants like that. But it is certainly not. We are going to make blanket assumptions based on the very deplorable experiences that Mr. Risen and his family have had. I generally support this proposed ordinance and I support it as an emergency measure, but I want to ask the Council to consider with me avoiding some unintended consequences that I am concerned about. The first one has to do with the augmented relocation payments for certain categories of renters, and that would be people, tenants who are 62 years and older, tenants with disabilities, tenants with minor children in the household. And there is Exhibit A on the the resolution on page two has that chart at the top. So you can see that there is designated amounts. And those are based on, as I understand, the head numbers for the fair market rents in this area. It's specific to this area for a studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, two bedroom, four bedroom. But the augmented rent augmented relocation fee raises the amounts, the first in the two month's rent plus three, the moving fees by almost $2,000. And this is the unintended consequence I worry about in a tight rental market that we have in Alameda, a 2% vacancy rate. Any landlord is likely to get more than one application for a tenant for a unit that comes available. The landlord is going to know the applicable law. If they see that, oh, if I rent to this 62 year old or this household with a child, I and I have to move my mother or my child into that unit, no fault of the tenant, but they'll be relocated and they'll be entitled to relocation fees. That's going to cost me more money versus this 28 year old tech worker making a good salary, great credit score. I'm going to choose that one. That would still I know we can't discriminate based on source of income, but in this came out in the workshop, it's certainly valid to look at credit scores, to look at income . And is it a certain number of times the amount of rent? What I don't want to do is make it that much more difficult for these more vulnerable classes to find available units. But the rationale for having the augmented relocation payment is that these are folks who tend to have a harder time finding relocation. So I met with Miss Potter last week and we talked about this and I said, I want to help these folks, too, but what can we do short of throwing more money at them that might just dissuade some landlords to rent to them? And the idea that we we batted around and I think it's reasonable is that we could add a relocation consultant service and there are those consultants in the cities use them before that. When a renter in this category gets that eviction, that no fault eviction notice, that would trigger the use of this relocation consultant on an encore basis to help them get get relocated. Because I'm just concerned and the housing authority has talked about this, too, in a city like Alameda, we're not Santa monica. We do. Mr. Teague brought out in earlier comments we've had in place in our charter until and unless it's changed Measure A, which is a density limit. A new ordinance that prevents us from building housing of greater density than a duplex, with certain exceptions and certain hurdles that you you jump over. But it does mean that our multi-family housing stock is limited and it's getting older. So I would like council to consider that. And I spoke with the city attorney about this this morning, and he said it is easy. We could still move forward with this ordinance and on an urgency basis tonight, but simply decide to eliminate that particular column in this particular table. I also share the vice mayor's concern about the per diem rates for the hotel and motel rates. I, i, i understand the $64 a day meal expenses based on the per diem for a city employee if they were traveling. I don't have a problem with that. $335 seems awfully steep in Alameda. And as I think Councilmember Vella noted, there are weekly rates, there are weekend rates and it it averages out. I'm sure it is something less than that. So I and I also talked to the city attorney about this. We could make that modification tonight and still have this ordinance go through. But that's something we can discuss a little more and. It's not a big deal the that $85 a day for a cat boarding again could an unintended consequence be that landlords are less likely to rent to people with pets? And so maybe we'd want to take another look at that one. Um, I also want to just say that we, we do need, I think it was Councilmember Ody that said we need housing stock that's habitable and we do. Renters need good, safe places to live. But we do need to consider the financial burden we're imposing on landlords, especially smaller ones, by doing some of the things we're doing, like the augmented relocation fees. I will hasten to add that I'm not arguing for a distinction between larger landlords and small so-called mom and pop landlords, because the problem there is it's the tenant that then suffers. If there's a landlord who can do, who doesn't have limits, who can do anything because they only have so many units. But I think that we do need to think about what financial burdens we're imposing on landlords. It's one thing to say, well, they can recoup their expenses because they have appreciation in their property. And it's true property in Alameda has been appreciating that requires you to sell. And I don't want to see a lot of corporate owners come in and scoop up property and it is happening. So I think we're right to make these changes. The two that that give me cause though are the, the augmented um, relocation payments and the, the podiums on housing. So with that, do I hear any further discussion from Council Councilmember Odie? Speaker 5: Just real briefly, I do agree with the comments made on that side about the per diem. I mean, I'd be happy to look at that again. I mean, my preference is to pass it as is and then come back and look at it because I think it needs a little more thought. I was concerned, too, about whether somebody would discriminate based on age or disability or child. I mean, I know it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So I don't know. I mean, on one hand, I'm running out of time. Speaker 0: But on that, actually, I think we might vote to waive our time. I think this is I mean, just speaking for myself, but I think this is an important topic that is I'll. Speaker 5: Make that motion. Speaker 0: For consideration. Okay. Before Mr. Councilman Brody runs out of time, I do have a second to suspend the councilman. Okay, we've got a motion. A second. All in favor. I, i, i advise. I do. Okay. I mean, continue. Speaker 5: I mean, on one hand, I mean, I don't want to attribute bad motives to any landlord that, you know, they're going to say, well, $2,000, five, six, eight years from now, you know, I'm going to pick person over person B, but on the other hand, I don't want to encourage discrimination. So I mean, I'm willing to have this. Is that since that's in a resolution, I think again, I'm willing to pass it as is, but then maybe have a further discussion on that, because I would like to know, you know, what other cities have experience that have these augmented augmented relocation. But, you know, it's I don't know if a landlord is going to discriminate over $2,000 that they may or may never have to pay. Mm. I don't know. Speaker 0: So if I can, if I could just reply to your, your comments that again I don't want to ascribe. Speaker 5: I didn't say you did that. Speaker 0: No, I'm speaking for myself. I don't want to ascribe bad motives to someone's decision. But I do think that one could look at this table and know what their expenses are and that taxes are going up. I mean, you're now a property owner. You will get that tax bill. And trust me, it goes yeah, it goes up every year. And again, I think we've made a fair change. I like the fact I've been advocating for this for a long time, that rather than base relocation payments on what tenants were paying because some tenants were paying way under market and some had way too many people in, say, a one bedroom unit. But then that didn't help them when they had to go rent in today's market. So I really like that. We're looking at the fair market rate for rentals and it is pegged to the size of the unit and the unit, you know, can accommodate so many people . But I think that's very fair. We have moving expenses and I'm not saying leave these categories high and dry. I'm saying we can come in and do this relocation consultancy and and give people the help that they need. Because oftentimes and I know this from talking to tenants, you are thrown into a tailspin when you get that eviction notice, you have to, you know, figure out schooling for the kids and lots of things. And getting out and finding replacement housing is something that is, you know, one more challenge. So I see a Councilmember Vélez hand that tells me. Speaker 7: Bill So I guess I'll start with the temporary relocation. You know, regarding the boarding for pets, there are also weekly and monthly rates for that. And I think that's something we also need to look at are the weekly and monthly rates for pet boarding. They do exist and I also think that it shouldn't be limited just to cats and dogs because there are other types of pets that require boarding. So just to throw that out there regarding the relocation, I kind of want to frame it a different way. It's not really I don't see this as necessarily basis for one to discriminate about who to rent to. Mayor, as you noted, we have about a 2% vacancy rate, so there's not that many units that are open. I see this differentiation protecting those who are already housed because it's so hard for these individuals to find housing. We want to protect them so that a decision based on discriminatory basis is not made to evict them, to say, look, you're senior, therefore you're paying less, I'm going to evict you or you have a family and therefore there's more people in this unit and I can now evict you and then rent it to, you know, and then I can move in and then stay here for a couple of years and then put it back on the market. So I really see this differentiation as a way to keep those housed that are having the most trouble finding new housing, in effect, trying to prevent more folks who are over 60 to more folks who have minor children from actually being out there trying to compete for the 2% vacancy by keeping them in their units by and by basically disincentivizing. Choosing them to be the one to move. I also I know that and I had looked into relocation consultants and spoke with some folks down in L.A. I believe L.A. tried it and it did not work out so great there. There were a number of different issues, and I would also worry about the cost to the city. Who's going to bear the cost of the relocation consultant? What happens if there's some issue that comes up with the new place that the consultant finds? Are we now liable because that that housing fell through? There were a number of issues, I believe, that came up in L.A. and I think if that's something that we're considering, we really do need to talk to the folks who work through that issue down there. And personally, based off of what I found through the conversations that I had, I am not necessarily inclined to support that unless there's information to the contrary. I also think that we should be looking. I know that you're evidence based and data driven, and I think that we need to look for evidence that there has been this kind of impact where for because people get more in relocation, there is this kind of discrimination that happens. I know that Santa monica, Berkeley, L.A. all have this. And so perhaps if they have any evidence that it is actually happening, then that would be something that would would convince me that that maybe we shouldn't do this. But but right now, I guess my my sense is to lean towards trying to keep the folks housed by disincentivizing and creating that tier because it is harder for them and more costly in the end. Speaker 0: And just to respond to that. Your next vice mayor that I am also concerned with rehousing people. I mean, you know how much I'm working in the area of homelessness prevention. But my point is simply that I think there is more than one way to do something. And throwing money at a situation is not necessarily the solution. And I didn't consult with anyone in L.A., but I did consult with Mrs. Ms.. Potter, who has experience with those consultants here and that we've used them before. And as far as cost to the city, I you know, I think we could find funding in our rent program to pay for something like that when that happened, because I think it is important to keep people housed. Let's hear from the vice mayor. Speaker 3: So I'd like to ask a quick question. We have to exhibit a resolution for relocation because of the other changes that are being made. We need to also pass that tonight. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. In fact, the resolution is probably the last thing on the council's list. The council would have to adopt the ordinances first before getting to the resolution, but it would have to it once we passed the ordinances, not passing the relocation would leave us with actually no fee schedule. That's right. If the council chooses not to adopt the resolution at all, it would simply cause no relocation amounts to be adopted . You're not required to do it. It would just mean that there wouldn't be any relocation being apportioned to the extent that it existed. It occurred. Okay. So for me, I think, you know, I think this is an important conversation. I can I'm at the point where I can I can hear both arguments and think they're very valid. And I'm a little worried that, first off, we have a very long meeting. And second, that that this is something that we should be perhaps more thoughtful about in terms of determining both how we're dealing with the temporary relocation payments and the permanent relocation. And so I'd like to make a motion that that we approve the and we can do this in order. But that that that we approve the the urgency ordinance. We approve the the ordinance is written and then we approve the relocation payment schedule as as provided with direction to come back when the nonemergency comes back for the second reading with a with a a discussion on the relocation around both, you know, so we can get some more information about kind of councilmember and and you have both pointed to different and Councilmember Vela have all pointed to different points of information that we could talk about. Speaker 0: Perhaps Miss Potter will shed some light on. Speaker 9: Our timing that staff staff can do that. The problem is probably not when you come back on second read because the start we would have to complete all our research in two days and our staff report we. Speaker 2: Can do it. Speaker 5: So if anyone can. Speaker 3: Go back soon as possible. Speaker 0: You're not Wonder Woman for another. Speaker 9: Day. Because I think staff concurs that it would be important to have a fee schedule for relocation in place. And I would just say that we have not yet had a temporary relocation situation in the three plus years that the ordinance has been in place. So if we came back, for example, on October 1st, we would probably be okay and we would come back and we could come back. Then it sounds like we re revisiting the temporary relocation and we could do a little more on the augmented permanent relocation. Sounds like the issues at the council's. Speaker 3: Discussion on both yes. Both sides with some conversation of cities that have the augmented as proposed as well as perhaps some cities. Speaker 9: With your indulgence, October one versus October 16th. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: I think you can do that. Okay. That was Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: And also the cost of the alternative. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes. Right. Speaker 0: And did you get the also the the cost if if we were talking about using a relocation consultant, the cost and where those funds would come from. Speaker 3: As. Speaker 0: You made. Yeah. Speaker 9: So Michael was just reminded me that we are scheduled the rent program staff is scheduled to come back the second meeting in October with the annual report. So another option for us is to come back with a revised RESO for Council's consideration at the second meeting in October. Speaker 0: That's fine. And then. Speaker 9: We do. Speaker 2: It as a percentage. Speaker 3: By the by that meeting and that that can come back or something you. Speaker 9: Want. That would be perfect. Speaker 0: Okay. You're talking about all things housing. We could add that to it. Okay, good suggestion. I heard a motion. Did I hear? I hear a second. So all in favor of the. Yes. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor. Chair, I'd recommend that given that you have two different ordinances and a reso that you take three separate votes, you vote on the emergency ordinance, the introduction for the first reading and the rest. Speaker 0: Okay. Can you hold that? Well, we. Speaker 5: Can move to split the question. Speaker 0: Well, I mean, I think we can do what the city attorney we like to follow the city attorney's advice when every possible civil emergency. Yeah. So that's okay. Okay. This is on the emergency rezone ordinance. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I opposed the motion carries 4 to 1. Okay, next motion. Who's going to make that? Councilmember Vela. Speaker 7: I'll go ahead and move approval of the ordinance. Speaker 0: The regular non-emergency. Speaker 2: Ordinance. Speaker 7: Um, the non-emergency. Speaker 0: Urgency? Yeah. Okay. I have a motion, Duncan. Second. I have a second from the vice mayor. All in favor. I opposed. Oppose. Says that motion carries 4 to 1. Okay. Vice Mayor Knox. Wait. You had a motion to move. Speaker 3: Move? Approval of the relocation payment schedule as written with direction to staff to come back by the second meeting in October, with options for considering how to deal with the qualified tenant household column. Whether or not that's continuing as a as approved or some sort of relocation consultant or other options if you come up with them, as well as a revised language for the temporary relocation payment that allows for the well and I would say if possible Alameda based housing. I think if we can kind of specify that just because that way people aren't getting pushed to Concord for their temporary housing because it's cheaper but allowing a way for for direct payment, etc., is as discussed. Speaker 0: And just for clarification, I heard you say the move approval of the relocation payment schedule. It's actually a resolution we're voting on. So you mean to include the resolution? And with regard to that payment, the exhibit, a relocation payment schedule, what you said. Okay. So, yes. Okay. So, I mean, you were seconded, right? Speaker 6: Well, I will. Speaker 0: If you. Speaker 5: As you want. Speaker 0: To do. I have now. I was running the show. Yes. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. Okay. That when carries. 4 to 1, and we will look forward to having that item come back to us on the second meeting in October 17th of October, whatever. The 15th, maybe. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. Well done. And we move on. Excuse me to item six, the. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding. Speaker 0: You have acquainted your. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: Sorry, sorry. Speaker 2: Oh, OC. Speaker 6: Councilmember. Speaker 0: Can we just. There's a there's a break. Speaker 3: Are you going on? Speaker 2: Oh. Okay. What shall we do? Speaker 0: To the. Three. So do you want. Speaker 2: To write registration for a2000. Speaker 0: Rent registration form? A separate. Speaker 2: Okay, so make that motion. Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. So there you. Speaker 0: Go. Okay. Sorry, everybody. It's speakers and the audience who are leaving. Could you do so quietly? We're still in session here. Thank you for coming. Okay. Sorry, Miss Potter. Where did we go? Wrong hands. Speaker 5: Registration. Speaker 9: We had also requested that the council approve the registration statement. Thank you. Speaker 0: Which you said. Okay. I have a motion. Is that going all in favor? I oppose. Motion carries 4 to 1. Okay. And then we are just looking over. Okay. Before we go to item six D, do. Do you want us to take another item? Speaker 7: Is it possible to. The change to the agenda. I would like to. Speaker 0: Okay. So we go with infrared. Okay. So with I'm with your indulgence, we are actually going to hold item six D in abeyance. Councilmember Vela needs to go home and see a baby for just a little while. Bring him back with you. And and then we're going to take item six E and F and maybe keep going until she gets back. So we are then moving to item six E. Speaker 3: Can I make a motion course? Cause and I'd like to move. I came here with our rules require, but given that we're moving up on 1030 and 11, I'd like to just move that we will hear all items. Speaker 1: Including the referrals. Speaker 3: Including the referrals tonight, since we have people here to hear, hear them. Speaker 0: Um, I am willing to make a motion to go. I'm not past midnight, preferably to 1130, but I honestly think we can move through with some expediency. Others. Your thoughts? And of course, that's not been too long debating time because it passes. Speaker 5: I'll second that motion, but I also would like to get out of here by midnight. Speaker 3: My goal too. Speaker 0: Okay. So the motion is we will continue, but not past midnight. Okay. Motion is second. It's going to take four votes to pass it. All in favor, I. All four. Okay. Good for you. Okay. But that doesn't mean we have to go to midnight, right? Okay. All right. So next item up is 60. Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide direction to increase parking enforcement resources to support parking and transportation management goals. Speaker 6: Good evening. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Everybody speak into the microphone. We've been getting a good evening. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 6: How's that? Better. Okay. No. Now, here we go. Speaker 0: Talk loud. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Knox White, members of the council, Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department. And I'm here with Liz Acord from the Public Works Department. The two of us are two departments have been working on an initiative with your police department and your base reuse department to really look at the citywide parking management program and prepare for the future. This item, Liz and I are going to present this jointly. We're going to do this in 10 minutes or less. Really? Based after sitting through your last item, this one's much, much easier. We are just looking for a little direction here. This is it. We aren't looking for any final decisions tonight. This is, as I said, an effort that we have been undertaking for the last few months among the departments. And we've gotten to sort of a fork in the road. And we need you to point us which direction to head. Any any way you direct us is going to require us, hopefully not like this, to come back. This is not a conversation that ends tonight. We're just sort of checking in for a little direction finding. So this is about parking management and parking, specifically parking enforcement. Just real quickly, why do we why does this matter? The council knows this, but for the benefit of the public, who may just think this is about parking tickets, we need to manage our parking supply. It's so critically important citywide, it's imperative for our business community to manage the parking supply. So we keep that our keep our economic engine going. Park Street, Webster Street, Alameda Point. All these areas need us to manage parking. The council has actually adopted policies around the 85% parking parking occupancy goal as a way of managing that parking pricing it so that there's always a few spaces available. We need to do it to manage our traffic. Number one issue in Alameda, traffic congestion.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of Non-Urgency Ordinance: Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Adding Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers’ Decisions and Administrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently Suspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a Restated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8; Adoption of Resolution Establishing Relocation in Accordance with the City of Alameda's Rent Control Ordinance; and Recommendation to Approve the Content of the Rent Registration Statement. (Rent Stabilization Fund 265)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09032019_2019-7197

Speaker 0: I okay. That passed unanimously. Right. Okay. And there is a second council referral on providing direction. Uh, do you want to read that one out and. Speaker 1: Consider providing direction to staff on transportation priorities in advance of the action transport? Active transportation plan work. Maybe I can't read, but this is placed on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember. Speaker 5: So I'll quickly open and then pass it over to my colleague, the vice mayor. The impetus was to make sure, as we do, planning for transit priorities and these projects that we emphasize or re-emphasize as the case may be, that safety, pedestrian safety and especially bicycle safety is our primary focus. We're very concerned, and some of the activists in the bicycle community are concerned that, you know, we keep the bicycle safety foremost. You I started my public service grade 16 on the Bicycle Safety Council. This is a critical issue to me. So, you know, and streamlined processes and make sure that, you know, we can get these these issues addressed quickly and promptly. But we had the issue with the, you know, Atlantic Crossing and all that that just took eons. So I'm going to turn it over to the vice mayor to kind of go into a little more detail. Speaker 3: Sure. So thank you. I think also from my standpoint, it was important to just check in with the council because there are a lot of conversations happening around some of these issues and making sure that there's council buy in on on this. As mayor, as he Ashcraft knows, we've met with the Otis neighbors, two sets of them, to talk about their concerns about street safety and speeds. I met with the neighbors and Fern's side. There have been the neighbors on Sherman. A lot of neighborhoods are having concerns. And, you know, we talked during the transportation annual report about a lot of a lot of this. This was really just kind of coalescing kind of all the different things we've talked about for the most part over the last five months or so about creating a safety toolkit that was going to come back by the end of the year as part of the active transportation program. So kind of traffic calming tools that we can do. The idea here is not to give direction to write these policies, but to kind of just start fleshing out some ideas. So the idea of actionable toolkit, so not just a long list of things that people can start picking and choosing, because my experience and not just here is that everybody chooses the easy stuff and says, well, that's hard. And the hard stuff is often that's what we need. We I have heard from a number of groups about just kind of we need that. We need some sort of streamlined process. We right now, we have our groups ask for permission to talk to the staff. And then six or nine months later we meet and then they put together a 2 to 3 year plan. And three years into it, we've done the first two phases and phase three is so big and expansive and everybody's kind of forgotten about it, which is the inside plan. And those first two phases are usually things that everybody could probably guess are not the things that are going to make an impact. So let's go to phase three. Let's figure out a way to go cheap with paint and posts and things like that and start doing cheap but effective things as opposed to expensive flashing signs that don't change behavior the way again, staff can come back with how they how best to do that. The idea about the policies that we've talked about. So we've had conversations multiple times here about the lane widths, policies and whatnot for for reducing speed around the intersection. Access equity. The parking policy started tonight the Vision Zero policy. Councilmember Odie and I talked a little bit. I'm sorry. There are some. I would. I sent you the wrong version of this, but it is automatic automatic speed enforcement cameras. There are some things that are happening to the state right now. There are conversations that are happening between now and the end of the year that are not on our legislative agenda. So the idea of adding automatic speed enforcement, talking about 85th percentile speed reform, that the estuary bike agreement will be coming back on October 1st. There's a move right now which we talked about as a part of the carp, but rebates for e-bikes. Right now, we give eBay. For some reason we're only rebating cars. So there's a movement and some bills being worked in Sacramento around the idea of supporting and giving the same kind of support for electric bikes and then bringing back something that was going to come back within a year. And I think we're past a year now. But the E-bike and E-Scooter policy, which at this point in time so many cities have those, we should be able to just cut and paste from somewhere else, change the city name and and be there. And then the idea was to really try to bring back by next fall the active transportation plan to really kind of set this council's like expectation that that thing is on a on a fast track. So those are my. Speaker 0: Yeah. So with 7 minutes to go, does anyone want to comment further or perhaps make a motion or both? Speaker 7: So I'm going to make a motion. Speaker 0: To the microphone a little. Speaker 7: Bit. I'm going to make a motion to to do just that. But I also want to just comment that I think a lot of this is about the impact to existing neighborhoods as much as it is about making sure that the roads we're creating in our new developments adhere to these values and are doing, you know, the most forward thinking things possible to make sure that we are making it safe and accessible for our cyclists and pedestrians. So I think that there is a timeliness element to this, and I think that and I think my colleagues for bringing this forward. Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a motion who's going to second. Speaker 5: I will. Speaker 0: Seconded by Councilmember Ody all in favor I opposed abstain. Speaker 4: State for now. Speaker 0: Motion carries for to with when four in favor one abstention. Okay. So then we have council communications. I. Yeah.

Council Referral

Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Transportation Priorities in Advance of the Active Transportation Plan Work. (Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Oddie)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7045

Speaker 7: Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I am Liam Garland, a public works director here in the city of Alameda. And I'm really excited tonight about this draft action, alameda Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. This plan, we think from the state side, we think it's ready. Oh, it reflects a lot of what the community has shared with us and has many revisions since the draft that was shared publicly in May. But not only that, that's on top of a robust community engagement process that was started at the beginning of this plan . So if you look at this slide that gives you an overview of the process, you'll see that we had three community input sessions and in fact one of those sessions was really three meetings in different parts of the city. We had a task force from the beginning of the plan that was comprised of various stakeholders from the business community, from the environmental groups, from even some homeowner's association associations who might be affected by this plan. We also convened an interdepartmental team inside of city government called a Green Team and had Community Action for Sustainable Alameda participate on that green team. And finally, we've been working with regional agencies, our partner neighbors and climate experts, including consultants at the Eastern Research Group who've supported us through the process. And I think over the last 24 to 48 hours, you've seen some of those stakeholders weigh in on the plan. Now, staff think it's ready, but we're ready to hear whether that's true or not. And so the number one goal for tonight is to hear from the public and hear from the council about your thoughts about the plan. If the thoughts are mostly positive and there's not many changes to be made and those aren't significant, then we'll be back on September 2nd for the final action to adopt the plan. If the suggested revisions are major, well, then the timeline gets more uncertain and we go out into the later fall and or winter. Speaking of time, we don't have a ton tonight, so we've got a hard stop around seven given everything that's on the council docket. And we've got some public speakers tonight who I know want I want to share their comments. So the staff presentation is going to be really short tonight. The plan in one form or another has been out for a couple of months and we're keeping our presentation short. Let me just share two more comments. One is staff is already focused on implementation. If you look at the budget that City Council adopted recently that had more than $3 million in projects and programs consistent with the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. If you look at tonight's agenda, we've got a climate impact section of each of those staff reports. We've also got an item on consent for the beginning, the active transportation plan process on regular agenda. We've got there's the question of whether to take the next step to explore a new stormwater fee that could essentially help implement some measures related to sea level rise and climate change. So in tonight's agenda, you can see the Climate Action or resiliency plan in action. I do want to call out a couple groups and people right now, which is Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. They've been a part of this process from the beginning, not even the beginning of this, but the beginning of the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection back in 2008. They've been a key community partner throughout the process and deserve a ton of praise in terms of getting us to where we are tonight. In addition, Aaron Smith, who you're going to hear from in just a moment, and Patrick Pellegrini oday, they've helped turn this climate plan into something that I at least am really proud of. So I just want to thank them before I turn it over to Aaron for the remainder of the presentation. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Galan. I like that you're wearing a green blouse. I think that's symbolic of us in spirit. Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, members of the Council. It is great to be before you presenting Almeida's first Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. The presentation that you have in the meeting packet for this evening tells. Speaker 0: A young climate enthusiast. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 8: Very young tells the presentation, and the packet tonight tells an important and compelling story that culminates in the draft plan before you this evening. It conveys the challenges we face with an evolving climate. And ends with actions, specific actions the city can take to build resiliency in the face of sea level rise and other climate hazards. As Leon mentioned, tonight is about hearing from you, from other agencies and the public. And so with that, I will only tell a condensed version of that story, touching on key content of the plan that will set the stage for the discussion that will follow. So as Liam mentioned, the Climate Action Resiliency Plan is an update to our 28 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. However, now it's with an expanded and integrated approach that includes both greenhouse gas reduction and climate adaptation. This integrated approach is what the state calls almeida's climate safe path. Let me explain. The graph shown here in the right has a time on the horizontal axis and degrees of global warming on the vertical. The two different red and blue lines represent different greenhouse gas emission pathways. The red being a high emissions pathway or business as usual. No major global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The blue represents a lower emissions pathway. And what this demonstrates is the direct impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the degrees of warming, which are explicitly linked to the severity of sea level rise storms and other known climate hazards. Aluminum cases. The actions in this plan tonight directly reduce local almeida's greenhouse gas reductions. It's also intended to set example for other municipalities in the hopes of catalyzing change at the global scale, which, if successful, leads us on, or at least near that blue emissions pathway, since there's a lot of uncertainty in how this will unfold. To be climate safe today, we have to minimize risk from climate hazards that are shown on that high emissions pathway and and allow for an iterative planning process. And we coined this as adaptive management in the plan. What this allows is to plan for a worst case scenario today. But as time unfolds, emissions reduce. Predictive models refine. We are continuously modern monitoring and able to revise our adaptive approach. The carp, I'm going to call it the carp acronym. The Carp Vision and Goals captures the sentiment of climate safe planning, and it's the result of significant input and feedback from the community. And as you'll hear, the vision was modified for consistency with council's recent declaration of a climate emergency. Alameda will be an innovative leader in achieving net zero carbon emissions and community resilience as soon as possible and serve as an example that inspires similarly impacted cities to do the same. Our community members will be a vital part of this ongoing process. The Carp also identifies eight specific targeted goals one for greenhouse gas reduction, one for each of the climate hazards known that we know are in our future, and another for effective implementation and capacity building in regards to greenhouse gas reductions. We started this process with an emissions inventory that we used to be able to assess the progress in meeting the goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions 25% below 2005 levels. That target was set in 2008. We also conducted the emissions inventory to be able to set further looking and further reducing goals. The analysis did confirm a 23% reduction from 2005 levels in 2020, just shy of the stated goal. It's now time to look towards 2030 and the smokestack shown on the right in orange represents what Alameda is. Greenhouse gas emissions would be in 2030 under a business as usual scenario or no proactive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The smoke stack on the right, the upper half blue or really gray as shown here tonight. The upper half represents those needed 50% reductions. And the first notch, as you can see, there's kind of a lighter blue color that's reductions from actions already committed to. And this represents an enormous amount of work that still needs to be done. And that work is captured in the Transportation Choices Plan, the zero waste implementation plan, update, our urban forestry program, and AMP's continued delivery of zero or of clean or zero carbon power. But that's not enough. And as shown below the lighter blue notch, the 41,700, that is, additional emissions needed to reach a 50% reduction. And I failed to say that 50% reduction that we've set for 2030 is more aggressive than that set by the state. We have to acknowledge it's only a step towards carbon neutrality. So the additional actions that are noted in the gray section, that's where the Caap really puts its emphasis. Given AMP's delivery of clean up, clean power. Ah, excuse me. I'm sorry. Our emissions are predominantly from fossil fuel use in the transportation sector, as well as natural gas use in the building sector. For transportation, the plan focuses first on how we can get deeper cuts in vehicle miles traveled or further and encourage mode shift from that in the Transportation Choices plan. It secondly looks at how we can expand electric vehicle adoption and the charging station that needs to go with that in the building sector. The emphasis is primarily on getting rid of debt, reducing natural gas use. And there's two approaches. There's the existing building stock, and that means fuel switching. So switching appliances that currently use natural gas to those that are electric. And then, of course, doing any necessary upgrades to the electrical panel to be able to support that. It also means a commitment to all electric for new residential development. And it also these actions here. I don't want to. I definitely want to make mention that these, coupled with energy conservation and distributed rooftop solar, are certainly a pathway towards a more resilient Alameda sequestration, which is the drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere since some emissions will likely continue. Sequestration allows a means to reach that carbon neutrality and the carp commits on the sequestration front to expansions in our urban forestry program, as well as the application of compost as a soil amendment in our parks and open spaces while doing our part to set the globe on that lower emissions pathway. We are also planning to manage risk that is predicted under our current climate emergency. We already are experiencing climate change impacts here in Alameda. For those that have gone out at a king tide, you can see our shorelines, blooming periods of drought, poor air quality from wildfire. These are expected to get more frequent and more severe. Adapting and building resilience to climate change is essential for the long term health of the community. This planning process we looked at and characterized existing and future conditions for known climate hazards, and I'll read these here and they're noted on the slide, which is sea level rise and storm surge, extreme heat, inland flooding, and that's for more frequent and intense storms, wildfire fires, which for us is predominantly poor air quality drought and liquefaction. So groundwater rising can lead to an increased incident and impact from liquefaction. We took this characterization of existing and future conditions and conducted a vulnerability assessment to understand exposure as well as the adaptive capacity of the community and our built environment. And from that, we were able to target and develop strategies and actions at the asset and citywide scale as a low lying island city. Sea level rise in flooding is a very real and tangible risk. As such, the plan presents 11 priority locations or asset groups where a specific and deeper dove was done to understand the extent of flooding in impact and to develop site specific strategies. The plan then provides general strategies to build resilience by sector. These are more best management practices and aren't necessarily location specific, but they are to be integrated citywide and in an effort to build both the public and environment, build resiliency against climate change. So I'm going to get into those 11 locations to help organize the enormity of this analysis. We used a framework of prioritizing that which is impacted soonest and with greatest consequence. And so for Alameda. Significant shoreline overtopping is seen at 24 and 36 inches of sea level rise. This is a scenario that's expected mid to late century daily, but could occur today if a 50 year storm were to be experienced. So by targeting that impacted soonest and with greatest consequence, we're actually managing risk that's real and present today while allowing more time to unfold in the hopes that that global greenhouse gas emissions truck trajectory does shift down lower. So shown here in the 11 priority sites, the pink hatched polygons that you're seeing are areas that are are already being addressed in another plan. For instance, the Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan, as well as being addressed in new developments like those shown on the northern waterfront, the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. Did not set out to reinvent those plans, but rather incorporate the work that's already being done. I'm not going to read off just for the sake of time. That's a visual of where those 11 locations are. But I do think it's super important to mention here that climate change knows no borders and that Alameda can't and shouldn't solve this in a vacuum. So Doolittle Drive, shown as number eight on the right, presents a really good example. So we have Caltrans, the city of Oakland, the Port East Bay Regional Park District, and the city, among other agencies, very vested and have a vested interest in a multi benefit solution to the height of Doolittle, which at about 36 inches of sea level rise, becomes deficient in terms of flood protection. So it's essential that Alameda attracts the evolving landscape of local, state, county governance structures related to both mitigation and adaptation, and possibly seek leadership opportunities that may help shear steer the formation of those structures and policies to ensure an effective launch. The plan lays out specific, implementable, implementable actions for the first five years shown here is phase one, which covers the first two years, includes the hiring of a sustainability coordinator, reconvening of the green team that Leon mentioned, as well as the task force. Among the other items listed, the CAAP underscores the importance of monitoring and annual reporting, not only to evaluate the efficacy of the actions implemented, but to maintain, maintain transparency with the public, allow an opportunity for the Council to change and adjust course as needed, and of course to adapt to the changing conditions at year 2024. So about five years in, it is slated for an update to our greenhouse gas emissions as well as a more comprehensive update to the plan. And with that, that ends my very condensed version of the story, and I hope that you all had time to read the full story in your packet. Speaker 0: Thank you, Lisbeth. Very nice. And did you have more you want to add? Speaker 7: Only that we've got about eight public speakers just to help in terms of the management of topics. Speaker 0: So I was going to find out first if we had any clarifying questions that the council wanted to ask before we launched into our public speakers. Anybody want to ask clarifying questions? Yeah. Councilmember Daisuke. Speaker 5: So one of the biggest, you know, communications that I've got from a variety of people through a variety of sources, has been about the congestion pricing, particularly the tolls through the through the Webster tube, posi tube. Now, my reading of the materials, I didn't see it related to any policy strategies or actions, although I saw it within the text, referenced within the text or referenced within. I forgot what the term was, key items or something like that at the end. So what? So is it correct to say that it's not part of policy strategies or actions that are part. Speaker 2: Of the both? Speaker 7: Sure, there's two answers to that. One is in the projection of where we would be in 2030 if the measures that we've laid out to get to our 50% cut goal congestion pricing is not one of the measures that's required to get to that 50% cut. However, given Almeida's vision is to get to or proposed division is to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. And the context of that, then what the COP suggests is to continue the discussion of congestion pricing because there are significant greenhouse gas reduction benefits through such a strategy. Does that make sense? And I guess or let me say, David, does that answer the question? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Anyone else? Anything else? Councilmember O.D.. I'm trying to read your expression. Speaker 9: Yeah, I wanted to be quick. Just last quick question. Speaker 0: For Mr. Garland. Yeah. Speaker 9: So on the staff report you listed, you know, the adaptation and the different asset categories and referenced the table and carp. So these were some of the the areas that needed work. So the veterans card, we've funded that in the last budget or in this upcoming budget, right? Speaker 8: Yes. Veteran's Court. So again, for each of the 11 locations, there's near mid and long term strategies that are presented. So that which was funded or partially funded is the near term, which is the raising of the road at Veterans Court. Speaker 9: Okay. And then I'm not going to get ahead of ourselves, but we have the storm. Speaker 8: And then tonight before you was funding of which is another. One of the 11 items is funding of the storm capacity upgrades. Speaker 9: Okay. So we're, you know, again, not getting ahead of ourselves, but we've already started. Speaker 8: Yes. Speaker 9: On at least two of the yes priority areas. Okay. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. We're ready to a comment. Okay. So we have eight speakers. So that means 2 minutes apiece? Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. So when you hear your name called because they didn't close in, call a few at a time, just be ready to scoot out to the aisle and we'll keep things moving along. Speaker 1: Okay. So the first three are. Mia Ketterer, Kelly Malinowski, Pat Potter. Speaker 3: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. I am a caterer from Stop Waste. We are the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, Source Reduction, Recycling Board and Energy Council. We have programs that align with the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, and our board's recently adopted priorities that specifically focus on climate protection. We've been helping Alameda County jurisdictions with Climate Action Planning since 2008 and have been reviewing the recent updates of plans. So our perspective is informed by that, and we want to commend you for reaching this point. If anything, we've seen the climate action planning process is not easy or simple. So thank you for your leadership. You are one of the first cities in Alameda County to get to the post 2020 Climate Action Action Planning Outcomes. We support your 50% reduction target for 2030. It is in alignment with other Alameda County jurisdictions and is in the more ambitious half of those jurisdictions. We applaud the inclusion specifically of consumption based emissions, which really are all of the global emissions related to the things that we consume from our Waste Management Authority perspective. This is really important and it also empowers residents to do more to affect climate change globally. It also promises more accessible and equitable solutions than many of the traditional climate action strategies. We also support key strategies that are in the Climate Action Plan and Resiliency Plan that align with our board priorities, specifically each one electrifying existing buildings. That is a critical piece to reaching deep decarbonization in the building sector and aligns with our Energy Council priorities and S-1 sequestration, which uses compost in the most climate beneficial way. So again, we thank you. And we we look forward to working with you and supporting you in the implementation of this ambitious plan. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Next is Kelly and then Pat Potter and then Damien Mason. Hey, wait until you're ready. Good evening, Madam Chair. And members of the board. My name is Kalman Koski. I'm from the California State Coastal Conservancy, non regulatory grantmaking state agency. Climate change is already having significant and widespread impacts on California's economy and environment, and local governments have an important role to play to reduce emissions. And you're also at the forefront of efforts to adapt to the ongoing anticipated effects of climate change. In 2007, we incorporated our climate change considerations into our strategic planning. 2009 we adopted a policy. 2012 The Governor empowered us with specific legislation to plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate. And that's when we launched our climate ready program. We have since funded 57 climate projects across the state to the tune of 10.7 million. But we like to say we've been doing adaptation since the seventies with wetland restoration and the San Francisco Bay. We have studied and supported this countywide sea level rise assessments from Marin County, San Mateo County. We worked with Alameda County. We've done assessments that Crissy Field, SFO, and most recently we've enjoyed working with Liam and Patrick and our staff in the city of Alameda to review and provide input and the caap and and most jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay have just done seal rise vulnerability assessments and they're kind of transitioning to look at other hazards, transitioning to look at adaptation strategies. So in this way, the city of Alameda is in a leader. You guys are kind of ahead of the game, including those 11 priority areas for sea level rise and including specific adaptation strategies. You guys are really leading the charge, so congratulations. Thank you so much for being so forward thinking and innovative and we really appreciate you guys kind of taking the lead in the region and we're looking forward to working together with you to implement these strategies. As we are a natural resources agency, we always have a preference for the nature based green staff. But here to support you as a partner. And thank you so much for your leadership. Speaker 0: Thank you so much for coming. And while there is a lot to commend in what we're hearing, we do have this rule that we don't do applause or any other sort of interruptions, just keep things moving along. So I know it's tempting. So, Pat Potter. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 3: Bicycling and walking are the only forms of transportation that do not pollute. And so I feel it is important to emphasize these forms of transportation in the pursuit of our emissions reduction goals. Carp strategy to convert drivers from fossil fueled cars to electric cars, resulting in 12% of Alameda in driving EVs in ten years. Our real goal should be to get 40% more Alameda biking and walking. To do this, start with replicating Karp's Electric Vehicle Promotion Campaign found on page 30. Implement communications and outreach activities to promote the acquisition of bicycles. Promote a retail price rebate for each new bicycle offered. Discounts at shops and restaurants for people who ride their bikes to them. There are 10,000 kilometers who cannot drive a car but who can bike and walk. We should be supporting those people by providing safe, protected bike lanes throughout the island and by helping them develop good biking skills. If we do, by the time we reach our targeted emission reduction goal in ten years, these alamy and the ones who come after them will more likely ride a bike around the island than want to buy an electric car. What else will get 40% of all means on to bikes? Adequately fund bike racks in all locations where people gather. Promote shared vehicle programs for bikes. Electric bikes and electric scooters. Transform some car parking spaces into bike and scooter parking spaces. Prioritize building the bicycle pedestrian bridge across the street where between West Alameda and Oakland, where there is a glaring gap in the bike network. In order to accomplish what Karp is setting out. We need to look through the lens of a city like Amsterdam, where 58% of the population over 12 rides a bicycle. I thought I had 3 minutes. I had it down. Speaker 0: And you did? You did well, but I'll. Speaker 3: Mail it to you. Okay? Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 0: Oh, there is more. Speaker 1: Okay. We have Damian Mason, Elizabeth Green, then William Smith. Speaker 2: Good evening, council and members of city staff. I'm Damian Mason, Almaty, native member of Community Action for Sustainable Alameda and co-founder of the Climate Restoration Circle of San Francisco Bay. I want to thank everyone who's worked so hard on this plan and encouraged City Council to adopt and implement it. We must imagine, embrace and build new pathways to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. In so doing, will help to grow a better future for us all. Alameda imparts almost everything off island. This is a quote from the executive summary. And our consumption based emissions from the goods and services we buy are much higher per person than our production based emissions. This means consumption based emissions create one of the best opportunities for Alameda to make a difference in our carbon footprint. One key to this is local production and local consumption, starting with our food. This would be a big step to reduce our city's consumption based carbon footprint toward our new climate emergency goal of zero emissions. Repair, reuse and buying local durable goods are good steps. But I find reducing food waste feeding our kitchen my kitchen scraps to my worm bin. Folks that have built compost bins, chicken coops, beehives planted fruit trees and raised beds for organic gardening are some of the most exciting ways we can all make a big impact. The city of Alameda can boost these efforts by turning all of our public parks and city open spaces into maximum carbon sinks with pulse grazing livestock instead of gas mowers and leaf blowers. We can integrate regenerative garden living soil labs into all of our K-through-12 schools. We can integrate regenerative oh, sorry. We can plant a ten or more acres of food forest along the Cross Alameda Trail, currently in construction or at the College of Alameda and install climate victory community gardens with surplus food so much. Speaker 0: That's great. Speaker 1: Elizabeth. You can give it to the Smith and Mark Perlin. Speaker 3: Good evening. Yes, my name is Elizabeth Green. I'm an architectural historian, retired from the state of California. I submitted this comment online in May. But I regarding this issue that I'll talk about in the Karp Report, but I haven't seen it addressed online in any of the comments or documents. So I want to draw your attention to a problem that's hidden in the fine print of Chapter three, page 36. Table three, dash six. It's called new GHG emissions reduction actions for energy use in the building sector. It has a supplemental actions box at the bottom of the table and in the supplemental actions box. The second bulleted item reads Draft Zoning Code Amendment to facilitate facility reduction in energy use by exempting energy efficient windows and doors from the design review process. I can find no explanation or justification for this action in the report. The proposal to exempt energy efficient Windows and doors from Design Review is inconsistent with Alamitos Municipal Code. This long standing city policy already allows exemption from design review for windows and doors, not on a front or street side elevation, which don't alter the character defining features of the building and which are a good visual match for the original item being replaced. However, to completely exempt all energy efficient windows and doors from any design review could result in alterations which would damage the architectural integrity of almeida's beloved historic buildings and neighborhoods. Furthermore, energy efficient windows and doors are readily available on the market in dimensions, proportions, details and styles that are compatible with the original styles of Almeida's historic buildings. So that compliance with design review is within reach of homeowners. Title 24 already requires that Windows and doors be an energy efficient. It's difficult to comprehend the reason for this action. Speaker 0: Thank you so. Speaker 3: Much. I also request that you revise the mitigations subject. Speaker 10: I don't know. I don't know. Mayor Ashcraft and members of the council and staff. I'm William Smith, speaking to you tonight on behalf of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club commends you and the city of Alamitos Green Working Team, Task Force and Staff for producing a comprehensive and innovative Climate Action and Resiliency Plan Corp. to build a climate safe path for the City of Alameda. We also commend the Alameda community for strong engagement in development of the plan. We urge you to approve the Climate Action Resiliency Plan, see and enthusiastically support the timely implementation. The CAAP is a state of the art plan that includes many innovative, impactful and equitable actions that are important for the future of Alameda and set a high bar for other communities to emulate. We strongly support the consideration for equity and vulnerable populations expressed throughout the plan. In particular, an overarching commitment to social equity as a guiding principle. And including anti displacement as a key change. Key climate change land use principle la carte proposes numerous actions to implement the above elements that will benefit vulnerable populations with respect to addressing the future flooding in Alameda. If natural adaptation and other actions recommended in the caap prove inadequate, we respectfully suggest that Alameda also consider relocating structures and or abandonment of development through strategies commonly referred to as managed retreat. These strategies support a redevelopment pattern and realignment of development along coasts. So natural erosion and other coastal processes, including beach formation and habitat formation, can continue. The Sierra Club is committed to helping the city of Alameda build on this leading position and looks forward to supporting implementation in the coming years. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Mark Perlin and Ruth Abbe. Speaker 2: Good. Late afternoon, everyone. My name is Mark Furlan. I'm representing the climate restoration circle. Thank you there. And Aaron Smith used the term mode shift. And as a alum of Alameda High, which I represent on my t shirt and like Damien mason, Amelia Earhart, there needs to be a mode shift. And yeah, I'm in support of the plan. But yeah, there's a site known as Doolittle Drive in the name of Jimmy Doolittle, which I always felt was really ironic because Jimmy Doolittle did so much. And that's kind of the mode shift connection I want to make between what's taken place here. Tolls on the Webster Tube Bridge. We get our tunnel. We need to think about really mode shifting and doing something more proactive instead of monetizing, you know, the the what's going on here. It's that Alameda is in a unique position. We have a lot to be fortunate for and we need to ask more of all of y'all. I'd like to see all tape and notes at these meetings. I take notes when I speak and about topics involving the climate because I'm so fiercely passionate about implementation. So I'll leave you with two points of implementation. Every parking lot in Alameda that has ten or more spots must have electric vehicle charging. So LNG needs to go. Electric vehicles need to come in. They don't have to be infrastructure connected. You can be off grid and I'll yield the rest of my time to the board who I'm sure would like to speak more. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Okay. I mean, you do have 30 more seconds, but as you wish. Speaker 2: Are there any urgent questions? Speaker 0: This is actually public speaking as opposed to Q&A, but thank you from a fellow Hornet. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. And then that would be Ruth. Abby next. Speaker 3: Uh, good evening, Ruth. Abby from Community Action for Sustainable Alameda CASA was actually formed as a partnership with the city and the community to put the community action into the city's climate goals. And for the last ten years, we've been a partner with the city Alameda Municipal Power and Alameda Unified School District in implementing the goals of the city's Climate Action Plan. We have been very closely involved with the city. In the end, the development of the new Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, and we wholeheartedly recommend adoption of this plan. In activist circles, we. Speaker 1: Say that we are always satisfied, always happy, never satisfied. We are very happy with this plan. We are not satisfied. Speaker 3: But that's because there will be more planning coming up. There will be an annual process for updating of the plan and to reach the goals of the city's climate emergency declaration. Very specifically, there will be a climate, there will be an active transportation plan that's on your agenda tonight, which we're extremely. Speaker 1: Excited about and we are. Speaker 3: Very excited about the update to the city's street tree plan, which we believe should be a urban forestry plan. So we will be partners with the city in the development of those plans and work closely with you and your staff in the development of those plans. We wholeheartedly recommend moving forward with this plan. It is very comprehensive, excellent, groundbreaking, new, and you should be very proud of your city, your staff and your community for getting behind these initiatives. Speaker 0: Thank you. Then you speakers are doing a great job. Do we. Speaker 1: Have them? Speaker 0: And that was our last speaker. Okay. Well, I'm going to open it up for a council discussion, but I just want to start by saying a huge thank you, especially to you pioneers. Ruth Abby, who just spoke, was one of them for years. And I don't see Debbie Ryan in the audience, but we do allow people to take vacations in the summer. But we really are a better city and able to make the kind of progress we're making because we have some excellent, dedicated staff, but we also have some amazingly talented, impressive members of the community who all just spoke . And I'm just always so grateful that you take your time to attend these meetings, organize events. I if I'm ever leaving my office late on the evening that Cossa meets, I look into the room and you've got, you know, 25 people around that table and I mean month after month and this has been going on for years . So thank you all for helping make us a better, more resilient city. So with that, who would like to start off with comments? Um, is it, is, is the baby at a good place where you want to speak or you want to not disturb him? Okay, you wait. Let's start. Okay. So, Councilman Brody. Speaker 9: Thanks. I'll start then. First of all, I want to echo the mayor's comments she just made and give a great debt of thanks and appreciation to everyone who worked so hard on this. I would have to agree with with Liam in your opening remarks. It's rare to give one minus suggestion, but I'll get to that. You know, also give a shout out to COSLA for all their work. And they were the impetus, if I remember correctly, for actually accelerating this. We had had this on our plan to do I think starting now. And thanks to referral by my former colleague Mr. Matarese and CASA's leadership, we were able to get this done early and you know, it's really not early because, you know, we're on the front lines of climate change, so it's kind of late, but you know, it's early according to the plan. So, you know, the one overarching comment I would want to say is, you know, let's not make let's make sure we don't put this on the shelf and let it sit like other plans we've done. So we need to implement this and we and we need to prioritize it. So funding is always going to be an issue for me. So I'm particularly curious on the different ways that we can find to fund this, and I really appreciate it has, as Mr. Smith mentioned, you know, the equity component that's running throughout throughout the Climate Action Plan. So I really appreciated that because that's a priority of mine. So just going through really quickly, you know, on the greenhouse gas thing, I mean, the composting, I don't know if anyone many people have heard of the the Marin Carbon Project and I saw Mia there. You know, I'm on the subway support and we're really proud and excited about about what benefits come from composting on a large scale. I mean, just mind boggling the benefits that that, you know, major composting has. And, you know, we look at our parks and all of them are grass. And so maybe it's time we start thinking about doing other ways of parks, you know, composting and things like that. When we talk about electronic vehicles, you know, I think Pat Potter made made the point, you know, it's not just changing to electric vehicles. We actually have to reduce the amount of cars on our street. So I think that was the the goal of our transportation plan. You know, one, reducing trips, you know, in to reducing emissions. So let's not lose sight of the the reducing trips. So whether it's doing things for bicycles or finding ways to incentivize people to get out of their cars, I think that's something we need to make sure we prioritize. You know, buildings are probably the biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions. So Berkeley just did their, you know, all new construction is electric. So I think that's that's something good that we need to we need to think about. On adapting. Oh, also, you know, a lot of times when we have plans and, you know, we focus on parking. So if you build parking, people are going to drive. If you don't build parking, people are going to find other ways to get there. So I think we need to deemphasize parking, you know, when we we put together these these major projects and these plans. So that's something I think I've mentioned before. So on adapting like I ask the question and thanks Heron for asking. You know, some of these projects are underway. The Veterans Court, you know hopefully will do make a decision on the storm storm water situation today. We have an infrastructure bond which I'm sure will come back. I've said all along, I think that the entire infrastructure bond should be devoted to sea level rise because we're really going to have a hard time finding a way to pay for it. And, you know, to me, it's more important that we deal with this issue than some of the other things that that we've talked about in the infrastructure cost, the funding plan, this climate fund. I'm interested to learn more about the Climate Fund proposal that was in there. And my one thing I would add, and I've kind of been harping on this for five years, you know, wetlands mitigation bank, I mean, that's a way to restore wetlands and at the same time generate revenue that we can use to pay for some of these these projects. So I know we put that in our toolbox not to look at it and, you know, not not to not to implement it, but just to keep it there. I think we need to move it more to the forefront, especially, you know, seeing the cost that we have. And then on the implementation, again, you know, let's not put it on the shelf and let it sit there. We need to work on that. And our council, I think, took a great step under the vice mayor's leadership to declare a climate emergency. So I think it's incumbent on all of us to make sure that we do keep this front and center and that we do focus on this. We don't let it sit on the shelf. And it's up to you to hold us accountable and make sure that we do so. Thanks very much for everyone in the community and on staff for all their hard work. Speaker 2: Oh, sure. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brody, Councilman de SAG. Speaker 5: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the effort put towards this. What I like most, especially about the Climate Action Plan before us, is the section having to do with building resilience, dealing with the particularly the goals having to deal with a sea level rise and the flood flooding, inland flooding. Also the different goals having to do with the excessive. Things like that. What I am concerned about, though, is the part the part on the GHG emissions, particularly as it relates to the tolls and also as it relates to basically undoing Measure A, which the people of Alameda had put together with regard to the tolls. If the if the intention of the tolls on on Webster the posi tube is to encourage people to do electric vehicles. It seems to me that several trends are emerging and they're emerging faster than we think. And the trains have to do with more people taking either electric vehicles, more people not owning cars anymore. And so more people ride, share, car sharing. So the notion of having to do a tolls in order to do to negatively affect behavior, I think that's pretty heavy handed on the part of City Hall, quite frankly. So I don't support tolls. I don't support the congestion pricing. And I'm very concerned about the effort to undermine Measure A if you're going to undermine measure, then you need to be clear what measure is what the history of it is, how it's been protecting our neighborhoods. And you can't just, you know, use this this emergency in order to undo it. You can certainly encourage, if you howsoever you want, encourage it. But you have to give a full picture of what Measure A is all about. So I and I didn't see that full picture when, when it came to the discussion on the GST discussion. So I like the part about the building resilience. I'm very concerned about the part about GHG emissions, particularly as it relates to the tolls and as it relates to Measure A, I think the point raised by the resident Elizabeth Green is an important point. There are historic buildings that you can't just, you know, willy nilly decide to put the wrong kind of windows and change the rules to to facilitate that. I think we have to respect the fact that we have an architectural history in the city of Alameda. At the end of the day, this, after all, is still the city of homes and beaches. So so I have problems with one part. I like the other part. Speaker 0: And if I may ask, just by way of discussion, can you count some everyday? So help us understand what you mean by this attempt to undermine misery using the climate emergency. Speaker 3: Yeah, it's right here. Speaker 5: These talks about. Building more. On land on chapter three, page 32, we talked about creating higher and higher density, the need to change zoning to allow it's right there at the first bullet point changed zoning to allow more multi-family use. Also we found loose if you want to if you want to do that, then you have to be explicit. All I'm saying is be explicit and talk about that. You have to undo a measure. You have to undo the the number of units that are allowed on on a parcel. And you also have to undo measure as a result, as it relates to accessory dwelling units, you can't just you know, and I think that that this needs to speak. If you're going to if you want to undo measure eight, then you need to talk about it in a clear way so that the people know and they can make their decision based on eyes wide open. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor, ready to go next? Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 6: Thank you. So I'd like to start by giving my strong appreciation to our staff for when I was glad to hear from one of our not partners, but somebody who's been working with you calling me innovative and forward thinking and probably one of the most forward thinking plans in the Bay Area. I agree. I was proud to tell some people I work with about it the other day and they were all quite impressed with the work that you guys have all done. And it ultimately we have a fantastic community and whatever else but that the city team that has worked hard to put together this document really deserves a lot of credit. So I want to make sure that that's very clear. I'll tell the story. I think I may have told it here before when I was on the planning board and the first ship that Liam was asked to bring forward for approval came forward after he became acting public works director came forward and had a climate action section in it. And in that in that document, it literally stated that the city's climate policy was that this is a regional issue. There's nothing the city can do about it. And so we're not going to do anything. I called them and I was like, Hey, this seems a little funny. We live in a region we need to plug in, we need to do some things. And he said, You know, I missed that. Somebody else wrote this document before I became the acting public works director and literally changed it right there. And by the time we got to the planning board a week later, that had been erased. And I think it was a change in direction for the city that really let this here. I want to be clear, the change is staff's willingness to engage and understand this issue and actually see it as something that was important, needed to be spent time and fine to grant funding to do so much appreciation. I mean, unless I hear some significant changes being proposed in this document tonight, I almost wonder why we wouldn't be approving this rather than just giving comments and asking for it to come back in September. I have a couple of comments. I think they can be addressed even after approval. I would like to see the Climate Emergency Declaration added to this document. I think when we approve the climate declaration, we actually approved it with the idea that it was supposed to be more or less the preamble to this document, setting up the the overall, why are we doing this? And so that was kind of the commitment we made to the community as well. How are we doing this? How does it all fit in? Don't worry, this will be the preamble to that document. So I'd like to see that right at the beginning before after the acknowledgments is fine. I think we can be a little clearer in the document. Again, these are just small changes. But regarding the timeline for 36 inches of sea level rise, our city address addresses sea level rise in a lot of different places with a lot of different numbers. And so the timeframe really matters. And at least in the version which I read, the original public version, the revised version. So if it if it did get changed, I apologize. I didn't see it. It was not it never said actually 36 inches of sea level rise by such and such a date just kept using 36. And I think we should be clear about that. I really appreciate it. So this is going to be a multipronged point, but I really appreciate all the language in this that does address the importance of mode shift and the kind of prioritizing of mode shift over electrification of our transportation system. It says that electrification is important and we have to do it to get there. But that I mean, you know, CARB, the state already recognizes that we're going to need to see a 15 to 25% reduction in VMT in order to meet our climate goals over and above electrification for electrification of the transportation system. And so I think that's really important. One place and I've raised this with staff, there are some staffing costs in here that identify about four FTE is towards electrifying our vehicles, incentivizing, building the infrastructure, etc. for EVs. I'm not arguing with that. But to the point that one of our speakers made earlier, I think there was an assumption that the transportation choices plan kind of dealt with that in its other place. If the idea is that the Transportation Choices plan actually identifies new positions to make sure that we are going above and beyond the work that our current staff can do, I think we and I'm pretty confident it doesn't and I see Andrew Thomas's head shaking. I do think we need to think about whether or not we are being actually as aggressive, if we are not staffing up our transportation team to match the work that needs to be done, whether or not we're being as aggressive actually in intention with. The multi-modal work. I understand that that this is this is I really appreciate the hey, it's going to take staff to do this work and this is how much and that was the intent it wasn't day you know, just hire these four people and we're done. But I would like to see somewhere where instead of it's saying not applicable to the transportation choices stuff in here related to staffing that it might actually identify the staffing we need to really get the work done. I really I'm excited about the groundwater study. I actually feel like that's another thing that we are we need to do but is going to be groundbreaking and also really important in helping us think about how we mitigate long term. And I really want to I want to appreciate that it's in there. Just make sure that it's something that comes forward pretty, pretty quick and pretty soon because it could change the way that we're thinking about long term mitigation. Great point about the drought and its connections through East Bay mud to our water use and etc.. I would like to see if we can sometime along the next six months or whatever else, talk about some policy encouragement that the Council could send to East Bay mud whereby their pricing is better, incentivizing reduction of reduced water and not overly supporting east of the hills water users who use 2 to 3 times as much water and pay very little for the extra water they're using that here. It's a very difficult policy balance. I'm not saying it's easy and we may not be able to find that, but I'd like to see if there's a way for us to include that. I'd like to I just wanted to kind of acknowledge the maps are really useful and helpful. You know, we get asked or I get asked at least a lot why are we creating development in places that are very likely to be some of the first places submerged in the problem are not the problem. But the fact of the matter is, is that on the other side of those developments that are typically houses that are not currently protected are also going to be submerged. And if we develop correctly and provide the mitigations necessary, we are actually not just mitigating for new development, but we're using that new development to incentivize and finance the protections for those existing residents in a way that the city would have to pay for if we aren't doing that. And I think the maps really help with that comment. I, I had a different take on the housing actions section. I appreciate that it says we should consider things. I don't think it says we should just ignore the charter, etc.. I'd like to see a policy though. I think it does a great job of talking about the importance of land use and housing as it relates to climate. I would like to see us add a policy that says that, you know, we should adopt a new general plan amendment as it relates to land use and zoning obviously will go through our planning board, etc.. Two other quick places I there are a number of places in which there is talk about rezoning property or creating tidelands neighborhoods, etc., where we are literally starting to talk about very small sections of the island whereby people who own and live in that housing may be asked to either give it up or change the nature of the housing. And I just want to be careful that we don't get too far where we start impacting the property values of the land that is owned by those people without having really engaged them in a conversation about what it's going to take to protect that value and also give them an opportunity to participate in the discussion because it's real and that devaluing is going to come if we don't do something. But I just want to be you know, I think the plan walks carefully, but I think that now that it's starting to put these things in actions, we need to start engaging those people really, really soon about kind of what does this all mean as we start moving forward in time? I'm out of time, so I'll stop there. But I'm happy to support this if somebody makes that motion. Speaker 0: Okay. But we have another councilmember and another councilmember in the mayor to briefly speak. I mean, I'm going to speak before you may speak as long as you want it, Councilmember Bella. Speaker 11: So thank you again, everyone who worked on this. I think that this was a tremendous undertaking and it shows that when we work together we get great work product. So a few comments in addition to the note about updating our fleet and electrifying it, I would also like some sort of notation or look at fleet reduction where possible. I think that it's not enough just to electrify, but I think we also need to really revisit how much of our fleet is necessary. And that's something that I think would be a cost savings, but also potentially a benefit, obviously, to the environment with regards to the traffic signals. Translation, if we could indicate I'm assuming that these and I think we've we've spoken about this these are Alameda traffic signals. But if if there's a possibility of also and I know we have continued to talk to Oakland about their signals but that that also be a part of this and that we note that there because I think it's important we have to work with them too. And there's significant issues with some of their signals. First and last mile modes of transit. I know we're still unfortunately lime bike is now just lime scooter. That said, I think having those connectors where AC transit and the ferry to connect those to where we have gaps and to give an update on that and to note that in here, I think that's important. I don't know what we're doing. I know we have staff working on it, but I think including that in this is would be helpful in terms of where we're at. And then if I could just suggest that we add an appendix and that would be and to update this, this is a living document as much as it is a kind of it's a starting point, really. But to add an appendix every year when we do our budgets and when we revisit the mid-year budget cycle to include our expenditures to date towards this plan, and I know that we've been noting it, but I think adding it to this actual document will help keep us accountable as well as give us an accounting and the community and accounting in terms of seeing what portions of this plan we've moved on, where we made those expenditures, what funds we got them from. And I think that that's just a helpful kind of year to year feedback that we can be looking at both staff and council as well as the public. But I'm ready to support this tonight. And I know that, you know, there's there's different provisions in there that that might read differently. I think our intent, at least, has really been to move forward on this and to streamline different policies and procedures within the city so that we can actually be effective at achieving these goals. So thank you very much. And I'm ready to support this tonight. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I don't want to stand in the way, but very briefly, again, thank you to all the participants. And I was thinking back in the early days of CASA. It's hard to believe now, but in the Alameda Unified School District, our schools didn't even have recycling bins and receptacles where the students and faculty and staff could sort their their trash and and cancer came in. I think the city helped and communicated with the school district. And now the kids are some of our strongest advocates. I don't think you have to look very far back in time to see that climate change is real. I mean, if you've been following the news out of Louisiana and New Orleans and some of the other cities in the last week, that they're both undergoing heavy rains and some flooding and just unusual amounts of rain that have are saturating the the groundwater, the water table. There was just a report that came out today that Northern California by mid-century and we're almost at 2020, but my mid-century, our climates will be our temperatures will be sometimes ten degrees higher for months at a time because of climate change. And so climate is changing and we have to change to and I, I understand Councilmember de your sensitivity about measuring. I'm also mindful that there is a charter revision subcommittee that you're a member of. And, you know, maybe it is something that that comes back to the to the voters because we can't presume to keep doing business as usual. Well, there was even a there's even a chart that shows us what the business as usual model looks like. And it's it's it's frightening. So I think we all have to do some mode shifting. But so with that, I, I love everything about this and I'm also very proud of our city staff and our, our community partners for all the accolades that you got for this plan. Now, help me understand, we are asked to schedule final climate action for this for September three. Is there is there a reading is a reason that we have to wait that long. Speaker 7: Essentially, there's some sequence noticing that we can do between now and then, September 3rd, which will enable adoption to be possible on September 3rd. Speaker 0: All right. Well, does someone want to make that motion to bring the let's see how to state it. But are you just chomping at the bit there? I can sense that. Okay. So do you. So we're here. I'm here to hold a preliminary public hearing. We have held on this plan. This draft plan in depth. Speaker 1: Draft. Speaker 0: Mitigated negative declarations, schedule the final council action for September 3rd, which like to make a motion to that effect. Mr. Vice. Speaker 1: Mayor. Speaker 6: Yes, with. With the. Edition of the comments that were made tonight. Speaker 0: And also the city manager recommendations. Do you have those bullets up in front of you? The okay. The city manager seeks the city council input of any possible changes. We've done that and then work on first year milestones and work on elements of climate change outlined in the adopted budget. So that would all be rolled into your motion, would it? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Great. Do we have a second? Speaker 9: Second? Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I any oppose. Speaker 2: Oppose. Speaker 0: One opposed. Any abstentions. All right. This item carries 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. Okay, now we are going to move quickly on. We're still within our time frame. We have one more item item to be in, I believe our city attorney, even Chen is presenting that. Speaker 12: A very short staff report, Carol, mayor and council. This item seeks authorization from the Council for the City Attorney's Office to sign on to amicus briefs that are requested of the city. Those briefs come at irregular times with very limited free notice, which makes it difficult for our office to seek specific council authorization in the two meeting timeframe. So what we're proposing tonight is that Council authorize our office to sign on whenever doing so would be consistent with an official position that the Council has already taken. If that is not possible, we will still seek to bring all items that do not fall into that category to the Council and close session for discussion. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chan. I understand we have one public speaker on this item. Speaker 1: We do. It's former Mayor Spencer. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this evening. Council Staff. I wanted to as much as this proposal may seem like it's not a big deal, I think it actually is a big deal. I think it gives a lot of power to the city attorney's office that we as a council in the past may not have supported every the wording of a policy that we already adopted. And if you looked at the example, it spoke to Airbnb and that it falls under the policy of wanting local control. So as long so that was the policy, this council has not made any decisions on Airbnb. However, yes, we usually support local control. However, we don't always and I'm going to bring your attention to SB 649 when that came to us. As much as the league had wanted us to support local control, and I think as a majority we did in regards to not having the state determine where the cell phone antennas could be. We did have, I believe, at least one council member that either abstained or opposed that issue when it came to us, so that the policy that the city. Speaker 3: Attorney is speaking. Speaker 1: To of wanting local control under that very, very broad policy. Any amicus brief that comes to them, unbeknownst to counsel, they're asking to have permission to weigh in on. And as much as it takes time to have it go to council. There are ways to expedite it and not have our city attorney's office making decisions, weighing in on issues that you as a council have never weighed in on. And if it comes to you, you might actually say, no, I don't support that. Yes, generally we support the principle, however, not always specifically. And I actually so I so that's why I wanted to make sure you all are understanding what the city attorney's office is actually asking. That is a lot of authority that you would be giving to the city attorney's office that they've never had before to weigh in on specific policy issues, submitting briefs on behalf of you all, on issues that in fact have never even ever come to council. So I hope that you will keep the power with the council, figure out a way to have the city attorney bring it in an expedited manner. But I think it's very important that you protect your own authority and not end up having the city attorney making decisions for you. And that's the best example I could find recently was SB 649. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Do we have any council comment? Are we ready? Councilmember Dave said, please. Speaker 5: So my reading of of the staff report was that you're seeking the ability to join in this what's called an amicus brief with regard to basically platforms through which entities rent out short term rentals. The issue with regard to local control on this particular matter has to do with local governments throughout California. Want to be able to regulate those platforms because otherwise those platforms could conceivably rent out Airbnbs or VR blogs that are not up to snuff or code. So that's why we need to exercise local control. Speaker 12: Councilmember Dysart That's exactly right. Speaker 5: And it has to do with this particular issue. It's not like we're not giving you like this license to do anything about local control. It's just, you know, having to do with no. Speaker 12: And with respect to other action items that the Council may have already taken a vote on an official position on. Speaker 5: Okay. So let me just and by saying I appreciate former mayor trespass for taking the time to come out and and voice our opinion. But I'm satisfied with the with the staff report that was presented with and I believe that that we're moving in the right direction. Speaker 0: Thanks, Councilmember Desert Councilman Brody. Speaker 9: I'll be brief. I think this is a great idea or situation just like now. And we don't have time to agenda something. Hopefully that's part of the process. You know, when you actually sign on, maybe in the next meeting, you know, give us a copy of the brief as an informational item on the on on the staff report. But I'm ready to move approval of this item. Speaker 0: Is that a motion? Speaker 9: Yes, it is. Speaker 0: Do I have a second? All right. It's been moved by Councilmember Ody, seconded by Councilmember de SAG, all in favor, by any opposed abstentions. The measure passes unanimously. Good work, counsel. All right. So we got the motion, and we are going to start our council meeting at seven or just a couple of minutes after seven, because I'm going to give this council that's been going since 5:00 a quick break. So. Well, everybody promised to be back by five after seven. Yes, that's an 11 minute break. Okay. We're starting at 507705. Do you think I need a break? Okay, you. Speaker 13: Oh. Are you okay? Hello? Speaker 0: He's at work. Okay. Audience and staff. Is the microphone. Speaker 2: Why is. Speaker 0: Hello? Okay. Speaker 9: I guess there's Tony Johnson in the back. Speaker 0: Okay, we are starting the meeting. Could everyone please take your seats? Everyone means everyone. Please sit down. Now, if you are sitting next to an empty chair, would you raise your hand so we can get people out of the aisles? People standing up in the sides. Please go sit where there is an empty chair. We will keep the fire marshal happier that way. Oh, and there's also overflow seating in room 360, which is just outside the elevator. Okay, again, if you have an empty chair next to you, raise your hand. Speaker 2: How did you know that? Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: People along the wall, there's empty seats. Okay. It's 7.5. We are resuming. Thanks, everyone. All right, so where are we, Madam Clerk? Speaker 1: 659 APF a meeting that just has two consent items. Yes. Where we are. Okay. Speaker 0: So this is the the special meeting of the Alameda Public Financing Authority. Speaker 1: Roll call vote has been notified present. All right. And then the concert calendar. We have no speakers. Okay. Speaker 0: Do I have a motion of approval? Speaker 6: The consent counter. Speaker 0: Second, I have a motion. The second for the AP consent calendar. All in favor, I. Okay. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries unanimously. Okay. Now we move to the regular city council meeting of the city of our city council. This is Tuesday, July 16, 2019. Hello, everyone. It's always nice to see a big crowd and we are going to get started. And also I'm just going to lay out a few ground rules because we do have such a robust crowd tonight. I ask that we simply listen to our speakers. You will if you're a speaker, you'll know that you either have 2 minutes or 3 minutes, depending on how many speakers I ask to not have any applause, booing, doing the wave, because we just want to get everybody to be heard. The Council to deliberate. I always say my goal is to start and finish a meeting in the same day. And so with that we are going to get started. So Roca. Speaker 1: Real cause the notice five present. Speaker 0: Okay agenda changes. I have an item I need to I'd like to pull from the consent calendar. Is this the time to do so? Speaker 1: You can if you want to. We also are subject items either way. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, let me just say that I would like to have pulled from the consent calendar item five P, that's P isn't Peter. Speaker 1: And we have speakers on RN and. Speaker 0: Oh, okay, so we're in P. Okay. I would like to. Speaker 6: Put 5ff. Speaker 0: As in frame. Okay. Speaker 11: And I would like to poll five C. Speaker 0: Okay. So we're pulling five C, five F Mr. Customer days. What are you guy. Speaker 5: 050 but that's pulled. Speaker 0: That's already pulled. Council member How about you?

Regular Agenda Item

Hold Preliminary Public Hearing on Draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Schedule Final Council Action for September 3, 2019. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-6990

Speaker 0: Okay. So, okay, we'll get to that in a minute. And those are agenda changes. Okay. Proclamations and special orders of the day. So we have two proclamations and they're both great. This first one, three A is recognizing National Disability Voter Registration Week. So and and by the way, who do we have? I have I think is it Susan Howser come on up to the OR and Karen better and yeah okay we've got all the the and Ken Werner okay we've got the League of Women Voters in the House. So come on up. Yes, you've got your name tags. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: And Will Smith. Okay, so here is your proclamation. Whereas in July, people with disabilities and their supporters celebrate the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, which was signed into law on July 26, 1990. And. Whereas, over 50 million people of all ages live with disabilities in communities throughout the United States. And. Whereas, the disability community has a critical interest in policies enacted at the local, state and national levels that help integrate people with disabilities into our communities. And. WHEREAS, The disability community's participation in influencing public policy is essential for these policies to meet the real needs of people with disabilities. And. Whereas, voting is one way for the disability community to exert their influence in local, state and national elections. And. Whereas, Rev Up, which is an acronym for Register Educate Vote Use Your Power. I love it. America is a national effort to increase the political power of people with disabilities while engaging candidates and the media to recognize the disability community. And. Whereas, the Alameda League of Women Voters are partnering with the National Disability Rights Community in organizing National Disability Voter Registration Week from July 15 to 19 2019. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Maryland, as the Ashcraft mayor of the city of Alameda, proclaimed July 15 through 19 2019 as National Disability Voter Registration Week in the city of Alameda to support the growing involvement of the disability community in the political process. And with that, I congratulate the league for all your efforts. And would you like to someone say something briefly about these efforts, Mr. Turner. Speaker 1: Hi. Hi. Speaker 10: Good evening. I just want to thank you for the proclamation as well as. Even this week. This week, last week, we met with the City of Alameda Commission on Disabilities. We're partnering with them on this event, as well as Census 2020. The three organizations are going to be sharing a booth at the Park Street, art, wine and whatever else here beverages. Speaker 0: My next. Speaker 2: Plan for. Speaker 10: Getting people registered. Number one. Number two. Making sure that people with any disability, whether it's visible or invisible, have access to voting. That's probably one of the biggest hurdles right now, is making sure that polling places and equipment and. Speaker 2: Polling materials are available. Speaker 10: And usable by people with disabilities. So we are very honored to work with the commission. And I don't know that you want to say something. You're just standing here. Okay. And. Yes, no. Okay. And thank you. I assume all of you are registered to vote. Speaker 2: Should I assume that? Speaker 1: Job requirements. Speaker 2: Okay. You didn't nod your head. Yeah. Speaker 10: I happened to have some affidavits. Speaker 2: In my car. Speaker 10: If you haven't registered yet. Speaker 1: We'll get federal. Speaker 2: Tax. Speaker 1: Credit. Oh, right. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. You are. Speaker 0: Helping. Speaker 1: Thank you for all you do. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Mayor, as can I make one brief comment for the April 9th election, the registrar of voters happened to set up it's brand new equipment that is designated specifically to assist those type of voters at South Shore. And it was a success. Oh, good to know. Speaker 0: Actually, I was thinking we have a very, very capable, proactive city clerk, Laura Weisinger, and I know you're a strong partner in this. So our next proclamation and last proclamation is the art and wine fair. This is the 35th anniversary of the Alameda Art and Wine Fair.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring July 15 through 19, 2019 as National Disability Voter Registration Week. (City Manager)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-6986

Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager or his designee to execute a seven year agreement with the option of three one year extensions with Tyler Technologies for the acquisition, implementation and ongoing support of the Munis Financial and Human Capital Management System in amount not to exceed 3.9 million, and a recommendation to authorize the city manager to exit a three year agreement with Barry Dunn to provide project management and oversight services. Speaker 0: So before I call on our department heads that are here. Who was it? Who pulled this will? Do you have that specific questions? You want to hear the staff report or you're want to just launch into you? Okay. Speaker 3: I just had a couple a couple quick questions. Speaker 1: If I could be. All right. Speaker 11: So my first question is just I understand that there was a task force that looked into this and we looked at a number of of different possibilities. Is the is the platform that we're getting, is it going to be customized or is it kind of a general, general platform? Speaker 1: Yeah. I can say about this. Good evening, Mayor. Council members, Nancy Brownstein, H.R. director, with me as Carolyn Hong, art director. We don't plan to do a lot of customization. Speaker 0: Our goal really is. Speaker 1: To do best practices. And this the system that we're purchasing, we believe, comes with the best practices. And I can say three times today I talked with staff about customizations we have in our current system how we want to get away from those and do the best practices. Speaker 11: Great. And then my final question is, there's a lot of different state mandates that come down. Are those built into the contract that we're entering into or will we have to pay for those different updates as they come? Speaker 1: Do you want to get to that? So that that's part of the evergreen methodology that this particular vendor uses. And so whenever there's new state mandates, it's part of the upgrades that come automatically at no additional fees. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any further council questions? Do you have a motion? Speaker 11: I'll move approval of item five. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So, Kirk, you want to just read what it is we're voting on for the audience? Speaker 1: You're approving two different contracts, one that's for seven years with three one year extensions with tyler technology, which is the new finance and h.r. System. And the second is with barry dunn who to do oversight and implementation in amount not to exceed 700. Speaker 0: Thank you. So we've had a motion and it's been seconded all in favor. I oppose abstain. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Then we move on to five F as in frank recommendation. Speaker 1: Authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a six year agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc for the acquisition, support and maintenance of 88 body worn digital video cameras and a digital evidence management system in amount not to exceed 793,000. And we do have a speaker on this item now. Speaker 0: Okay. So we hear the public speaker and then council comment said, okay. Okay, let's hear speaker, please.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Execute a Seven (7) Year Agreement with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions with Tyler Technologies, Inc., for the Acquisition, Implementation, and Ongoing Support of the Munis Financial and Human Capital Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed $3,978,212; and Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Negotiate and Execute a Three (3) Year Agreement with BarryDunn to Provide Project Management and Oversight Services for the Implementation of the Munis Financial and Human Capital Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed $720,000. (Information Technology 2611)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7019

Speaker 0: Okay. So we hear the public speaker and then council comment said, okay. Okay, let's hear speaker, please. Speaker 1: Craig Erickson. Speaker 2: Hello. My name's Craig Erickson. Thank you for having me here. I want I representing Oakland Privacy, which is an advocacy group. And one of the things that we're requesting at this actually not this item, not be on the consent calendar and be given the public an opportunity to ask questions. We know that when this contract first started and this policy came along, I think it was Councilman de SOG that said, hey, if the police department officer. Speaker 10: Says that. Speaker 2: This is actually something that's going to protect citizens and the police department, I'm all for it. And so we were wondering, what was the verdict? Did it achieve its goals? And if so, where are is there any kind of reports or anything that would show that the vendor axon is actually complying with its policies to make sure that they aren't sharing data with anyone that you're not authorizing and that that data is actually secure for the purpose of. You know, protecting the police and the public. Speaker 0: Thank you. And you're a dancer? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Is that our only public speaker? So is this an item that, uh, Chief Valerie, are you prepared to answer questions? So, council, do we have to have any questions? Have now closed public comment. So we're on to council comment and questions. Uh, Councilmember Villa. Speaker 11: Um, I'll go ahead and ask the questions that were raised by the Speaker. And hopefully, chief, you can answer them. I think you can. Sure. So, uh, is there an issue with data security or do we know of the data being shared? Speaker 2: There has not been an issue. Uh, if you for some of you that remember from the discussion when we got the contract signed four years ago in an open, in an open council session, it was not on consent. Um, we included in the report and it still exists today that Taser has military grade server security and that the data is ours. It's not theirs to release. There has not been a breach at Axon or Taser. They were Taser when we got the contract. Their axon. Now, they have not had a breach. They have not. There's been no unauthorized releasing of any of our videos. And the only videos that we released now is in response to 14 AB 1421 that passed January 1st or became effective and now 748, which became effective July 1st outside of that or a court order. The videos aren't being released. Speaker 11: Understood. And how I'm assuming if you could give us a report, I guess, on how the how. Speaker 1: The. Speaker 0: We're going to get a microphone. It's a little tricky when you're holding a baby. He doesn't speak very loud. We're going to I think we've got a remote microphone. Speaker 11: Chief, there was a question about the efficacy of the body cameras and how they're doing in terms of protecting officers as well as members of the public, if you can speak on that. Speaker 2: Sure. I can give you some anecdotal numbers, and I know that the letter that we received from Oakland Privacy specifically asked the question about use of force incidents. That was not a problem that we were trying to combat at the time that we bought the cameras. Um, the person who wrote the letter asked specifically if we had seen a, an increase or a reduction in use of force incidents since the cameras were implemented, they've gone up and down, but more or less they've been steady. The high number was 29 in 2014 or 15 sorry, 2015 this year to date we've had six. And in the intervening years the numbers have bounced around 21, 22, 24. So it hasn't shown any an increase or decrease this year. I think we're on pace for a decrease, but there's no evidence that it's specifically related to the body cameras. Speaker 11: Thank you. Sure. My final question, which is also in the privacy letter, but is there a reason why this was a no bid contractor or why we didn't go out for bid on it? Speaker 2: Yeah, because we're still in contract with them. We weren't asking for a new contract. We were extending the terms of the original contract to to pay for the data overages because of the the extra videos that we're recording. And then also there's some new video redaction software so that we could be compliant with the new state laws. And so we're just trying to extend an existing contract. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Chief Hillary. Vice Mayor, did you have any questions as vice mayor? Next wave. Speaker 6: Of questions, statements. I'm prepared to support this contract moving forward, but I'd like to ask my colleagues to join me in providing some direction to staff as a part of this contract to bring back sometime this fall both what I would call the expanded Sanctuary City Data and Privacy Referral, which I believe is under discussion under the umbrella of actually just a data privacy policy, but additionally a policy for the Council to consider how and when the city releases videos that are captured from these body cams. It can be a part of that umbrella if that's how staff wants to do it. But I think it's we've had some kind of partial policy requests out there, and I think that if we're going to continue to move forward and collect more and more data about people who are in our community, I think we need to take the steps early on to ensure that we are in control of that data and know what is being done with it. Speaker 0: Do you want to comment on that, Chief Hilary? Speaker 2: Sure. Just briefly, I would tell you that the retention schedule that we have in our existing policy right now is based on a couple of things. One, we're being compliant with the new state laws 1421 some 48 and then also the other things that we're dealing with are the Statue of Liberty. Patience for the criminal offense that's committed. So a homicide, for example, we hold that forever. Other certain felonies might be three years, might be six years. Sexual assault could be longer. It just depends on the crime. So we're not going to destroy the video before the statute of limitations expires on that on that crime. And then also in response to court orders, discovery motions and things like that. Speaker 0: But if I understood the vice mayor correctly, you're also concerned or maybe even more concerned with release policy? Speaker 6: Yeah, I think I think the how we how these videos are released. Obviously in compliance with all state laws and federal laws, as it were. But I think that the council should actually have the power to set the policy on how we're releasing that. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, and we can certainly consider that as staff direction, although I do think in the policy now, we have criteria for release of the video. Are you are we thinking about public records request the news media or all of the above? Speaker 2: So that's if I could just interject, that's where Senate bill or Assembly Bill 1421 and 80, 47, 48 apply before before January 1st and July 1st. The videos couldn't be released in APRA. Now, now they have to be for certain, for certain types of offenses or officer misconduct, critical incidents, use of force, shooting, etc.. So that but outside of that, we don't release them on, on prior requests. Speaker 0: Okay. So if I understand correctly, you wanted to make sure that our policy is in compliance with state law. Speaker 6: And considered by the policymaking body of the city and in scope. Speaker 0: So I see. Speaker 4: Manager Levitt so we can we could bring back what the current policy is and have a discussion consistent with and then also have the expanded discussion on data privacy in general. So we could bring both those back this fall, and we could at first just set the guidelines of what we currently do and then give options if you want to look at other. Speaker 0: And given that I think some of this legislation is fairly recently passed, we probably it would be nice to have an opportunity to look at whatever updates to the policy might exist in Council Member States. Like I can see when you see. Speaker 5: Yeah. Just two points. I think for me personally, I think the path of least resistance when it comes to dealing with the item before us is to move the staff's recommendation. Because I'm weary, at least of the second point. I'm weary of kind of interjecting certain issues that I still have to, you know, be brought up to speed on. So how it intersects, I suspect that Vice Mayor Knox White is not asking us to right now to to endorse a sanctuary city policy whatsoever. I think I suspect he is probably suggesting that we have a conversation on how a sanctuary policy, sanctuary city policy intersects with things like this. But that still leads me to believe, though, that that should be a discussion separate from tonight, in my opinion. Speaker 6: Can I just. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. That's right. Speaker 6: Thank you. Just just to clarify, the city already has a sanctuary city policy, and we're not talking about that. There was a referral about a year and a half, maybe two years ago from other council members up here to look at how we are using data and how that fits with our sanctuary city. My request is that we actually bring that referral that has been sitting around for two years back, expand it to actually just look at privacy data in general and then fold this conversation into that conversation so that as we are continuing to provide longer and bigger contracts for collecting more and more data, we actually know that we're doing so with a kind of a comprehensive approach to protecting our citizens and cities data. And privacy. Speaker 0: Okay. And and I will just add with regard to the comments that were made by the gentleman from Oakland privacy, I remember sitting in on the hearings. I'm including with representatives of the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. And they had done a white paper. And I read the whole thing. And one of the conclusions the ACLU came to was I remember them saying they surprised themselves in their support for body worn cameras, and they saw them as both protecting the public and protecting the police. And but certainly, you know, any equipment is only as good as the policy that governs it. And I'm sure that it would be instructive to take a look at at what our policy is and with any necessary updates. So I'm hearing, I think, a motion and direction to staff. Is that is that fair assessment? Speaker 6: Yes, I'll make that motion with the direction. Speaker 0: Okay. So you move approval and then with the direction is stated. Okay. So a motion to have a second go. Speaker 5: So what. Speaker 3: Is the direction. Speaker 6: The direction is for? Speaker 0: Why don't we ask the city clerk? Did you take a note of. Speaker 1: Bring back the expanded sanctuary city referral along with having a general discussion about data but close enough. Speaker 6: To bring back the sanctuary city referral expanded to provide privacy protections for all city data, including a release of the camera data. Speaker 0: Okay. So the. Speaker 6: Sanctuary and the sanctuary. Speaker 3: Privacy. Speaker 2: Referral. Speaker 0: Okay. So so you were looking beyond just the reference to this because when you're talking about all city data, is that something. Speaker 3: And. Speaker 0: Seems like we're getting a little beyond. Speaker 6: I've spoken to the city attorney and the city manager this afternoon that they are planning to bring back that referral. And so all I'm trying to say is bring back. Speaker 0: I think it's great that they're planning to bring it back. My only hesitation is I would like whatever staff direction goes along with this motion to be related to the noticed item. Speaker 6: Yes, it is. Basically it's saying that we need to make sure that we have a policy for how we are addressing the data that is collected by these cameras and that we should just wrap that into the conversation that is already planning to come back later this fall. Speaker 0: Mr. Shin, can you just illuminate me when the term all-city data seems broad to me? But help me understand. Speaker 12: The city manager and I just had a brief conversation and we think we understand the direction. And given that the direction is brief, we will. On a staff between the city manager and I, we will work on getting as much information back as is reasonably consistent with the direction. Speaker 0: Okay, well stated by a lawyer. Okay. But I think we have enough information on what of that policy relates to the body worn cameras. It will come back when we look at the body worn camera policy. Okay. And it almost sounds like two items, but I leave it in the capable hands. You're capable hands. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. We just get a second, right? No, we did it. We have a motion. Do we have a second? With a motion and a second discussion. All in favor, I. Speaker 1: Hope. Speaker 0: The motion was as previously stated, we are moving this item with the staff direction. That was just. And the the in the motion is the one that the city clerk read about the body worn camera contract. Okay. Motion second. I heard how many eyes to have for any opposed. Abstention? Yeah. It's an impose. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Just discretion. If, you know. Speaker 5: Obviously I support, you know, any and everything whenever you need capital equipment. I just think that the add on is a substantive issue in and of itself. And I'm and there was a certain language in there that presupposes, um, uh, an opinion that, that I don't hold yet. So it's not that I don't have an opinion on that. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Hold it yet. Speaker 0: Okay. So when this item is coming, well, you have the year, then the item passes 4 to 1, and we will come back with some further discussion about policy. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Okay, so then our next consent calendar. I think we did three in a row, correct? Yes. Okay. So the next one is five N as in Nancy. Speaker 1: Final passage of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section eight, dash 8.5 and eight. Dash 1.2 to authorize the Public Works Director to improve safety and visibility at Alameda Intersections. And we do have one speaker on this item.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Six-Year Agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc. for the Acquisition, Support, and Maintenance of 88 Body-Worn Digital Video Cameras and a Digital Evidence Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed $793,792.96. (Police 3121)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7057

Speaker 1: Final passage of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section eight, dash 8.5 and eight. Dash 1.2 to authorize the Public Works Director to improve safety and visibility at Alameda Intersections. And we do have one speaker on this item. Speaker 0: Okay. Is it was that why we why it was pulled? Not for the council. Okay. Okay. So let's have that. Why don't we have a public speaker and then we'll see if we need to have, I guess, our city engineer. Hello? And is this our public speaker? Speaker 1: Yes, yes. Yes. Speaker 0: Hi there. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayors Council. All mains hidden within agenda item five. Eleanor. I have no problem with the improving safety and visibility at at intersections but 885b the public works director is hereby authorized prohibit parking within 20 feet of intersections curbing within Alameda within 30 feet of the near side of Signalized intersection. Fine. The director may authorize the placement of street furniture or bicycle parking facilities within 20 feet of an intersection, crosswalk or curb return is within that discussion at it's not part of the synopsis of what the agenda item is. How can the granting of access to public land be so hidden within a consent calendar item? Instead of having a fully agenda ised agenda item with full public input and disclosure and supporting documents and examples. What sort of street furniture? What sort of bike parking facilities? There were no supporting documents to item five on the 20 linear feet with an MM probably worth ten K and around the whole island it's probably $125 million worth of public giveaway access. A consent calendar item is not how city governments should conduct this type of business. I should not have to need to read the fine print to find their ad. You're going to be allowing bike parking and street furniture, you know, throughout the island. I ask you to strike the wording of this of that wording for street furniture and bicycle parking, because it's not identified. No examples given to the public. If the city were to be fair to its citizens, this agenda item should have had that mention in its synopsis. And that's my question. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Street. I am going to in just a moment, call upon our city attorney, even Shawn, for an explanation. But I will just note quickly that this is the final passage. The second reading, the final passage of an ordinance which requires a second reading at our last council meeting was the last one. Over a month ago, the last council meeting, we had an excellent presentation by our city attorney, Scott Wickstrom, in a engineering city. Yes. What did I say? Oh, did I? What did I say? Anyway, our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom, an excellent staff report and a report that went along with it. But I am going to ask my city attorney. He is the city attorney, Eben Chan, to please give a brief explanation of what we're doing here tonight. Speaker 12: Mayor and Council. You're absolutely right. This item is here for final passage. Therefore, there is no staff report attached. But it is my understanding and memory serves right that the public works department. And gave the Council a full presentation on this topic, including the street furniture, and therefore I believe the Council can vote on this item. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. And thank you, Mr. Strelow. All right. We have heard public comment, and that was all the public comment, correct? Closing public comment, any council discussion? Or do we just move to a motion council for approval of a motion? I have a second. All in favor. I opposed any abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Next up is for the. Speaker 1: Final passage of ordinance concerning the establishment of an annual general adjustment, a rent registry, banking, and a petition process for an upward and downward adjustment of rents. And we do have five speakers on this item. Speaker 0: All right. So any council clarifying questions? Okay, with CNN, let's just get started on our public speakers and up to 3 minutes apiece, right?

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 8.5 and 8 1.2 to Authorize the Public Works Director to Improve Safety and Visibility at Alameda Intersections. (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7058

Speaker 0: All right. So any council clarifying questions? Okay, with CNN, let's just get started on our public speakers and up to 3 minutes apiece, right? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. So we have five public speakers, so you can each have 3 minutes. Don't feel you have to take all 3 minutes. And when you hear your name called, get ready to come up. We'll keep things moving. Speaker 1: Okay. Karen Miller, Marilyn Schumacher and Julianne Cristobal. Speaker 0: Did we get another speaker? Speaker 1: No, that was a different one there. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Karen Miller and I own a six unit Victorian in Alameda. I'm here today to ask you to reconsider your modification to 3148 and accept the staff's recommendation of 100% of CPI as the maximum rental increase. I am not a fan of rent control, but I do recognize that we have a housing crisis and that temporary measures may need to be enacted. After hearing the last city council meeting that started at six talking about which everybody seemed to accept the cost of recommendations, this is not on my list, but everybody seemed to accept the course of recommendations when it comes to climate change, but not when it comes to rent control costs. A recommended CPI plus five. And you are very willing to accept their recommendations on cost except for on this item. First, I have to take the issue with data referenced in the ordinance from the 2017 American Community Survey, when your estimates, which indicates that at least 36% of tenants have lived in their units less than four years, and at least 71% of tenants have lived in their units less than nine years, thereby demonstrating in general tenants to not remain in their units for many years. With this data, how do you know if those tenants who have been in those units for less than four years aren't going to stay for ten? And the 71% of tenants, 71 who have lived in the units less than nine years, won't stay for 20. The estimates of the American Community five year survey, which I looked at, show that 15% of renters have been in their unit since 2015. 54% of renters have been in their units 5 to 10 years. 24% have been in their 10 to 20 years, 7% more than 20 years. How does this give landlords opportunities to reset their rents to the market? Two thirds of tenants have been with me for over eight years and I can tell you none of them are leaving. In regards to the CPI, if you look at the list of goods and services that CPI covers, that does not reflect, reflect at all the cost of maintaining a rental unit, which are primarily taxes, insurance, water, garbage and maintenance. It assumes that these costs are built in to rent. However, that assumption is false. If rents were tied to CPI, we wouldn't CPI. We would not have gotten the large increases that we have have in rent. The graph that I have given to all of you shows that since 2016 the highest CPI was a little over 4%. Will rents have just jumped considerably higher rent as a function of market, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with CPI. CPI is based on prices for food, clothing, shelter and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors and dentists, services, drugs and other goods and services that people buy for day to day. Living nowhere in the CPI are garbage insurance, maintenance, which are my costs to rent a property. The shelter component, which is what I understand you to have looked at as a percentage of CPI to make your decisions on the allowable rent increase. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. That was 3 minutes. Speaker 3: That was not 3 minutes. Speaker 1: Seriously. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: And our next speaker is Marilyn Schumacher. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: We'll reset the clock. Speaker 3: I will take less than 3 minutes. Speaker 0: Oh, there's a challenge. Speaker 3: My name is Marilyn Shoemaker. I own five units and live in one of them. It's a historic house. It's 1898. CPI does not cover most of the costs that owners occur that owners incur in a year. That that. That landlords incur in a year. It's amazing how much it costs to maintain these units, especially the older ones. One of my tenants has been with me for 23 years. I tell her she must have been 13 when we rented it to her. However, our regular monthly costs are. Garbage, water, insurance and taxes. They all add up. They're not covered by CPI. I ride my bike all over Alameda and I see units that need extensive work and I don't know where the owners are. I don't even know the owners, but they're about to crumble. Especially if we have another earthquake, which we had one like this morning. It's appalling, but they continue to be ignored. I don't like the idea of CPI. And I hope you think about this when you drive around Alameda. Or ride your bike. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Next, we have Julian, Cristobal, then Zach Bones and Christopher Burch here. Okay. Speaker 0: Hello? No. Speaker 1: Okay. I wouldn't. Hi, my name is Jolene. Jolene and I would like to first start that. It has been four years in our fight for rent control and just cause my question is how longer if there is lack of affordable housing all rise on rent prices and the rental cap, there are bound to be big consequences that only complicate housing but would lead to a domino effect that would add up to other crises already prevalent locally and in the U.S., according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the Bay Area, housing protections, lack of affordable housing production, rising rents and lack of housing in job rich areas all have each contributed to the present displacement crisis . The population of Alameda being 1.6 million has an increase of 7370 3% since the 1960s. And with lack of housing affordability, where will these people go? This plays a huge role in displacement, and it can lead to less opportunities for education, educational resources, housing security, access to health care and green spaces. This is a right that every citizen should have access to and not a benefit that low land owners would take into account when allowing people to rent their apartments. This is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that no rent control or no cap will take away from us. While several articles in research point out that rent control has led to further gentrification, which has also led to the rise of economic inequality, the fact is that the U.S. has been a home of economic inequality, and there are other motivating factors for this socio economic disparity. And the only way to protect people here in Alameda who are vulnerable, vulnerable to evictions and displacement and rising rent caused is through rent control. We asked the city council members to make the right decision of creating balance between tenants and land owners, the good and the bad, and to incentivize the city to bring more opportunities for the needy, low income populations and equal representation. Thank you for the passing rent control and please keep in all provisions that were decided during the July 2nd meeting. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Speaker. Speaker 1: Thankfully. And then Christopher Sparks, you know. Speaker 4: Okay. I counsel, I think last meeting was really constructive and I think the compromises that were reached were pretty fair, I think. 70% CPI is more than fair because I think with CPI it already bakes in cost of living increases. So matching wanted versus CPI is matching, it's double, it's doubling what the increase would be for rent increases. I would be happier without the banking and the pass through. But I think all the the the in the text around is a little confusing maybe for some renters to understand everything, but I think all the compromises in general are good. Pass this let's have real rent control and alameda and let's get this over with. It's been too long. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Speaker Christopher very soon. Speaker 4: Christopher I really my name is Christopher Samarasinghe. I'm with Spurs Realty Advisors. I'm a bear, a native in an apartment broker in the East Bay. I have no interest ownership interest in property in Alameda and I'm here to speak in favor of the free market in my clients. Some of them own property here and some of them are owned in jurisdictions that can follow in Alameda steps. If these motions become law, the biggest need for and the highest value to the city of Alameda in the bay area right now is high density. Housing tied to rent control adds another layer of complexity to any possible development, reducing the likelihood of future projects being considered financially feasible. This goes for market rate housing as well as affordable housing. By voting on these measures, the yes votes are effectively telling your constituents that if you are against any future development or at least your for making the process more difficult for the mom and pop owners who have been plugging away, renting out their nest egg, these measures will effectively cap their pension further. They never purchased these properties with the understanding that they'd be forced to accept only meager returns dictated by political affirmations. They will they will be forced into making a choice of using whatever adjustment is allowed for their own needs to pay for rising cost of living. That allowed the amount of an excuse me, or using the allowed amount to upgrade living conditions for their tenants, they'll be forced to choose. I understand that some unscrupulous owners and landlords have made some choices that are hurt people and there are other remedies that are already in place to deal with these issues. Punishing an entire group because of these actions of very few is a very reactive approach that will not end well. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Please consider these issues from both sides and strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed short term solutions for the long term problem. For these reasons, I'd urge you to reach No Vote No on these measures. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So that was the end of our. Speaker 1: One more speaker. Speaker 0: Okay, we have one more. This is the six speakers. So your time goes down to 2 minutes. Is it when we get. No, it's after the sixth. Okay. We just have one more. Yeah. You've got. Well do we have. Speaker 1: Yes we have a clip. Speaker 0: Oh okay. The seven. Okay. The seventh one is 2 minutes but for the first six speakers you do get three. Although actually if we'd known there were seven, it would have all been two. But it's okay. Speaker 3: Are Ashcroft and City Council. Thank you. This is the I'm Elaine de Colony. I'm the executive director of Everyone Home. So I want to slip in my appreciation for your adoption of the Everyone at Home plan to end homelessness. And one of the key tenants of the plan is that it takes public policy supporting people who already have their housing to stay in their housing. This motion does that. You adopted the plan. This action you would take tonight is consistent with joining in the efforts to protect renters in their home, to keep their housing, and to help get people off the street into housing with reasonable rents. So I commend you for this bold move. It is sometimes viewed as the third rail, but we now have more than two people becoming homeless. For every one, we can move off the street back into housing. If we don't stop the flow into homelessness, the problem will grow exponentially. So thank you for your bold policy move here and I encourage you to pass this motion. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, we have one more speaker. Speaker 1: Rosalinda Fortuna. Speaker 0: Okay. And I am going to unless the council strenuously objects allow 3 minutes because some of my speakers didn't speak for their full 3 minutes. So. But usual admonition. Don't feel you have to take it. Hi. Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. I'm Rosalind de Fortuna and I am is a small mom and pop landowner. I wanted to ask the city council to honestly tell me where in the world is rent control work. So this is a. Speaker 0: Comment, not a Q&A. Speaker 1: Yes, I know, but I just wanted an honest opinion afterwards. If someone could come up with a place where rent control actually works. The main. Goal that I'm here for is when there is an earthquake, which is well overdue, that we as landlords will not be obligated to pay relocation fees to tenants because we are going to be already in financial stress with the problems that we'll have. And I believe that these 70% of the MTA is not adequate to help the landlords with maintaining the properties that we have. We should be at least consistent with Oakland's 88, which is like 88% of CPI. And ah, I think Alameda is just as nice as Oakland. I think everyone would agree with that. So if we can try to at least get this the HCA up, I would appreciate it. At least comparable to Oakland's 88%. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And is that the last public speaker? Okay. I will now close public comment. Okay. Counsel, do we have any discussion. Speaker 5: Of a quick question? Speaker 0: A Councilman ODESZA Quick question. Speaker 5: What is the specific CPI in this index that we're using in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a variety of CPI indices, particularly for the San Francisco Bay Area. What is the particular CPI index that we're using for this report before our audience? Because I, I didn't see a specific call out as to what index what within the BLS index. Speaker 0: I like magic here is that. Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Debbie Porter. I'm the city's community development director and we are using the CPI, you for the San Francisco Bay Area and we are using the April to April CPI number. And that is because we want to be able to issue the annual general adjustment in time for everyone to do their adjustment July one as part of tied to the city's fiscal year and the registration and the fee payment. So we're using the April to April, so we then have time to send out the letter and notify landlords and tenants what the idea will be for the upcoming year. Speaker 5: I'm concerned that we're not incredibly specific as to what the CPI we're using because it's completely possible that some other down the road, some other entity, some other city staff might want to use another CPI. Oh, that's San Francisco. So if if we don't have the technical name description, that particular website it comes from, and I'm just concerned that we'd be exposing ourselves to litigation in that sense. Speaker 3: I believe the staff report from July 2nd referenced the April to April CPI, the San Francisco Bay Area CPI. You see, I believe it is in the staff report. Speaker 0: And if need be, could it be slipped into the approval of this item or C tradition? Speaker 12: So I think given that the staff report was clear, staff could probably promulgate a regulation that's consistent with the staff report, which is authorized by this ordinance to further ensure that it's clarity. Speaker 5: I think you'd have to. Speaker 0: Also miss part of what we have up here. I believe you've mentioned to me that you're going to be doing some educational opportunities for both landlords and tenants about this new measure. Speaker 3: Or you were calling the rent. The Rent program staff will be doing workshops similar to what they did when we first launched the initial rent stabilization ordinance. So there will be opportunities for folks to get educated on the new ordinance. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Did you have some okay. Councilmember Desai, your comments. Speaker 5: Comments. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for pulling this item. You know, I just want to summarize by referencing some of the data that I presented over the course of the weeks leading up to this second reading several weeks ago, I pointed out how in the city of Alameda the amount of no cause evictions was far less than 1%. Probably it might have been point 5%, far less than 1%. Punch line. There is no justification for the stringent just cause language that we now are employing. No, no data supporting that. Several weeks ago, I pointed out data showing how year in, year out, the typical Alameda renter pays an affordable rent. That's not to say that that there are hardships in Alameda, but the typical Alameda renter, based upon year in, year out census data, pays an affordable rent. Now in terms of policy, what that suggests is not an overarching undoing of the rental market that we are doing on the cusp of doing tonight. What that what the data suggests is an incremental approach that's mediation based like we had in the previous the original 3148 ordinance. The data supports that. The data does not support the overarching things that we're doing this evening. And I guess I also want to come close to ending by saying I mean data really matters because when I was in grad school, I had an opportunity to analyze the effects of Berkeley's rent control and Santa monica's rent control and all of you know how several weeks ago I presented data that in those cities, when those cities adopted hard cap style rent control, along with just cause the amount of single family homes really went down and duplexes went down and it took Berkeley never recovered. But that data that wasn't just the that the the what the data said though and this especially goes out to the to the young Filipino Americans who have come out week in week out on this issue. To their credit, what the data also showed is that when Berkeley and Santa monica and many of these other cities had employed the Berkeley style rent control of hard caps and just cars. Speaker 3: Who actually lost. Speaker 5: Out. In Berkley, you saw a significant reduction in the African-American population in South Berkeley from 1980 to 1990. Because Berkeley's popular rent control was adopted in 1980. And so you can analyze the two data points. So I appreciate the fact that the young Americans of Filipino descent came out to speak passionately, not just for rent control, but for their friends and families. I get it. But in terms of policy, for whatever reason, and I can't explain it. Who ends up on the short end of the stick when it comes to. Berkeley style rent control really is are people of color. I mean, the joke has always been that, you know, rent control in Manhattan is all about rent control for the middle classes and the upper middle classes. It's not for. For the working poor. So that's my concern. And I just also want to end by saying that the type of rent control that we're adopting, in my opinion , was rejected by the citizens of Alameda when they overwhelmingly defeated M-1. And M-1 was an effort to impose the hard caps just cause type of rent control that you're seeing today. And at that same election, the Alameda INS had supported L1, which was the mediation based rent control, because I think Alameda INS clearly understood then and they understood now that there is no place for a heavy handed city hall to come down and begin controlling, taking over a part of our local economy, a part of our civic society. And that's what you're doing. By adopting the rent control that you're going to do tonight. On a final note, I want to say how disappointed I am in adopting this rent control with the absence of data supporting it as to why it should be adopted. Which leads me to believe that this isn't. This is all about just politics. But this kind of politics, there's going to be some real people who suffer. And the very people who will be young Americans who are passionate about it. Come back to me and come back to city hall in 11 years or 12 years. And I guarantee you, alameda, this is not going to not gentrify alameda. The record of rent control. Is it gentrified? The places were hard capped. Rent control are adopted. Think about the movie that's being played right now in San Fran about San Francisco, the last African-American in San Francisco. It's a movie right now. So think about that and think long and hard as to whether or not you benefit from this, because I do think that there was and is a viable opportunity in the mediation based rent control that had its deficiencies, no doubt. But that but those deficiencies which could have been ameliorated. So. I think this is a sad day because I see this as incredible government overreach and heavy handedly coming down on a part of our community. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember de SAC. Other Council comments. I want to just say a couple of things. We talked earlier about climate change. A lot of things have changed over the years. And back when we were in grad school in the 1980s, we that was before a law called Costa Hawkins went into effect, and that was in 1995 . And that's why rent control does not apply to any multifamily units or single family that were built after 1995. That was the compromise that the legislators in Sacramento made between the advocates who were saying some of the same things that we heard tonight. If you impose rent control, then people are just going to start building multi-family units. And, you know, I am aware because I'm on the policy committee of the CASA, the Legislative Policy Committee for the CASA Compact, that there is some talk in Sacramento about modifying Costa Hawkins or it may go back to the voters, but right now it's right where it was in 1995. So between the 1980s and 1995, I would say that legislators did recognize some of those problems and that solution was adopted. And then since you mentioned the movie The Last Black Man in San Francisco, it's a fine, independent movie. You should go see it. I do not believe that it supports opposing this measure. In fact, they have not. Okay. Remember my no applause rule, but I'm for a fine local insight if you're like me and you stay to watch the credits. Our former council, former Vice Mayor Frank Maher SC, you may know his twin sons are both filmmakers. One of them, Phillip is on was on the film crew of this film. So just a little plug, independent movie playing at the Almeida Theater. Go see it. Who wants to speak? Council. We flip a coin. Speaker 3: Guys want to go first. Go ahead. Go. Okay. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vella. Speaker 11: I think that there's a difference. Well, when we look at data between causation and correlation, and I think that a lot is made tying certain things that might happen simultaneously and saying that one is the cause of the other. And I'm I would like to be wary of doing that, especially on this issue. But I also think that there has been a lot of studies that have been done recently. One of them was by the Haas Institute for Fair for a Fair and Inclusive Society in Berkeley, out of UC Berkeley. And the report, the policy brief was done in 2018 and it's called Opening the Door for Rent Control towards a comprehensive approach to protecting California's renters. And a lot of the things that they look at are kind of the reason that the council is going about enacting these changes to this existing ordinance. You know, among the things that they. Talk about our the inequitable impact of our housing crisis and how it housing affordability and and access to housing disproportionately affects seniors, low income families, people with disabilities and communities of color. They also note that one part of our housing crisis relative to renters and what's continuing to set rent set renters back are that there are continuing to be rising rents, but there are stagnating wages. And so, you know, I think that that's important when we look at the CPI. Some people are saying, well, we look at the CPI. Will a lot of employers make decisions about wage increases based off of the CPI and CPI? Q And so while not everyone is getting those increases, it is a point that that a lot of employers and employee groups, frankly, look at when when asking for different wage increases or setting different wage increases. And so I think part of what we're trying to do is be cognizant of how much of that increase is going towards one thing, whether it goes towards rental housing alone or to a number of other things that are increasing. The other thing that this study looks at is beyond the monetary impacts, but the human cost of housing instability and displacement. And that's something that, you know, when we supported the Everyone Home Plan, we were looking at and and the folks that did the research and wrote this are housing research analysts for the California Community Partnerships Program at the Haas Institute, the director of the California Community Partnership Program at the Haas Institute, and somebody who has a Ph.D. in regional and city planning from the University of California, Berkeley, and is the coauthor of Common Interest Communities Private Governments in the Public Interest. A lot of the reports and data that they cite are from all over, but they're from very reputable sources, including the Joint Center on Housing Studies from Harvard University, the California Housing Partnership Corporation, Urban Displacement Project at UC Berkeley, which also looks very specifically at the Bay Area, in particular Urban Habitat, Bay Area, Regional Health Inequities Initiative , Policy Link, among others, and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC. We were just talking about our Climate Action Plan, and this also goes to that. This is an ordinance. Part of what we're trying to do is update it. It can be updated later if things change. And one thing that I posit is there have been times that the CPI has been negative, meaning that. People. We've laid people off. People have actually, you know, it's actually dropped. And, you know, as we look forward, we still have a base, a minimum in this range. And so even if the CPI were to drop or to go to zero, there can be rent increases in those years. And so I think that that's something to also keep in mind. It's not this isn't intended to be punitive and it is trying to take into account a number of different things. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you both very much. Speaker 6: Thank you. Just quickly, I can respect that council member De Zug has his own philosophy and opinion. Yeah, I think for every data point that he that he raises, there's another way to look at it. In Alameda, half the renters are paying more than 30% of their income. That is considered unaffordable. This ordinance is written to try to help those people. Councilmember De talks about his time in the late seventies and early eighties at UC Berkeley and the studies that he did. Many of the studies that were done in Berkeley on rent control at that time have been debunked in the in the school of business. There is now saying rent control is the thing that California needs to keep people in their homes. It is true. Speaker 5: It's late night, early night. Speaker 0: Okay, so you can begin to speak through the chair. Speaker 6: No, it's fine. It's fine. Speaker 0: No, it's not fine. I'm writing this meeting. I continue. Speaker 6: Anyway. And, you know, we make policy. We make policy that affect people. Tonight, Councilmember de SAC voted against the Climate Action Plan for the city because it suggested we should consider whether multifamily housing that which is cheaper to build and live in might be a way to help climate. For 40 to 50 years, Councilmember Desai and the people that have supported him have fought housing at every single turn. It is the thing that has caused this crisis. And I don't think it's fair to then sit here and say, oh, this one thing that's being voted on, I don't like it, and you're not using data and I'm the policy guy. At the end of the day, this is a big comprehensive problem. It is 50 years in the making. Is this a perfect solution? No, it's not. I wish we weren't here having this conversation. I wish we had built enough housing in the Bay Area to allow the people who want to live here, to live here and, you know, live affordably and not have two and a half hour commutes in order to come and serve coffee to people who want to pay five bucks for a cup of coffee. And I love coffee, but I'd like I'd like to be served by people who live next door to me. I would like you know, I think it's really important if we're going to have this conversation to talk about the whole picture and to really talk about how this is a peace. And my hope is that at some point 20 years from now, when the Bay Area has hopefully recovered from this housing crisis, we can have a conversation about how to tweak this in another way so that it maintains affordable housing but is easier for people to address some of the concerns we've heard about tonight. So when ready, I'm ready to move approval of this document. But I did want. Speaker 1: To thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor Councilmember Odie. Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do want to just point out a few things. First of all, Rosa, Linda, before I start, this is, I think, the best place to live in the Bay Area, if not the entire country. So we're better than any other place and there's no other place I'd rather live than right here. And I think a lot of people are that way. And on the back of the room there, we have that sign. Everyone belongs here. So I think we need to make policy decisions based on that value and based on that priority. And it's been a long five years. You know, this is about the time five years ago, I decided to run for council. And this was not an item that, you know, people were talking about. But yet I think it's the one thing that we spent the most time on in our council over the last five years. And I think it's pitted our community against each other. And it's sad to me to see how that happened. And I hope that now, you know, we have the just cause, you know, that was in so and it's past the referendum period. So I don't know why that's being discussed. We have this measure which hopefully will pass tonight. We have modifications to, you know, for some of the things that people in the audience had asked for, like the earthquake relocation, you know, we're going to have modifications come back. Mark Potter is going to bring those back in the fall. And I'm sorry that people think that we punish, but I think what we've done is protect. There was a tremendous amount of people at risk of being displaced, and we saw that happen. And I think I called it social cleansing because that's what it is. And John talked about it a little bit. And Malia talk about, I'm sorry if using your first name is a bit of an emotional issue. So they talk about it a little bit. I mean, the pressure we have on the lower wage earners in our society and our city and our area is just tremendous. And we felt as a body that we had to do something to protect people. People were not able to afford the double digit rent increases. And yet we put in our our controls. And the data I saw in in the Chronicle of that over the past year, Alameda is average 6.2% increase. So that's above five that's surely above CPI. So there's data here that shows even though we've we've tried to help, you know, it hasn't really filter down to benefit the most vulnerable. And I think that society is judged on how we take care of our most vulnerable, whether it's our children, whether it's our elders, whether it's, you know, those that that are just struggling to make ends meet. And I think that was our responsibility as a council, and that's what we did. You know, if we have people working, we also increase the minimum wage, which I think also helped. But if we have people working for ten or $11 an hour and they can't afford to live here, they're going to live out in Modesto and Antioch and Pittsburgh, and they're either going to drive contributing to greenhouse gas and global warming, you know, or they're just not going to work here anymore. And then how does that impact our businesses? So everything is all connected in my mind. And if we really want to stand by those two signs that are back there and the things that we are, you know, have happy, smiling photo opportunities on three or four times a year, then I think we have to vote those values. And that's what I plan on doing today. This has been I hope that now that our staff and our council is wrapping this up, we can have a time of healing. I think that because we have protections, I think our tenants are not going to be afraid to speak up when they need a maintenance problem. They're not going to be afraid to speak up when they have an issue. Because the fear of. Addictions is gone. You know, we're not going to have a summer house, 22, 23 anymore. That's never going to happen again in Alameda. We're not going to have a470 central ever again happen in alameda. You know those two things, we can sit here and say how sad it was, but if we just say how bad it was and we couldn't do anything and then do anything about it, then we have neglected our duty to you and we have neglected our duty to protect every resident of Alameda. So, I mean, I do hear the concern and the fears of the small property owners. I do hear the concerns and the fears of the owner occupied. And, you know, I'm willing to sit down and talk to anybody any time if they have ideas. You know, when Assemblymember Bonta ran for council, he said, I'll listen to any idea, doesn't have to come from me. But if it's a good idea, I'm going to listen to it. And I've tried to follow that advice and that guidance. If you have an idea that you think can help, by all means, talk to me. I'm open. I'll meet you for coffee. I love every single coffee shop in Alameda, and the more I can drink of it, the happier I am. So I think there's things we can do to improve the city. You know, it's it's something we put in there to help when there are huge maintenance issues, like a large roof or, you know, foundation things like that. But we also have to do it in a fair way. So we put that in and it's only been used once, and I think that application got kicked. So please bring me your ideas. I want to sit and listen to everybody and make sure that we protect everybody. And when I sit here and I say everyone belongs here, you can be damn sure that I mean it. And I stand for it. And that's a value I believe in. And I'm going to fight for it as long as I'm sitting up here. Speaker 0: All right. So we've heard from all the council members and I think I heard motion. Speaker 6: If not, I will move approval of the final rule. I mean. Speaker 0: I didn't I was referring to you guys. We have a motion from by 3/2 a second from Councilmember Odie. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed. Oppose the motion passes for two one. Thank you. Really? Okay. No, no, no. We want to get out of here the same night we started, remember? And we're still on consent calendar people. Okay, so then we move to our last consent calendar item, which is five P and I pulled this item because I have gotten some questions I'm going to ask our recreation parks director, Amy Wooldridge.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Concerning the Establishment of an Annual General Adjustment, a Rent Registry, Banking, and a Petition Process for an Upward and Downward Adjustment of Rents (Community Development 265)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7059

Speaker 0: We want to get out of here the same night we started, remember? And we're still on consent calendar people. Okay, so then we move to our last consent calendar item, which is five P and I pulled this item because I have gotten some questions I'm going to ask our recreation parks director, Amy Wooldridge. There she is if she would come up. I've had some questions about why the golf course was not a part of the recent Fisher study that the council considered. Since this is the final passage of our ordinance amending the the fee update. Speaker 3: Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. As the Ashcraft Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager, Recreation and Parks Director. Yes, it's true. Creek a park is a public park amenity and it's open to the public for a fee. We did in this process we look very carefully at this. We considered including it, but given that it would have significantly increased the development impact fee because it's nearly it's several hundred acres, we were being intentionally cautious and conservative by not including it. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't include other athletic fields. Speaker 0: Close that door, please. Thank you. Speaker 3: It doesn't mean we shouldn't include other athletic facilities, such as soccer fields. And part of it was that we considered it a specialized amenity. And again, we were aiming to be careful and cautious in our analysis. And we given that we have dozens of something like a soccer field or a baseball field and one creek, a park . We we were aiming to be careful in our analysis. Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate that. Is any explanation. Thank you. Does anyone have any further questions or need for clarification? Okay. So hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the final passage of this ordinance removed? We do a motion and act as second.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII, Section 27-3 (Citywide Development Fees) and Approving City of Alameda Development Impact Fees Update and Nexus Study, dated June 2019. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7056

Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate that. Is any explanation. Thank you. Does anyone have any further questions or need for clarification? Okay. So hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the final passage of this ordinance removed? We do a motion and act as second. And that was Odean Marx White. All in favor. I oppose, abstain. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, now we move to regular agenda. Speaker 1: Item six is the adoption of resolutions appointing Carli Grove as a member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, reappointing Ronald emerged as a member of the Recreation and Parks Commission and appointing Scott White as a member of the Transportation Commission. Speaker 6: Approval Second. Speaker 0: Thank you. And just by way of discussion, I will say I'm really thrilled with all three of these appointments. So we have a motion in a second. All in favor. I opposed abstain passes unanimously and I think I saw all three. Yeah. Come on up because I'm. Yeah, come on Scott. And there's Carly. Yes. And Ron the merge. I saw you. Speaker 1: I think you left. I think. He left. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, we'll catch him another time anyway. Speaker 1: We're going to do this thing. Okay. So if he'll raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you are well and faithfully discharge the duties? Both your body and I do this work for you. Thank you. Thank you very much for this discussion. I just want to make sure you get. Speaker 6: Doing the math and it was really. Speaker 1: Expensive for. Speaker 2: You. Speaker 0: Doing the math. All right. Okay. Now we are moving on to item six B. And before I get started on that, I'm anticipating perhaps a couple of recusals. And then we're going to take a really quick break and then we'll move on from there. So item six B Madam Clerk.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Carly Grob as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Reappointing Ron Limoges as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission, and Appointing Scott Weitze as a Member of the Transportation Commission.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7025

Speaker 1: Hi. Selecting a development team for the West Midway Project and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an exclusive negotiation. Right. To negotiate agreement. Sorry. With Selected Development team. Okay. Good evening. Speaker 0: Good evening. We're looking for the CliffsNotes. Speaker 3: Version of the statue is, um, let's see. We're here tonight to recommend that you select the development team for the West Midway Project and that you authorize the city manager to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement with selected development team. Um, you familiar with the area of the map and exhibit one? And the process has basically been, uh, we came here about a year ago, July 10th, you authorized the RFQ, we've received seven qualified proposals. And in February you narrow the field down to two finalists, alameda point and Jamestown. Cypress Equity Investments. Uh, have some members Odion de sag. They're appointed to a subcommittee to develop supplemental questions for staff intended to gain more information about the finalists. Um, between March 6th and March, uh, May 6th, the two finalists, Alameda Point Partners and Jamestown. I requested additional time to explore potential partnership to develop West Midway and submitted responses in supplemental questions. On May 21st, Jamestown withdrew the developer selection process due to uncertainty about the viability of a commercial development. Given the phasing and increased costs of infrastructure with the withdrawal of Jamestown CEI, there are few alternatives that council can take tonight in selecting a development team. One Council could select AP as the remaining finalists shortlisted by council, and they have completed the supplemental questions. Another alternative is to reconsider. Brookfield, Brookfield Residential and or Telis Council could confirm that there is they are still interested based on their original submittal and then require them to respond to the supplemental questions . Another alternative is to reinstate the RFQ process, which would take about 6 to 9 months before coming back to council for a final selection. Um, so staff's recommendation of council is to select a development team for West Midway and authorize, um, execution of it. I will say that each of the development teams has a representative here to speak to any questions you might have. And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer your questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. Nice work. Any clarifying questions on the separate? I want to just hasten to thank my colleagues, Councilmember Odie and Councilmember De. So you did a nice job on the questions that were posed to the finalists, so thank you for for your work on that subcommittee. So we go ahead and here are public speakers and then have our deliberations. Okay, let's do that. And so I think we've said 2 minutes per public. Speaker So go ahead, Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: Okay. Karen Bay, Joe Ernst, Doug Biggs and Bruce Starkman. Speaker 14: Good evening, Buttermere City Council Staff. So it's been more than two years since the Main Street neighborhood specific plan was approved. It's been a year since CRF two was issued. We had four developers that were shortlisted and then we narrowed it down to two. One of those developers, James Town, backed out and said, We're left with a two point partners. I think it's time to move forward and make a decision. And I'm here to support our point partners and let them choose a partner if they so desire to choose a partner. We've been through this before where we selected a partner for someone and it didn't work. And so I think AP Partners has earned the project at this point. They've been vetted. Are their financially committed? They have a great vision for the project. They've done their due diligence. They know the project site. They have a great construction team that's ready to go. And I think that there's benefit by having sort of a this master developer that has a vision so that we don't have a sort of a hodgepodge type of project with people, developers with different visions. I think there's a great benefit to having them move forward with the Main Street Development Project. So I urge you to select Alameda Point Park. Nice for the Main Street Project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Bay. I just. Speaker 4: Mayor Ashcraft, members of the council. I'm Joe Ernst with Alameda Point Partners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'll try to make this quick. I'm happy to be here and talk about this because I do as I've mentioned to many before, I do believe we bring a lot to the table here. Certainty. I think we can deliver with shorter time frames. We've already gone through the process of negotiating DDA documents, etc. with the city. We have a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience in working with the various systems that agencies issues, economies. We know cost here is critical and we have with our phase one work site A, we can bring economies with that work. Vision, I believe our vision for the project is most consistent with with delivering reshape, which is so critical. But also the other objectives that we've talked about for years jobs, social impact, trip generation, transit development and reduction of trips. But I want to address, most importantly, you know, one of your big concerns. One we respect. And that's the issue of diversity. I appreciate the questions about how do we mitigate risk, be comfortable. You know, we know what gets funded. I think all of the developers in this room know that a well-designed, thoughtful project that has community support, that will pencil and then is delivered by an experienced operator, you know, we all go through whether we have our own capital or we work with third parties. It's a very efficient market we go through. We have fiduciary responsibilities to investors, independent boards. So at the end of the day, you know, projects that get funded are those that pencil and have experienced operators who've demonstrated track record. You know, we went through that with City. We ran into issues in 2016. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. 2 minutes. Okay. Next, I see Doug Biggs. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name's Doug Biggs, executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. And speaking here on behalf of the Reshape Collaborative Partners. You want to get out of here before midnight? We want to get out of this process before the end of the year. First and foremost, take the idea of an RFP off the table. That is just untenable. There is a lot of funding coming down the pike now for housing and we need to take advantage of it and we need to be ready to do this. And lengthy delays in selecting the metro developer for the Main Street project will severely impact that it's time to move forward. We early on met with all four partners. We determined that all four are capable of fully capable of of doing the work. We have full faith in them. We've enjoyed working with and meeting with each of them throughout the process. You have a process you embarked on last year that has resulted in having one, one, one developer standing tonight. And you either need to move forward on that or, you know, if you can do it without delays, you could do the questionnaire process as long as it's a very quick turnaround. But we you know, you set a process in motion that's resulted in where you're at tonight. There's rationale for finishing that out. There is if you feel like you need to do other vetting. I think there's some rationale for doing the questionnaire. We're not going to tell you which route to go. That's why you're sitting up there. But please don't do a process that's going to delay moving forward on this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Bruce Dorfman, listen next. Speaker. Yes, Mr. Dorfman. Speaker 2: Good evening. I was hoping to keep it short and basically second, everything my partner Joe earned said, but he didn't get through all his points. So I'd just like to restate what we've said before, that we think that we can offer greater certainty, shorter timeframes and lower costs by moving forward. We have a DDA that we relatively recently negotiated with the city. We know the pricing for doing the work out there. We've completed the physical due diligence and understand the constraints. We have good working relationships that have been developed over the years with the city and related agencies, and we're prepared to execute. Phase one, as we discussed at the groundbreaking of BLOCK Eight last week, is going quite well now that we're out of the rainy season. And we even though we've incurred, I think it was close to 70 days of rain and weather delay, we've gotten to a very important point been the 50% completion. And frankly, the second 50% of this work we think is going to go much quicker. So we are very interested in moving forward and just getting to one of Joe's points about the diversity aspect. On phase one of site, we had six different development parcels. We have sold three of those to different developers, and diversity has occurred that way. We're looking at moving forward with phase two. We're currently processing the vesting, tentative map and the infrastructure improvements that will be in front of you later on this year for review. And consequently, I think that being able to roll right into West Midway is appropriate and frankly, given the neighbor neighboring. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Dorfman. Speaker 2: Approvals. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm going to close public comment. Okay. Counsel comment. Who wants to start Councilmember Odie? Speaker 9: Sure. I'll go first and I appreciate the thanks on the questionnaire. And you were. Speaker 0: Very helpful. Speaker 9: To work with my colleague and I also appreciate the answers. And I think they were frank. They were honest. And, you know, one of the things I learned in this job is that, you know, developments don't always take as fast as you wish. We wish we could have that housing open today. But the mayor and I were there. Was it last week? Last week at the at the building aid. And just to know that we were standing there where half of the infrastructure that we didn't have that was basically half of the cost of the project was basically from the city's perspective it was in. So I don't see any reason why we had this discussion a while back where we narrowed it to two. I mean, in an ideal world, the partnership had a lot of appeal, but one dropped out. So I mean, the point of narrowing it is, you know, you narrow it and then you go, you know, with who you have. So I trust AP to get this done. They've had shovels in the ground. They know what's under there and they know what to do. And I don't see any reason why we would change horses, you know, right now and start the process over or even ask others to do the questionnaire, because this is the direction of the council from a while ago. And, you know, I'm perfectly comfortable. And I do want to thank Staff Michel and Debi for all your hard work on this. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Dandelion Councilmember Desai. Speaker 5: Oh, thank you. Thank you also for your kind comments. Much appreciated, in my opinion. The process worked. You know, we started out with a multitude of developers through the request for a qualification process, and then it came down to two. It was actually three because because one of them was like on the bubble. And then so and then we came down to the two of Jamestown and, and AP, but Jamestown, you know, fell by the wayside. And so Alameda Point Partners is and we're not backing into app. This is a developer who has proven themselves and also I have always appreciated the substantial commitments that they've made through the DDA Shell shuttles running on a on a particular time frame. The amount of investments in in bus rapid transit and investments in the ferry terminal set are not to talk about not to mention the infrastructure dollars that that had would go down. So I'm satisfied with moving forward with staff's recommendation, with selecting a winner for the for the West Midway Project and that being AP, I appreciate the other developers who are here especially could tell us I appreciate the work that you guys have done in Bayport and also in Alameda Landing. But several months ago I think it was Jamestown. And Jamestown is in here. So. So there you have it. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. You, Vice Mayor, next week. Speaker 2: Hmm. Speaker 6: So I think when we heard this in January, anyway, whenever we heard this, we chose to we had a we had we kind of went with a a known quantity and a new in a in a new entity this year. And I think at that meeting, I was definitely in the eye nervous about putting all our eggs in one basket. I did. I will disclose that. And I did meet Mr. EARNEST last week briefly, and I don't think I said anything different than I'm going to say right now. If there was a you know, I think if there was somebody that I would trust to put our eggs in one basket, I said this back in February as well. They do have a history of delivering, you know, in a tough market where we've watched a number of other development entities walk away, come back and ask us to reduce their things so they can sell to somebody else, etc.. You know, I'll be interested to see where everybody else is. But I do agree with with Councilmember Hardy that we started a process. We chose two people at the end of the day, not because we chose we ended up with one of those people, but that there is something that to suggest that maybe we shouldn't walk away from that process. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Rivera. Speaker 11: I think my concerns are around question three regarding the do you foresee anything that could cause delays in completing the infrastructure for Reshape and the West Midway development? As I expressed at our previous meeting on this, you know, my concern is about making sure that these affordable units are able to come online and that, um, that there aren't delays to this. And in particular, one of the concerns that I have is about the overall number of units and the density and what that could mean to the rest of Alameda point. And, you know, I think one of the things and I'm reading the response here and I and I appreciate the acknowledgment that there's a number of different things that could cause delays to the build out of infrastructure. But I am I am concerned about the timing of different units coming on to the market and what the the total number of units are going to be. So I don't know. You know, if there's if we could get kind of a. Speaker 0: Do you have a question you wanted to ask? We help bring them back up. Yeah. Okay. Could I have Mr. Dorfman and Mr. Ernst to approach the podium, if you would, please? This is my day for just putting people on the spot. But, hey, here they are, the applicants. Okay, because I think I. And in my notes, I actually like that same question. Speaker 11: Okay. So if. Speaker 0: You could ask away, would you if. Speaker 11: You could answer that question. Speaker 4: The question being number of units being delivered at any one time. Mm hmm. So if it is a concern, if there are too many of the same type of units being delivered at any. Speaker 0: One, I was just. If you were speaking to the microphone, we could all hear you. Speaker 4: You know, that there would be a concern if there's too many of the same kind of units being delivered to Mark at any one time. So that will be something knowing what we're doing with phase one today, phase two safety as we think about the product type for West Midway, that we have the ability to manage that and not create something that's going to compete with one another and jeopardize the project. Speaker 11: And how, you know, in terms of your plan for the number of units that you see coming on for this, could you talk about that for this phase or for this. Speaker 4: For first phase of West Midway? Speaker 13: But in the end, when? So. Speaker 0: Microphone, gentlemen. Speaker 2: Excuse me. So we had three different product types in content. One was a rental community. Another was townhomes. The third was single family. So consequently, the the highest density project would be the largest of the three being the multifamily component. The townhomes would be next, and then we would have the fewest number of single family homes. So the townhomes and the single family, we will be selling off to third party developers. And frankly, one thing that we're doing with phase one and phase two is we are by working with true MA Homes right now, introducing those phases for the townhomes specifically where there's probably saw absorption and certainly the multifamily component in, you know, every 6 to 9 months, the 60 units. So that speaks to that absorption. But I'm not overly concerned about cannibalizing, if that's what the concern is, because again, in the big scheme of things, this is relatively small. Speaker 3: It would true Mark. Speaker 11: Or will true Mark be working with you? Will true Mark be working with you potentially on this project? Well. Speaker 2: Uh, or Brookfield or. Speaker 1: Oh. Speaker 0: You're into partnerships. Speaker 1: Say. Speaker 0: That's interesting. Okay. Speaker 4: But again, I think to your question, Councilmember Vela, you know, with both projects, the. Speaker 0: Microphones, with. Speaker 4: Both projects, we can manage the product types that we don't create a competition that jeopardizes the project. Speaker 0: Did you have your questions answered? Speaker 1: That's it. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. You may sit down, I. So when. And I also met with Mr. Ernst one day last week, and I was I think I was the eggs in the basket person when we voted on this, worrying about putting all our eggs in one basket. And I do appreciate that. That was a question that was asked of the applicants, and I appreciated the responses. And my feeling is that, um, and it's been said before by the applicants that they have experience with this infrastructure. They have seen the surprises of which there were many. And yet last week in my weeks just fly by. So it was maybe Wednesday or Thursday. Last week, Councilmember o.T and I represented the city at a fabulous groundbreaking for the first residential construction to rise at Alameda Point and its affordable senior apartments at 60 affordable units. 20 and 30 of those are for formerly homeless seniors, 62 and older. 28 of those 30 are for formerly homeless veterans. And there we were at a former Naval Air station. Housing about two houses a year from now will be doing a ribbon cutting to house formerly homeless veterans, which is one of the really sad things in this housing crisis. We face that a significant percentage of our homeless are veterans, and that just is wrong on so many levels. And they serve their country. And now for a variety of reasons, they're living unhoused. But there there were those who said that, oh, you know, this the affordable housing, it'll get pushed to the wayside. We were the first project to go up is going to be market rate. Well, it's not and following shortly behind the senior will be the multifamily affordable housing. And so it was really a proud moment for us to speak because we had a lot of there were a lot of folks from the region who were there and even from Sacramento. And to be able to talk about no, we the city council, we have a commitment. We put our money where our values are and and, you know, do the right thing. But we need good partners to do it with us. So that's kind of a long way of saying that. I, too, would support the selection of Alameda Point Partners to be the the development team for the West Midway Project. So we have I think there's two things that are we a man clear cut me how are we doing to votes? We need to take a vote on selecting the development team for the West Midway Project and also other a city manager to negotiate an exclusive and execute and any. Speaker 1: You can do it all. Speaker 0: We can do it on one vote okay to have a motion or. Speaker 9: I'll make that motion I. Speaker 0: Have a motion from okay and have a second spin move by councilman cody seconded by Councilmember de sag all in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 0: I that would be unanimous. This motion passes. All right. Congratulations again. And our apologies for the lateness of the hour. We had a lot of business to transact, and we are going to zoom into the next one. So, um, good morning.

Regular Agenda Item

Selecting a Development Team for the West Midway Project and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement (ENA) with the Selected Development Team. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7046

Speaker 0: I that would be unanimous. This motion passes. All right. Congratulations again. And our apologies for the lateness of the hour. We had a lot of business to transact, and we are going to zoom into the next one. So, um, good morning. Mr.. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 0: Okay. If everyone could leave quietly, people from Essex be just clear, sexy. Please tiptoe out because we have to launch right into 60. Okay. So again, the CliffsNotes version. Mr. Garland, I know we have all read this. And by the way, before you even start very compliment you and whoever else put this staff report together, it and the both the staff report and the the the resolutions, it's just it is very informative and very well done. Kind of scary. But, you know Segways perfectly from the climate action resiliency plan we considered earlier you but you've really been the bookend and tonight's meeting have a tuning in the end. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: But feeling that are you okay? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: Take it away. Speaker 7: Oh, I will present a Cliff Notes version. I'm actually starting with the last slide here, which is the staff recommendation. Now we're recommending moving forward with two resolutions to initiate a Prop 13 process for option number one, the property related fee. And I'll talk a little bit about this and in the presentation, let's talk about what it means. If council does move in this direction, it means that on August 10th there'll be a notice to all property owners with a fee range of between 45 and $78 annually for an average sized single, single family residence. There's an alternative here where the city council could direct staff to mail a notice with a single specific rate. That is something for the council to consider. Then we'd have a. Round of public education in August and September. And then we'd have an October 1st hearing, which is really a two term, to determine whether there's a majority protest, meaning the notices that we send out on the 10th. Is there a majority protest based on those notices? If not, then it's the council's discretion at that point to initiate the proceedings, to go out to ballot, to set an actual rate, to go out the ballot on those ballots could be mailed as soon as October 10th and would be back by November 25th with results to council in December. So that that is a timeline that could flow from action tonight. Now, I'm going to back up a little bit and just talk about how we got here back in April. Council directed staff to come back with options to explore and also some survey results to match up with those options to help the council moving forward. And here we've laid out the two options. Number one being the property related fee in which property owners vote. Number two, the parcel tax in which registered voters vote. The big difference there being the simple majority for the property related fee and the supermajority for the parcel tax. Unless there's burning questions about this slide, I'll keep moving. Speaker 0: Keep moving. I'm sorry, Councilor Rody. Speaker 9: I said one real quick one. You mean hypothetically under the schedule? Can you compare the date? We would know the results versus the last date possible to put something on the ballot and say if it lost. Speaker 2: Oh, I see. Speaker 9: Is there enough time to do it? Speaker 7: In other words, for the March 2020 or write orders for the March 2020 ballot? I think it would be December. Speaker 9: It's December something. Speaker 1: Right at the beginning of December. Speaker 2: So I think. Speaker 0: Yeah. True. Speaker 4: And this is coming back in October, right? The ballot would be submitted in October. Right. Speaker 1: The ballots. Speaker 9: It would be mailed October 10th. Speaker 4: Mm hmm. And then comes back, what, November 10th, 2015? Speaker 9: Is that enough time? I mean, I'm confident will do well, but just in case, I think we should have a backup plan, that's all. Speaker 7: That is definitely something coming out of tonight we can give more thought to in terms of how to have that back up plan, because that would also mean having staff, reports and resolutions ready to go earlier than that November 25th when ballots would be due. Speaker 3: I have a question. Speaker 0: Councilmember Avila. Speaker 11: Could it be scheduled as a special meeting or does it have to be scheduled as a regular? Hmm. Speaker 0: That's a question for a city attorney or the city clerk. Speaker 1: I think I can skip the question and just say I think the deadline is the beginning of December to get it into the county. So I don't know that getting a special meeting versus a regular meeting is going to give us that much more time. I just I have to do the election calendar really quickly and I could try, but. Let me see. I'll try and calculate it. Really? Okay. Speaker 0: I had confidence in the statistics, but whatever. Did you finish? Was that especially possible? Okay. Can somebody suck? Speaker 5: My. Quick point of view is if it lost in November 25th, that lost. The people have spoken. There's no need to rush or have another. Yeah. Property owners have spoken so well. They're the people who vote. Speaker 9: So. Speaker 0: But I can't remember Villa. Speaker 11: So I have a problem saying that the people have spoken. If it's the property owners. I think that there's a lot of people in Alameda who would say that they have a voice certainly for the type of election that we would be choosing. That would be the subset. But to say that the people have spoken and then dismiss them summarily from, you know, voters as voters. Speaker 0: Well, you know, what I would go would probably put more stock in. Do you actually did the polling both from the the property owners, which only required a simple majority versus all the voters which required the two thirds? And it was definitely closer. I mean, they were still pretty decent results. But I, I mean, if we had to, we would the only thing I think it begs the question that if they turned it down, is that a sentiment that would be carried out? But we can explore those. I think we need to keep moving for to answer the questions that are before us tonight. Speaker 1: I can. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 1: I can quickly add that that in order to get something on the March 3rd, 2020 ballot, it would have to be due to the Registrar of Voters by Friday, December 6th. Okay. So really, that first meeting in December is pretty much until. Speaker 0: You can work some stuff backwards from that. Speaker 7: And maybe walking through the survey results slide might help the discussion. So this first slide is about the property related fees. So again, this is the universe of voters is property owners. And here we've got a simple majority threshold and under the $36 rate, that's the lower rate we found 59.5% support. You've got to discount that by the margin of error, which is around 3%, still a healthy margin above 50%. At the higher rate, it drops to 56%. So again, with the margin of error, you still got some some room above that 50% threshold. Speaker 0: So and no voter education to speak of to date just. Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Factor to consider. Yeah. Speaker 7: And now we're turning to the parcel tax, which again has the supermajority requirement and they're at the lower rate. We're just at that threshold actually slightly above it. However, once you consider the margin of error, your error, you're actually below below that threshold. Then if you go to that higher rate, you are already under the threshold without the margin of error, and then you include the margin of error, you're further under the threshold. So I think it informs that discussion a little bit just in terms of if we were unsuccessful on the property fee, it might be a tough road to hoe on the on the supermajority requirement. There was a couple other pieces of information that came out of the surveys that were of interest to council, at least back in April. And that is around sorry. Speaker 0: Back in April it wasn't so close to midnight. But. Okay, quickly. And do we want to do okay? Speaker 7: No, no, I can I can skip this. Speaker 0: I want to know this. Will you read this? I'm presuming. Yeah. Speaker 7: Let's go to just context for a moment. The last slide and then that I will back up is just to give these stormwater fees. Some context is even at the max rate being considered on the lower left corner, you see that the max rate would be about for the new fee would be about $6.50 per month. That's on top of the current fee, which is approximately 4.67 $4.67 for a total of a little over $11 per month. And then you compare that to average monthly bills for garbage and recycling, sewer and water. And you see there's quite a bit of difference in terms of those those bills with the storm fees being much more modest than those other monthly bills. And so with that will land again on the recommend. Did I not. Give me one moment. Did everybody see the average monthly bills on the lower right hand corner of that slide? Uh huh. Speaker 3: Are you sure about. Speaker 5: The $150 or any. Speaker 7: As as an average over the course of the year? Speaker 5: Prevent launch. Speaker 7: And you're running a highly efficient household. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 2: I won probably only that gas. Speaker 0: I have a couple questions for you, Mr. Galan. Can you explain? This is in the staff report. There is the, uh, page five of the staff report you talked about. There's two different rate structures based on storm runoff. Well, it's modeled on estimating how much impervious surface is in each parcel. There's low development and parcels that drain into the bay. How do you how do you determine that? Speaker 7: Yes. So I'll start us off and then I'm going to ask Jerry Bradshaw, who's an expert with CCI, consultant who helped develop the fee study. Overall, the way these fees are developed, as you look at the residential side, you're looking at per parcel. So you're looking at an average sized single family home, then lower and then higher than that. And you're looking at the permeability or as this prior slide shows, just give me a moment. If you look at that sponge, you're looking at some properties, act as a sponge and keep that stormwater infiltrated on that parcel. That means they're contributing less to the stormwater system and should be charged less. Speaker 0: I understand that. How do you figure out which is which? Speaker 7: I am going to ask Jerry to come up to talk about the statistics behind that. Speaker 0: And I'm really looking for the thumbnail sketch. Okay. Speaker 2: We take a statistical approach to this, so we break the parcels into different groups and residential. We have we looked at all sizes of parcels and did a sampling of those and actually went on aerials and measured rooftops, driveways and anything like that. So we did a statistical sampling to come up with that and then broke it into size. Speaker 0: Groups from that helps. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, you're back, Mr. Garland. Speaker 1: Or are you. Speaker 0: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Garland? Speaker 6: I think I have one. In determining whether or not we were to set a specific fee or send out a letter with a range of fee. What's the tradeoff? Why? Why? Why would we do one or the other? Speaker 7: What the range of fees affords the City Council is more discretion at that October 1st public hearing to set a fee within that range. If you set a fee now, you're bound by that fee at that October 1st public hearing. Right. Speaker 6: So so I guess I. Can I make a comment? Speaker 0: Well, and I you made a comment. I have a follow up question to that. Speaker 6: Yeah, I guess to me, I think that the then the trade off is is there confusion caused by sending a letter that says 45 to 78 or an expectation of lower if we decide to go higher later, as opposed to determining where we'd like, where the sweet spot is that we think we would like to proceed with . And just going with that, right, is that it's late. I'm looking for. Speaker 2: You. It seemed like. Speaker 6: The right tradeoff. Speaker 4: Well, I was the one that I was the one that recommended they give you the options. If you had a specific rate that you wanted to go forward of that you could put it. And that's what my my my experience has been on to a teens, but there is an opposite experience and that is to give the range. So so I don't know that there's advantage one way or the other. I think it depends on your on your view. I mean. Speaker 0: What will we know in October that we don't know now? Speaker 7: We'll have probably not survey data to back this up. We'll have a better sense from the community and a couple of community meetings about the level of tolerance for either that a low fee versus the high fee. So it won't be a formal survey results. I'll have an October 1st, but at least have anecdotal sense about what the community is sensing. Remember the big difference between the fees being one fee? Make sure we have continuity of our operations and maintenance. Another fee ensures that continuity and ensures at least a chunk of some important capital projects get done right. Speaker 0: Planet. Oh, okay. So Council's we have a public speaker. Okay, so we'll get to our deliberation as soon as we've heard from our public speaker and our public speaker here. Speaker 1: Ruth, Abby? Speaker 0: Ruth. Abby. Oh, there's another one who was here for the 530 idea being everyone. Speaker 3: Just to let you know that I think there's a constituency out there that really believes that this is sort of essential public services, that is absolutely fundamental, that we have a stormwater system that will be resilient, both in terms of our existing issues and future impacts of climate change. So I just hung around to make sure that you knew the city was out there and that we would very much support the idea of moving forward with asking the property owners to add this as a fee to their property related fees. Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments and for your good work. Okay. We were starting to have council discussions, so we have options. Well, first of all, is there a sense of the council that this is something important that we want to move forward on? I will just hasten to add that the paragraph on page seven that says To meet the challenge of sea level rise, rising groundwater and more frequent and intense storms, the city's funding of its stormwater pumps, etc., etc., must be commensurate with its maintenance, operations and capital needs by increasing revenue to get closer to the stormwater systems, current and projected needs. This action is one of the most important near-term actions recommended in the city's draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. Your thoughts? Speaker 9: Councilmember Odie Sure. I'll go first. Things were serious. Thanks, Leon, for this report. And I had some questions the first time you brought this, but they were all answered. And I appreciate the survey that that gave me a lot of information. I mean, my history of dealing with polls, although they're not like the election, they're pretty accurate. So it's comforting to know that, you know, even at the higher end, which I'd be more inclined to go at the higher end that we're still above above 50%. I'm perfectly comfortable moving forward with this and thanks, Ruth, for spending some time with me and talking more about it. I would like us to have a backup plan because there is a disparity between, you know, the 67% that would approve and, you know, the 53. So it makes me feel like we could win a parcel tax. I'd rather not do that unless we have to. But it'd be great to have a backup plan just in case. I mean, I'm crossing my fingers and will be. Well, that's all I'll say that that it passes because as you said the last time you were here, this fund is pretty much depleted. And we just did a climate emergency thing a few months ago and we just did the Climate Action Plan earlier today. So, again, we can't just put that on the shelf. We have to we have to actually act based on those decisions we made. And I think this is the first step we can take. While second, if you count veterans court in in implementing what you've asked us to implement. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Really, who else? Councilmember Vice mayor and we. Speaker 6: All second everything Councilmember Ody has said. And I think he makes a compelling argument for why we should ask for the if we if we feel comfortable. And I think that survey data doesn't show a significant drop from the low end to the high end of the of this, that if we're going to be serious about our climate, we are going to have to pay for these projects. Then you want. Speaker 0: To make a. Speaker 3: Motion. Speaker 6: I will move approval moving forward with a recommendation for $78. Second. Speaker 0: Okay. Any comment? I mean, any discussion? Yeah, we. Yes, discussion. Yeah. I guess somebody said. Speaker 5: Real quickly when I looked at these survey respondents, it looked like there was like 250 response out of roughly almost 2900. So usually I think around you want 600 responses in order to get 90 or 95% certainty. So it's not just the margin of error, but you also want I get that you're 95% sure that that the probable finding falls within the mean and the margin error. But you need 600 usually I think is the number. But so your so your your number is probably not 90% or 95% is probably 80% or 85%. Speaker 7: That might have been a little confusing in the staff report. The the surveys were mailed to nearly 12,000 people. And as this slide shows, we had 2200 responses received so many more than 200. I think what you're referring to is that we looked at just the universe of tenants who were registered voters, and in that we had a lower response rate and a higher margin of error. But for the survey results on these slides, those had margins of error of about 3%, which actually better than some of the polls the city has been involved in over the past few years. Speaker 5: Okay. Well, if you're if you're surveying 2000, and that's a good number came in. Speaker 0: And you mailed almost 12,000 surveys, correct? Speaker 3: Yes. Okay. Speaker 5: So just just by way of background, when when the census does their asks, they're surveying 400 households and that's based upon 400 households providing. So it's pretty amazing. But I am concerned about $78. I would prefer the smaller $45 and I get the permeable surface thing, but I'm always hung up with the fact that, you know, the apartments over there, what are they called now, summer home or whatever they're called. I mean, they only pay $289 for that one whole parcel. They only pay $289 towards the hospital tax and I pay $289 towards the hospital tax. And that's unfair because Summer House has 500 units or whatever. And so that's piece. Speaker 0: So would you rather have them pay $36 a year? Speaker 5: No, I would rather have them pay an amount that would be pro-rata equivalent to what I have to pay. Speaker 0: That's that's not good for us because. Yeah. And there's a reason that it has to be this configuration. Okay. Anything further? Okay. We have a motion to move forward with. Councilman Ravello. Speaker 11: So I just want to say, moving forward, this, at least from my perspective, because there was a statement made that the people have spoken and it still just rubs me the wrong way. But moving forward this and I'm in support of the higher fee and putting it forward to towards a vote using this this option. But that in no way means or should diminish the fact that everybody, regardless of whether or not they own property, are a voter that matters or a constituent for that matter. Speaker 0: At least in my. I would agree with that. All right. We've had a motion seconded on favor I opposed. Okay. So that motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We are going to speed do one last item and that is a6e. Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider. Introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 dash to be zoning regulations to define animal shelter and Section 30 Dash 410 Zoning regulations to add animal shelter and supervise outdoor animal runs as uses requiring a use permit within the sea and commercial manufacturing zoning district council.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee Report; Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Initiate a Proceeding to Obtain Approval of the City’s 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee, a Property-Related Fee Conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution; Adoption of Resolution Ballot Procedures for the City’s 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee; and Call for a Public Hearing Tentatively Scheduled for October 1, 2019. (Public Works 351)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6701

Speaker 0: So we do have an a proclamation because this is Elder Abuse Awareness Month. And hello, I think I have some folks here from District Attorney's Office and. Speaker 4: Protective Services. Speaker 0: And Adult Protective Services. So if you would like to come up to the podium, I'm going to read the proclamation and then you can make some brief remarks if you would like. But once you come out of it, go ahead and tell us your names. Speaker 4: My name is Dina, and I'm an elder abuse specialist with the district attorney's office. Speaker 8: My name is Vincent Gordon, and I'm a supervisor with Alameda County Adult Protective Services. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for being here and for the work that you do. So this is our proclamation. Whereas the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the largest growing age group in the country are people 65 and over, and that as of July 2018, more than 11,000 Alameda residents are 65 or over. And. Whereas, elder abuse occurs among men and women of diverse educational, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds who have been victimized by strangers and or by persons they know who may occupy a position of trust, including family members, friends, neighbors, and others with whom the elder interacts, and that elder abuse can be physical, emotional and or financial. And. WHEREAS, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, through its elder protection unit and Victim Witness Division, provides a network of services to elders in danger of becoming or who have become victims of abuse. These services include community workshops to promote crime prevention awareness, helping elders access services, working with the Alameda Police Department and other professionals, and prosecuting cases of elder abuse and neglect. And. WHEREAS, The Mastic Senior Center provides a comprehensive array of services as well as recreational and social programs to meet the needs of our elder population, enhance their quality of life, and help them remain active, healthy, independent and safe. And. Whereas, The City of Alameda recognizes that the awareness of elder abuse and neglect, including reporting instances of suspected elder abuse and neglect, helps keep our elders and our community safe. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Marilyn, as the Ashcraft mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim June 2019 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month and June 15, 2019 as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day in the City of Alameda, and encourage all residents to recognize elders as valuable members of our community who have the right to live safely and securely in. Our city. And with that, we thank you for all that you do. And why don't you tell us a few words about that? Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Your Honor, council members, I've received humbly and happily received the proclamation from Alameda City Council. I think about four years now, and I always vie to be the one to come here because I am from Alameda and I'm very proud of our city. I read on our Facebook, your Facebook, that there are now changing tables in the men's bathrooms and. Speaker 0: I smell yours. Speaker 4: I almost bust in there. I wanted to see one. So thank you for that. And my husband, who is a grandfather and who takes kids to the movies and out and about, thanks you as well. So I would like to say that The New York Times has designated financial elder abuse as the crime of the 21st century , and it is the majority of the cases we work on. They aren't as splashy and exciting as the unfortunately the murders and rapes and assaults that we also have worked with elder victims with. But the financial fraud is devastating and it is really impacts elders and the future and they're their last years to go out with this pain is really a traumatic and horrible thing. And I'd like to thank our partners who will speak at a moment. Adult Protective Services, Alameda Police Department, who I couldn't be I couldn't be prouder of, and our fire department as well, who also are at our beck and call when we have an elder who has fallen or needs help. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you for your kind words. And may we hear from you. And you might want to raise that microphone up. Speaker 8: Hello? Yeah. So my name is Vincent Gordon from Alameda County Adult Protective Services. It's my first time here. Thank you for having me. And I want to thank you, Mayor Ashcroft, city council members and residents of Alameda for this proclamation in honor of June, which, as you point out, is Elder Abuse Awareness Month and June 15th, which was the World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Adult Protective Services. And the district attorney's office are honored to be here to bring attention to elder and dependent adult abuse prevention and to be recognized today by your council. Throughout the year, APS actively combats elder and dependent adult abuse by providing services to our at risk clients and through our efforts at the county and state level to identify additional resources to aid in this fight. The month of June is particularly important because we highlight our efforts and bring attention to this fight by organizing events to bring awareness on a daily basis. This evening, I'd like to share just a few of those events with you. We've launched an AC transit campaign and shopping center ad campaign, so keep your eye out. When you're riding AC Transit and when shopping in the community, you'll see the big billboards that say trust but verify is the slogan that we're using. We've also expanded our Baat advertising campaign this year throughout our with our partnership with AC Transit and Contra Costa, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. We are airing our APS commercials throughout the month and we'll have a social media presence working with partner agencies to tweet and post about elder abuse awareness. We have swag bags to giveaway throughout the county with the goal of working with our partners to become ambassadors and raising awareness. And lastly, we will continue to receive proclamations from many of the individual city councils across the county and from the Board of Supervisors in recognition of this important month. As you well know, support of our city governments is paramount to elder and dependent adult abuse. And we greatly appreciate your support not only in June, but throughout the year. So thank you very much for having us. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then we can present the proclamation. Speaker 5: Well. See you, house. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. There is a. Speaker 4: Protection. Speaker 0: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. Between the two of you. And then you're going to have to get a second certificate, actually. Speaker 4: Yeah. Are you done? Thank you. Speaker 0: It's hard work. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. Speaker 4: Thank you. Council members. You. Speaker 5: But. Okay. Speaker 4: We drop a leaf, which means. Speaker 0: You know, the issue of adult financial abuse hit home, not literally home, but a close friend of mine. And, oh, this is we're getting Julia back on the line. Her father is 90 years old, but very, you know, lives on his own. And he's very alert, except that he heard from someone, I think, either by phone or email, telling him that his grandson was in danger and in trouble and he needed $40,000. And this gentleman sent $40,000 in cash to envelopes. And then he was told not to say anything because that could further endanger his grandson. And, of course, eventually the family found out the grandson feels terrible and guilty, not that he had anything to do with it, but it's just there's so many different vulnerabilities that go into being a seniors. So for all of us listening, you know, if you see or perceive something suspicious or or look out for those vulnerable, lonely seniors, it can make a difference. Anyway, thank you so much for all that you do. And now we're going to oral communications. This is a time when a limited number of speakers can address the Council on Items, not on the agenda. We take 15 minutes for oral communications now and then any that weren't heard from will be heard at the end of our meeting. Do we have speaker slips? Speaker 1: We have no. Speaker 4: Speak. Speaker 0: We have no speakers that. So before we go on to the consent calendar, I'm going to call on the voice vice mayor to make a comment or two.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring June 2019 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month and June 15, 2019 as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6979

Speaker 1: Amending the salary schedule and approving workforce changes for the fiscal year and adoption of resolution. Amending the International Association of Firefighters Salary Schedule. Speaker 0: Thank you. And who's present is that, Miss Adair? Yes. Come on up and introduce yourself, please. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 10: All right. Good evening, Madam Mere, members of the council. I'm Melina Dyer. I'm finance director for the city. And today, where you actually get to see me several times. So hopefully. Speaker 0: You never get enough of. Speaker 10: That for. Thank you. I appreciate that. To start with, this is our biannual cycle, which means we have undertaken a bigger load than normally when we do it as a mid-cycle budget. And I would like to with that thank all of the department finance department staff as well as all the department heads and their staff in assisting to complete this budget, in assisting with the budget process. With that, as you remember, we have had two budget sessions in May. And with that, to kind of reiterate, the budget was put together in keeping in mind the city council key priorities that are listed on this slide. So first of all, preparing the city of Alameda for the future, protecting our core services. And as you remember, when we did go over each individual department, that's what we did keep in mind, supporting enhanced livability and quality of life. As we know, all of our citizens are very happy and proud to be in Alameda for exactly those reasons encouraging economic development across the island and of course, ensuring effective and efficient operations. We will go over some budget overview items and quick just a summary. As I mentioned earlier, we did have two budget workshops in May, May 15th and May 16th. It was open to the public city manager incorporated all of the suggestions that were made of most of the suggestions that were made by council and members of the public into the budget. And with that, we had to make some revisions. If you remember, we had to we'll let you know upfront that we had some doubling up on some of the expenses related to capital. We didn't fix that. With that, the grand total citywide expenditures are $332.5 million in year one and $267.3 million in year two. Again, primarily the decrease between year one and year two attributed to capital projects. And just as an example, we had about $20 million that we appropriated the 20 plus for base reuse operations from the sales proceeds. The biggest fund, the most discretionary money that comes to the city is from the general fund. The expenditures in year one in general fund are a little over $100 million, and it grows to about $103 million in year two. One of the things to mention is that by the end of the two year budget cycle, our available fund balance within the general fund stays at 25%, which is currently the policy that council has in place just as a heads up. But I'm going to repeat that and remind you later the individual slides that we present with the additional dollar amounts are on top of what the baseline budget is already. And once we get to those slides, I will point out what that actually means. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 10: Thank you. In looking at to start with citywide, obviously we always look at the general fund budget. However, we are approving the budget for the entire city. And as we do that, I wanted to make sure that the council members as well as members of the public, could see what exactly it's going to look like for us in terms of a trend on the revenues by department citywide as well as the expenditures by departments citywide. It will kind of give you an idea as to where we have been, where we're going. Again, a lot of the times, large fluctuations in expenditures are related to capital. And you will see that even though within the general fund, the largest departments, as everyone usually points out, is fire and police. But other departments actually do have funding sources outside of general fund. And when you look at them, public works in this case has the biggest component. To zero out now into the general fund budget. This provides you with a tabular presentation of what our two year budget will look like, but it also gives you a comparative with what we have projected for 1819 at and this was presented to you at midyear as well as actual expenditures and revenues for the General Fund for fiscal year 1718. Now those numbers are audited. So that's usually is our start. And to remind 1819 is not over yet and therefore those numbers are still a projection. They will change as we go through close the books. And once usually once we close the books, we do a presentation for you and you will be able to see the audited numbers. As you can see is ending from balance. We expect it to be a $26.2 million, 25% by the year or two of the budget. Just as a reminder, we do calculate the fund balance based on ongoing expenditures as well as transfers out. In many cases, when we do one time expenditures such as contributions to our OPEB and pension reserves, we do exclude those just because otherwise it's going to be a spike on what we need. And those are onetime costs that we exclude intentionally. General fund revenues. This actually provides you with a little bit longer trend. We go back to 1617, but it kind of gives you an idea as to where our general fund revenues are going in. Generally, we expect them to stay somewhat flat, to continue to grow, but not at a high pace as we did in 0809 or right after the recession. Our general fund expenditure again graphical presentation here again trend over a seven year period. This gives you a quick summary in graphical way to see where we've been and where we going in terms of our five year forecast for the general fund. As you can see, we project that 1920 and 2021. These are the years under budget, a currently a breaking even. And as a matter of fact, we do add very small amount to the fund balance. However, we do project a deficit going forward after that. And as we have always said, we do not allow to adopt a budget with a deficit. And every year at mid-cycle and again when we do put together biannual budget, we make sure we balance the budget and we'll look at revenues, we'll look at expenditures, all the available resources for us to make sure that the budget is balanced by the time it's presented to you. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 10: So this is going to be a little bit more detail and hopefully a little more familiar than what you have seen during the budget presentation. Again, as a reminder, the numbers you will see are in addition to the baseline budget. So just remember if we increasing by a certain amount, the department may already have certain dollars allocated and this would be on top. We'll start with the police department. And just to let you know, I will be able to present it to you, answer some of the questions. But if you have anything in greater detail and more information that you'd like, we do have the department heads present here and their staff, so they'll be able to answer them. There are three items that were allocated for the police department. One of them is their catering service program. This is their dispatch program and they're currently using one. However, it's not providing sufficient resources for them to retrieve information and provide information to a report out there for general fund is contributing half a million dollars to what? Towards the replacement of the system. We also assume, as you know, some salary savings within the police department, and that does not necessarily mean that we are eliminating the positions. This is strictly that in talking to the department, their expectation, how quickly can they fill the positions and what they are able to do? So the projection in this case is that they will probably with attrition, people retiring, trying to hire new people, they will probably have about five positions open and about $1.2 million in year one equates to. We also are renewing our friends of Alameda animal shelter contract that increases in year one and then it drops a little bit in year two because we have some onetime costs that we're adding in year one. That's with police department. Do you have any questions? Okay. Moving on to fire with the fire department, the allocation and request was for six additional firefighters as a means to assist with general fund paying for this additional personnel department applied for a grant , a safer grant to assist with paying for them. Now, this would also be for an additional ambulance unit. With that, in actually a next slide, you will see in addition to our fleet, a new ambulance unit to be purchased because this particular save for grant is going to require a match. We are including in our two year budget, an estimated match amount. Even though the grant is over a three year period. But we're doing a contribution over to two years and it's approximately $1.3 million in total, which equates about half and half in each year, 650,000 additional personnel cost to assist with administrative duties of the training division . As I mentioned, the addition of a new ambulance to the fleet expected to cost about $400,000. There's also conversations were about recruiting new personnel, including women, into the fire department. And for that, there's additional costs proposed for fire station. Speaker 5: Improvements. Speaker 10: And a feasibility study for a new fire station. A sorry, looking at fire station number five. Previously, we expected General Fund would be paying for it. However, there was a question and it was addressed. We did look into it and base. We use fund because it's really close to that area is covering the cost of the feasibility study. Speaker 0: Question. So I was recently in Sacramento actually with Councilmember O.D. we attended the Governor's Summit on Emergency Preparedness Management. And one of the pieces of information we came away with is that some cities, notably San Francisco, are using their emergency operations center for what they consider a crisis of their time. And they actually do. They provide homeless services out of the EOC. But the point was made to all 400, some of us from who were there from all over the state that you really want to look at using your facilities for more than just one use. So my question would be if this feasibility study could also look at not just a new fire station, but how we know what other services a fire station, especially out at Alameda Point, might provide. Speaker 10: I believe this feasibility study is actually for an existing fire station five that's out there and ability to, I'm assuming, bring it back to life because it was closed at one point. But I could probably defer to the fire team to see what exactly they were going to look into. Speaker 0: When I think that it was, I think that it was to look at that, but also the possibility of other locations and moving a station. And it's not that I need approval from the fire chief. What I'm asking for and actually it would be staff direction, is that I think we just want to maximize our dollars. For instance, our current EOC cost a lot of money. And I just want to make sure that the city has lots of needs, just like every city does. And so the more that our facilities can do, you know, multi-tasking, the better. So I'm just asking if that's something that can be explored. Speaker 10: And I'm sure it can be. And of course, the power to us here to speak to that, but also is a reminder original dollar amount that was put in for a feasibility study was 78,000. So because there were some additional requests to look into other items such as relocation of what it could be used for, additional 20,000 was added and it was increased to 98. Speaker 0: But I understand that. And if we had to juggle dollars around, my suggestion would be under the $60,000 a year for the next two fiscal years for recruitment of fire personnel. I might go with 60,000 for the first year and see what sort of results that yields if we needed to find more money. I think there's always ways to find some flexibility in a budget, but I'm just just asking for a little more flexibility looking at this. So, Chief. Speaker 3: Mayor, if I could answer your first question. So as our finance director stated, the amount for the feasibility study was increased after further conversations with the manager to not only look at what would it take to reopen Fire Station five to make it a. Resize building, but also if we relocated it what would those Cosby to somewhere else and I mean a point we are working. Speaker 8: With our community volunteer partner right now. We had a former building that was an adjunct training center out there. Speaker 3: And we're looking to bring homeless services out there in that building. So I think what you're requesting will probably come to fruition way outside the parameters of this study here. So that's not to say that the facility that we currently have could have sections of it used for those purposes. But we're working hand-in-hand with community development on another option, another. Speaker 8: Site out there for those services for the homeless. Speaker 0: It's great. I hadn't heard about that yet, but nonetheless, I think there's a lot of different ways to look at facilities and I think I see my colleague Councilmember A Yes. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to just put another finer point on that. I think the call of action that that we received there was that we should use our EOC, which is the mayor pointed out, was a very expensive building for collective action and not treated just as a bunker that's used during emergencies and that we can use it for smaller, long term crises. And homeless was one of the ones that came up in San Francisco. So, you know, we have a city assets I think we should use to serve the city and not sure if it's something in this budget discussion. But I do think it's something that I know I'm interested in seeing us do and hopefully I know there'll be a consensus at some point with my colleagues. Speaker 0: Yeah, I just think a budget is a good budget. Time is a good time to look at these things. And the point that was being made in Sacramento and don't worry, San Francisco was in the minority when they asked for a show of hands of how many people are doing other things with their EOC is very few hands went up. But the point they were making is we need to look at these emergencies. I don't need to tell the fire chief, but fire season is now year round storms, floods, what have you. And so cities have to be prepared and yet we have a finite amount of resources. So we've got to make what we have do double and sometimes triple duty. But will. Well, let's stay in communication about that. Great. Thanks, any of you. Sorry, but to your. Speaker 3: Point, you know, last week we had somewhat of an emergency. And I know we we had the library open. I mean, the EOC would have. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. So yeah. Speaker 3: That would have been a perfect opportunity to use the EOC as. Speaker 0: We and we had a discussion about in November, there was there were the campfires and the air quality down here was so bad that we were distributing breathing masks. With 2020 hindsight, that would have been a great time to activate the EOC. We certainly had Deputy Chief Assistant Chief Zon back in the basement of City Hall helping organize, but we weren't at the umpteen million dollar EOC. But going forward, that's the sort of thing I'd like to look at. Thank you for that. No. Okay. Anyone else? Any comments? Councilmember Vela okay, good. Thank you chief. And mrsdurff please continue. Speaker 10: I just wanted to also give a shout out to our city clerk because I can hear myself very well. Speaker 4: So. So thank you. Speaker 10: Okay. Moving on to the library. We're adding to personnel over two year period, one per one position in year one for the school reserve services and also library technician for computer lab in year two. It's important, I think, for our library to be open and also work with schools. So a handsome position was very important and had a priority for our library director. In addition, there are some capital expenditures installing led energy efficient lighting in the library. Those costs were approved and added in year one. I do understand. I apologize. I wasn't actually here for the rest of the budget hearings in May for personal reasons, but I do understand there was a request to increase the library collection and add some dollars to that. And so with that comment, we are adding some dollars to the budget that is presented to you tonight. Are there any questions on the library? Speaker 0: Just a quick comment. I just think this is money so well spent. I know I'm not an objective observer because I co-chair the campaign to build the library, but it just does my heart good to see all the uses of the library, including last night I stopped in at a clinic for renters. That center like aisle came over and did in the library conference room. So keep up the good work. Anyone else? Questions? That wasn't really a question. I could frame it as a question, but go ahead. Speaker 3: Don't you agree? Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 10: All right. Next, we will talk about information technology department. A couple of big items over a two period, two year period. The largest one is enterprise resource planning system. Again, just as a reminder, the city council did approve in the prior two year budget funding. However, what was requested two years ago was actually a greater amount and at the time their approval only happened for a portion of it. So this particular cycle includes the additional amount. And as we know, more information costs did go up and warehouse. Asked for an additional amount here. With that, also, our I.T. Department is asking for an analyst, a programmer, analyst. This person is definitely going to be a big help with implementation of the new ERP. However, it's going to share its time with other projects within the city and one of them is a gas contract. That's all for information technology. Do you have any questions on that? Speaker 0: Any questions? Anyone. Okay. Hearing that. Please proceed. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 10: The next department is human resources and there is a small change. All we're doing is an upgrade. Upgrading an existing position to a little higher position to really recognize the complexity of work. The deputy position is doing and the need within the city for a complexity of work required. So all it is is an upgrade from in the Lisbon position to a senior creature that is and I'm not sure if you have questions, but I will move forward. Speaker 0: So yeah, they're not sure if they had questions. But Councilmember Vela, do let us know if there's anything you'd like to ask, Mr. Leiter. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 10: Go ahead. All right. Moving on to finance department. We are asking you specifically speaking for myself here for an additional position of management analyst. If you remember back in April, we presented to you our financial statements and other reports from the auditors. One of the bigger issues was issues with our procurement policy as well as how we do procurement in the city. So this position, even though it may not be 100% focus on that, but it would be probably a primary focus to make sure that our procurement policies up to date process is up to date and making sure we're actually following the policies either that are currently in place or the ones we're going to put in place. Okay. Moving on to Non-Departmental. There was a request for funding 4th of July parade and our police department has contributed previously certain time of the year to support the 4th of July parade. This year, we actually adding dollars in that support for you in the security staffing. And it's for the next two years, $50,000 each. In addition, hearing what the public was saying, as well as council's sentiment about climate action plan, we've increased the year one contingency was, I believe, $145,000 originally, and it was increased to 305. In addition, we've added a contingency related to the same item in year two. Previously there was none, so that was in response to the public and the council. Okay. Are there any questions on finance and on department? Speaker 4: Sorry. I will go back if need be. Speaker 10: Here? None. I'm going to move on to recreation and parks. There are several items that are being added in the recreation department. In first case, it's the personnel. We adding a gardener position in year two and our position would be 100% general fund funded. As you know, we've added a number of acres of parkland and we do need staff to actually maintain it. In year one, we do add a position, but that position will be funded half and half with the general fund money as well as Marina Village. So there's parklands that are outside of our regular general fund park areas that need maintenance as well because we increasing minimum minimum wage within the city and the department requested to provide additional funding. As you know, we do support recreation fund and in this case they do have a lot of part time personnel. And since minimum wage is going up, that's going to affect them. Some contractual services increases as well as small tools. Again, with the Climate Action Plan, we are trying to go green and with that we are changing the gas powered tools into being more electric. So again, in support. Some capital improvements that are being done with the department by the department would do in park maintenance and improvements. We have reduced the park maintenance improvement in year one in actually allocated funding, that same funding to the playground replacements and then added on the playground replacement $250,000 in year two. Previously there was no allocation for that. Speaker 0: So I have a question here about the that first item, the reduction of the year one, park maintenance and improvements to 175,000 in that would result in deferred maintenance, greening, drainage, irrigation, field lighting and improvements, fencing, building. Those all seem like important things. I thought to ask was when we heard the budget presented at the workshops that we wanted to make sure that right. This is the second item that the the playgrounds were complied with current ADA and all safety standards. And then there is a possibility of a playground at Jackson Park that was being studied. But I certainly didn't mean that we would take away from maintaining and improving our parks. So does someone want to help me understand? Yes. City Manager. Mr. Lovett, I can. Speaker 7: So and this is something that you can consider further tonight. So the initial recommendation in the budget back in May was 250 in park maintenance improvements. That's to 50 above what we've done in the past. So the 250 and both year one and year two were requests by by the rec and parks and that were in my recommended budget because of the Jackson Park. Well, for them, no playground equipment was in year. No. So based on the the discussion at the May meeting, we did. So what I had recommended was 75,000 come from the park and maintenance to the playground equipment for year one, but that an additional 250,000 go in year two. So the two there was 250,000 in year two, but there was just a transfer, meaning year one. You can reconsider that for a year one. Speaker 0: Well, and I would probably ask Ms. Wooldridge, the Recreation Parks Director, because I don't want a multi I mean micromanage your work, but I always worry when I hear the term deferred maintenance because sometimes the maintenance we defer ends up costing us more. So was there any thought to taking the 175 and the 250 and splitting that amount equally? Or tell us if you you know, how you feel about these numbers. Speaker 4: Right? So in terms of splitting them equally, it actually goes into a capital improvement fund. And so we expend as much as we can within the first year and our strategic about how we do that. So we can certainly equalize it out into what the I can't do the math that for graphs on of my head but equalize them. But it would essentially ultimately result in relatively the same level of of amount of projects that are completed. Speaker 0: Okay. So you're not concerned that you would be deferring? I mean, when I say grading drainage, irrigation, I mean. Speaker 4: I would say I'm I'm happy that we're going above and beyond where we're at now. As the city manager mentioned, both the 175 and the 250 is above what we're currently doing and so will bring us to a better level than we're currently at. Yes. Speaker 7: I just want to clarify the details are as I remember, it's to talk about things that we're trying to correct that were deferred maintenance. Yes. So this is to improve on past deferred maintenance. Okay. So I want to make sure less deferred. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Right. So I just want to make sure that it's. Speaker 4: Not creating deferred maintenance. Yes. Speaker 7: Addressing deferred maintenance is to try to create improvements to pass deferred. Okay. And I wanted to make sure everyone was clear. Speaker 0: All right. And you feel that you've got sufficient? Well, you. Speaker 4: Know, there's always more projects to do. So it's it's the council's prerogative if you choose to bring that back to 250 in the first year, it really was an effort to address the community interest that came for Jackson Park. Speaker 0: Understood. Anybody else want to weigh in on this councilmember decided. Speaker 6: Previously recently I went on our website is check for the minutes from the meeting and at this point the I believe the minutes for the budget workshops are not available. So in looking at the tapes which are available, I do. You believe that what is written here when it comes to park maintenance and the playground is exactly what if we all remember? Our city manager gave an incredible summary of the way in which funds would be allocated based upon the input from the community and council members. So so I recognize the fact that, you know, when you originally the park maintenance for year one was $250,000. That was the original request. But by the same token, the background that they gave was that compared to what was done before, it was completely whole new, completely new money. So. So in an effort to address the need for Jackson Park, then I recognize that. Okay, well, you know, the money has to come from somewhere. So that was a compromise that the city manager made in reacting to the concerns. What I really was excited about, though, was the year to $250,000 for the playground replacement, because that was to me, that was, you know, what we were really. Well, what was interesting was what interested me the most. On a final note, yes, indeed. In the last budget workshops, there was one exhibit that that identified all the deferred maintenance at every park. So that was a valuable insight as to why we are making headway in terms of allocating money that was not allocated before. We have a lot more work to be done. But I think in order to address that systematically, there's there's other kind of budget related issues that we're at some point in time we'll have to tackle. Speaker 0: So if I could just ask for your consideration, would it make sense to flip the two allocations and spend the most money in year one rather than let the deferred maintenance get another year older? But again, you I mean, it's the same amounts, but rather than sort of ease into it. Speaker 7: You so you're requesting that your one park minutes be to 15 year to 175. Speaker 0: Flip it just that you know we're addressing deferred maintenance and sometimes you save money by catching it earlier rather than later. But counsel, what is what do you all think? Speaker 10: And I just kind of also wanted to let you know. Speaker 0: Is that you. Speaker 10: Can well know you can make a decision now if you want to change it up. But just remember, you always have an opportunity to look at it at midyear and again at mid-cycle if you want to either give directions to make sure, maybe include potentially additional items that relate to either park maintenance or playground replacement. But you can do it now. But just remember, you do have other opportunities as well. So I just want to make sure you remember that. Speaker 0: Yeah, I appreciate that. But then I would also argue that deferred maintenance is going to be that much older or older, more deferred by by mid-year. Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: Yeah, real quick. Yeah, I think my colleagues recap of, of the last meeting was correct because I pulled up the old slide and of these four items I think the city manager proposed 965 and that's what this one has in year one. And then he proposed to 50 in year two and then we bumped that up to 500. But I thought I read maybe it was this morning that we had a big sale in Alameda, a big real estate sale, marina village. Right. So I wonder, I mean, that'll come in a kind of a miniature true upright. Speaker 10: So if I have heard about that, we do not have the money yet. Speaker 3: For that in this year, or is it going to be in next year? Speaker 10: So the cash will not come in now, but we will recognize the revenue in this year, 18, 19. Speaker 3: I mean, that might be an option where we we can take a look at that since it's one time money that we didn't budget for. It might be something this could be a priority when we when we review that or we could do today. I mean, it doesn't really matter to me, but. I'd like to at least prioritize. Speaker 7: I don't see any concern if the council wants to flip the 215 to 175. I think that would be the I don't see any financial concerns for the city in doing that in a. Speaker 3: Two year budget. Right. So over the course of two years, it's the same same amount. Speaker 0: It's just that we would be spending more sooner to address deferred maintenance. Correct. That. So reasonable. Okay. I think. Malia, any thoughts? I'm Estella. Sorry. Speaker 5: I think that that sounds reasonable. Speaker 0: Flipping the numbers. Flipping the numbers. Okay, so if we could do that. Okay. So where were we? Mastic Senior Center. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Speaker 10: Another large improvement we're doing to a master senior center, h HVAC system, variety of sources that are being allocated to do that work and total, it's going to cost a little over half a million dollars. And we have domestic senior center itself making contribution as well as general fund and as well as within CAP funds, we had some dollars that haven't been spent within other projects that closed. And so we're using some funding sources from that. And original money came from the general fund for those particular projects. Another one that you've heard more information earlier about is Aquatic Facility, where allocating $150,000 to do a concept, design and more for staff to start funding a fundraising campaign. Any items or notes otherwise? And we'll move on to the next department. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 10: K public works a similar situation. The department is requiring some more complex work that needs to be done. As a matter of fact. Just to point out on some of them is to we did have a single audit finding in terms of how quickly we ask for reimbursement requests. And in this particular case, there are some positions here that will assist with that to make sure that we file reimbursements on time and get the money timely into the city. So with that, there are some upgrades that are requested by the department, a little more complex work and therefore need a different position to make it appropriate for classification. In addition, in the Fleet Fund, we're asking for some equipment. This is a lift column lift to service vehicles within the city, and that's $75,000 moving on additional capital projects that are being funded. Again, as a reminder, this is in addition to what will already have a baseline budget. We're allocating funds to urban forest lagoon maintenance that comes from general fund alone. So urban forest is actually been increased to 250,000 out of general fund and some other funds are contributing some additional funding to for that purpose. Streetlights we at the baseline contribute 300,000. This is an additional 300,000 in year one and 560,000 additional in year two. Add some additional money into this traffic calming project as well as in a second year addressing the sea level rise and claiming it was part of the Climate Action Plan. If you wish for the Veterans Court Project and Central Avenue Large Project General Fund is making a $748,000 contribution for that. Any question to. Speaker 0: Just quickly. Speaker 6: Say during the budget workshop, we had incredible discussion about the urban forest. And I and I appreciate that, you know, the amount the incremental amount that we're looking at is above what we originally looking at in the May workshop. Again, reflecting the fact that, you know, this was a concern of residents as well as council members. And after all, we are Alameda which is I believe Spanish for grove a popular trees. So so it's nice to see, you know, more new incremental dollars directed towards that urban forest. And as the city manager had indicated last time that, you know, for the first time this is coming out also from the general fund budget, kind of as an indication of, you know, how serious this we are taking the trees. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And you know. Speaker 3: That was a question. Speaker 0: That was a question. Yeah. You're learning. Would that be a yes? Speaker 4: Yeah. Yes. Speaker 10: Moving on to community development. We adding a position in year two that's been approved. Again, this is to assist departments with more accounting and analysis type of items. We're upgrading a position to a development manager from management analyst. And I do understand this was a discussion point for the Alameda Point or Base Reuse Fund where we're setting aside about $2 million for the big whites. I do understand that there was a request once the contract is done in specific work, that will come back to council to make sure that you agree with what the staff is proposing to do with those buildings. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 10: Are there any questions on community development before I move on? Okay. Planning, building and transportation. This is our newly created department. A couple of personnel changes, upgrades to the positions. I do want to make sure that a public and city council is aware that these particular positions are funded with permit fees. So they are outside of general fund completely and the funding is provided from the fees that they generate. In this case, counseling technician to Administrative Services Coordinator. We are creating, since this is a new department, the re titled department head title, which is director of planning, building and transportation as well as we reallocated i.t system as analyst a position previously resided in i.t. It has been 100% moved over into the planning, building and transportation. With the new department. In talking to our new department head, the building official position is being eliminated and actually combined potentially with an assistant director position. We're also doing some upgrades to planning manager to a city planner. And we are we've added a position at MIT Psych midyear. And so with that and changes in the positions as we have here. The department also requested a new vehicle. Speaker 0: So a question here. You know, my mantra about replacing vehicles is this new vehicle and electric vehicle. Speaker 10: I would expect for the type of work that it's done in talking between fleet manager and also the department, it should be okay to have it as an electric vehicle. I don't want to speak for the department head in this particular case, but it would be evaluated for themselves. Speaker 0: Since we're going to be looking at the climate action from. Speaker 3: Our department's point of view. Electric Works is really about whether the fleet manager and the city's vehicle. Speaker 7: Purchasing policy maintenance. Speaker 3: Fuel, you know, being able to keep it running. One of the issues from a planning a building perspective, it absolutely works for the daily inspections, no question. Our issue is just something that we've been talking to the fleet managers about is in the event of a major emergency, our inspectors are going to be out as part of the recovery response. We want to make sure. Speaker 6: That vehicle. Speaker 3: Is usable. Speaker 0: So as a driver of an EVA, I just say keep him charge to the maximum at all. Speaker 3: And thank you for that advice. Mayor. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. That was Andrew Thomas. Speaker 10: On that note, I just wanted to also say that during the budget presentation, during the study sessions, fleet was addressed as well in the list of vehicles for replacement was provided. One of the things that came out of that is that I believe it was city managers request to public works and fleets specifically to evaluate the fleet for the entire city, for all the replacements that we need to do and determine what are the appropriate vehicle use as well as a right size the vehicles for the city. So I'm pretty certain that that would be included as part of that discussion. Speaker 0: The question from Vice Mayor Knox, we. Speaker 2: I'm going to save this for the end. But might my recommendation or my recollection of that conversation is that there would actually be a fleet policy that would be coming back to the council based on that. Is that right? A part of that. Okay. Speaker 4: Thank you. Anyone else? Speaker 0: Go ahead, Ms.. Speaker 10: Mr. Duke. And so moving on to our last department in this case is Housing Department. We have some what I would call a projects there, not necessarily capital projects for the city. We do utilize contract contractual services in this case because we do work with the Alameda Housing Authority and outside parties as well. So but in terms of type of project, it is it is a capital project. And so in this case, we are requesting a department requested to set aside a money, 900,000 in year one in 700,000 year to related to housing, affordable housing units, projects. Okay with that. That's the end of specific department presentations, unless you have questions. And if not, the next steps for us either provide hear from you. We do have one change. I do understand that. But there are several resolutions for you to approve in order to for us to move on with the budget and have it available on July 1st. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So council and we do have well, we have some public speakers. So does anyone have any further clarifying questions before we go to public speakers? Vice Mayor and Oxley. Speaker 2: I'm not. I may have missed something, but the fleet replacement, which was a big part of and $7 million in the first year, wasn't a part of this presentation that I saw, the $7 million. Speaker 7: So what we did on the fleet is we have given discretion to the fleet management to look at the two years of the fleet and to try to manage those as best as possible. We also reduce for future fleet by 10% and ask them to come back in the fleet policy and address that and then we could address that at mid-cycle. Speaker 2: Okay. So currently we're not. Moving forward with an additional cost. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Speaker 0: Is that? Speaker 10: I just wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by not moving with additional costs. So the Council is being asked to appropriate the funding for it. However, for the new vehicles, for the replacement of the vehicles. However, as you mentioned before, that replacement happens unless it's an emergency and we need something as soon as possible. The policy will be looked at first and then the evaluation of the fleet will happen, but at least it will have sufficient time when it does happen that it goes back to our fleet manager in order to purchase those vehicles. He will already have the appropriations for the budget in terms of budget. Speaker 0: So my question for the city manager is when do you anticipate bringing the fleet policy back to us? Speaker 7: And we haven't fully discussed it out, but I'm hoping to have it this fall. Speaker 0: So not before this summer, but not before later. We don't have much. And the council goes on. We go dark in the month of August. Speaker 7: So we were planning on having some of the vehicles probably start to be purchased, but they would only be the critical vehicles which have already have funding in the vehicle fund because if you I don't know if you remember or not, but there is a little over 5 million already in the vehicle fund. And we added, I want to say 1.6, which has been reduced by that 10%, if I remember. Speaker 10: The charges out of general fund have been. So what we've done is we've created rates for the full fleet. We determined here's the listing of the vehicles when they were purchased, when they were supposed to be due for replacement based on the current policy, of course. But with that, the charges were allocated for all of those vehicles to all the programs in the city, specifically for General Fund. We reduced the contributions by 10% to further evaluate the fleet and come back if need be. Speaker 0: And I understand that. I appreciate the explanation, but my point is simply that I do not want the city moving forward purchasing vehicles unless it is a, you know, a critical situation until we've had a chance to look at this policy, because I just want us to be consistent across all avenues. We're about to look at the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. So we shouldn't, because when we buy a vehicle, it's not just for a year or two, it has a life. So does that sound doable? Speaker 7: Mr. City Manager I believe that's doable. The only other exception is as long as it's compliant with the climate action like electric vehicles, that would be compliant, I would think would also fit into that. Speaker 0: I would think so. Any council members want to weigh in. Speaker 3: I have a question. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So then we have a question from a vice mayor. Not quite. Speaker 2: So the during the workshop we did, we spent a good chunk of time talking about the internal service funds, but it's not in the. It was not in your budget presentation tonight is things we were. But to prove. Speaker 4: It. That's true. Speaker 2: Asking us to prove it? Speaker 10: Yes. You will be approving as part of our overall budget. Speaker 2: So I guess I'm having a hard time finding that in the budget. Can you direct me to where those funds are since they weren't called out in the presentation as additional? Speaker 10: Well, if you want to look at them specifically, then. Speaker 5: They? Speaker 10: On the attachment, the exhibit that was provided, which I believe titled Budget Summary. It's budget summary. There's an attachment called citywide budget, all fund summary. So that provides a full summary of the funds. And if you want to look at internal service funds specifically, it's on the second page and it's fund numbers that start with seven or seven hundreds webpage numbers. Speaker 0: Ambassador, do they have pages? Hmm. Speaker 4: Well, maybe not. Speaker 10: Including the first cover. Speaker 7: But it would be page. It'd be page 11 of 70, I. Speaker 0: Believe it says exhibit two Budget Summary. And you see page 11. Speaker 7: I think it's on page 11 of seven. Speaker 4: 1111. Speaker 0: Is 70. Speaker 3: Online. Speaker 0: But yes, that's a revenue sense. So 11 of 70 if you're scrolling through 20. I look on page 12, Councilmember Brody says in your hard copy. Speaker 10: Maybe on the hard copy, I believe it's number 12 if you actually do count on pages. Speaker 0: Okay. So. Speaker 3: I'll look I'll look forward to it. Speaker 0: Okay. I have a question. Question from Councilmember De Soto. Speaker 6: In your budget presentation, which is this item right here. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: I'm sure she can multitask, but we will let her get back to the microphone. Speaker 6: In your budget presentation, this item right here, what kind of struck me was on the slide that general fund budget 20 1920 2020 dash 2021. If we just look at the expenditures on the operations and forget about the pension OPEB reserve line, is this the first. Speaker 4: Time. Speaker 6: That that we will be adopting a general fund expenditure budget that crosses the $100 million threshold? Speaker 10: I yes, I believe you're right. Well, yes and no. Original budget. Yes. However, in 1718, with some additional appropriations that happened during the year, including the large contribution to pension and OPEB, it did surpass the $100 million. Speaker 6: But in terms of operations, though, where we. Speaker 10: Correct. Speaker 6: So I mean that's that's a pretty significant threshold that that that that we're crossing. So I just want to quickly say also to the finance department and all the department heads who put together in the residence ought to take the time to take a look at it, because there are there's really very handsome charts and discussions regarding the assets that are the city of Alameda manages and owns. And it's all in in here. And it's fun to read colorful graphics, nice snappy summaries of how many roads we manage, how many trees we have, the different zones that where trees are going to be trimmed. And when you look at the capital improvement summary, there's also a capital improvement fund by capital improvement fund, discrete disc discussions, but also fortunately kind of a who the responsible staff member is. I really like that that that was really nice. So residents I hope if you're watching this, if you get a chance to go online and check out both the CIP budget summary and the general fund or the operation fund, it's really nice. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Finance Chairman, and our new city manager, Eric Levitt, who really hit the ground running. He's been here not quite three months, two months. Speaker 4: And. Speaker 0: And he and finance produced this amazing budget. So good work, team Alameda. Okay. If there's no further clarifying questions we have. How many? Just two. Okay. Let's hear our public speakers. Thank you. Speaker 1: The first one is Misha Tom, and the second is JJ Navarro. Speaker 0: And you each have 3 minutes to speak. Speaker 3: Perfect. I will not use. Well, maybe I will. Maybe I'm just like the echo of my voice. I thank you for having me. And thank you for all doing the civic and public work you do. And I have just come to advocate for the Jackson Park playground. Speaker 2: It sounds like it's made. Speaker 3: Smooth sailing through the waters. But as a parent of a three year old, an eight month old who lives in the Jackson Park neighborhood, it's very exciting the prospect of having another playground and using that space more with a broader civic purpose. And I think that that's really all I wanted to say. So thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker is J.J. Navarro. Speaker 3: Hello. Great to be here. And thank you for your service to the city of Alameda. I'm here with my neighbor, Misha, and we were very excited to see Jackson Park up on the slides today. I was here with you a month ago to voice my support, and I listened online to the discussion that followed and was really encouraged to hear that you echoed a lot of the same sentiments of why we're trying to get this done. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I really look forward to continue to be a part of this process. Speaker 0: Thank you for your remarks. Thank you both. Okay. So that's all of our public speakers. So I'm going to close public comment. So council our task tonight is to, um. We've got some resolutions to approve. There is. Not a good time for the iPad to freeze. You should put something in the budget. No, just kidding. Okay, so we have resolutions, too. Well, we need to adopt the operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 19 to 2020 and 2022, 2021. And we also have the board. To approve an adopt the successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission budget for fiscal year 20 1920 and 20 2021. Adopt a resolution approving workforce changes and adopt a resolution amending the International Association of Firefighters Salary Schedule, all of which was encompassed in the the report. The presentation that we had. But I believe we need to take our resolution separately. Correct. Speaker 1: Really? Together. Speaker 0: Together? Speaker 1: No. Yes. Separately. Speaker 0: Separately. Yeah. We the the when there's a tie, the city attorney prevails. Okay. So for the resolution approving in adopting the operating and capital budget for fiscal years 2019 to 2020 and 2022 2021, do I have a motion, a question? Speaker 3: We make sure comments are. Speaker 0: Well, can we get a motion in motion? Okay, I have a motion. I have a second from Councilmember Vela. They will have discussion. Speaker 3: Councilmember O.D. I'll be brief because I know we had three, two or three days worth of this back in May. So I also want to echo my colleague's comments. Appreciate the hard work of the city manager. It was like the first couple of weeks. That was one of the first things he did and it really was an amazing budget. It reflects our priorities and I think. ILLEANA You went over them, so I'm not going to repeat them. And I appreciate the work of you and your team as well as all of the department heads and putting this together. It's a budget I think we can be proud of. I'll be proud to support it. And I just want to appreciate everything you guys did to to get us to this point. Speaker 0: Any other decision based on the next wave. Speaker 2: So I plan to support this, and I just want to make that clarifying comment that this includes the flipping of the since. I believe this is the the when that that our motion includes the flip of to 50 and 175 for the parks. So I want to I just want to thank the city staff. I know that a lot of work went into this, especially since we had an interim city manager for a lot of this. And our staff, finance staff is short staffed, so there's no way to undersell or oversell the huge lift that was done in creating this . And I very much appreciate the document. I think it's something that we can all be proud of. Thank you. Speaker 0: And I'll just slip in an extra thank to our finance director, Lena Adair. Some Mrs. Dear actually grew up in Siberia. And during this process, when she was just immersed in all this, her grandparent died in Siberia and she had to leave and go. She chose to leave and go back for the services. And that was a lot of personal stress on her. And somehow and she's a mother of two young children, but a beautiful job, Ms.. Adair, your usual stellar work product. So anything further or shall we take a vote? That's what. Speaker 4: Rock Hall. Speaker 1: Council members decide. Yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Yes, mayor. Yes. That carries my life. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. So that resolution passes unanimously, and then we move on to. Speaker 2: A move approving the in adopting a budget for the fiscal year 1920 and 2021 for the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Speaker 0: Perfect. Do I have a second? Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing, then roll call. Vote. Speaker 1: Councilman or commissioner stateside? Yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: As the Ashcraft? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That also carries by five votes unanimously. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Next, we have a resolution amending the salary schedule and approving workforce changes in fiscal year 2019 to 2020 and 2022 2021. To have a motion. Speaker 2: So moved. Speaker 0: By the vice mayor, seconded by. Speaker 3: Second. Speaker 0: By Councilmember Odie. A voice vote. Roll call vote, please. Speaker 1: Councilmember say. Says yes. Next fight. Speaker 4: Yes. Odie. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Mayor as he Ashcraft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That carries unanimously by far. Right. Speaker 0: All right, let's see if we can make it for for our last resolution is amending the International Association of Firefighters Salaries Schedule. I do have a motion. Speaker 2: So moved. Speaker 0: It's been moved by the vice mayor, who's been seconded by Councilmember Vela, all of our rockhopper councilors. Speaker 1: They said yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: There is the Ashcroft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That carries unanimously by five eyes. Speaker 0: Perfect. Good work, everybody. Okay, so then we. Speaker 1: Are during this. Speaker 0: James, we adjourn this meeting and I am going to give us a ten minute break and then we will come back. And here I am, six C. Speaker 1: That's exactly right. Speaker 0: Okay, everyone, 10 minutes. We will be back at eight. Okay. 855. Don't be late. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 0: If you seats, please, we are going to drive you. Oh, okay. Our recess is over and we are going to move on to item six. Speaker 1: See this public hearing to establish the proposition for appropriations limit for fiscal year 20 1920 and to consider adoption of resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 1920.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Approving and Adopting the City of Alameda Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and Approving and Adopting the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21; [City Council AND SACIC] Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedule and Approving Workforce Changes for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21; [City Council] and Adoption of Resolution Amending the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Salary Schedule. [City Council] (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6973

Speaker 1: See this public hearing to establish the proposition for appropriations limit for fiscal year 20 1920 and to consider adoption of resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 1920. Speaker 10: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of Council. Eleanor, dear finance director. I've mentioned earlier you get to see me quite a lot today. So we just adopted a previous item. We've adopted the budget for the next fiscal year. I do not have a presentation for this particular item. I'll just talk about that real quick. There's a California law that requires there's a constitution to adopt an appropriation limit. And what that really means is that we do not levy taxes within the city above what our allowable amount is. And at this point, we've provided a calculation as an attachment to our staff report. We are at 68% of what we are allowed to levy in terms of taxes. We're not close to it yet, which is good. However, one of the things that we do for potential future growth and things like that, we use the most advantageous factors that the city can use in order to calculate the growth. In order to calculate the appropriations limit. With that, I am open to any questions you may have, and we can talk specific numbers if you want to know more about it. But other than that, that concludes my presentation. Speaker 0: Does anyone have any clarifying questions? Comments? Do you have any public comments. Speaker 1: Of speakers on this topic? Speaker 0: No speakers on this item. Speaker 2: Great staff report. I'll move approval. Speaker 0: We have a motion from the vice mayor. Do I have a second. Speaker 3: Second? Speaker 0: Second by Councilmember Odie. May we have a voice vote, please? Speaker 1: Councilmember Daza? Yes. Naxalites Yes. Yes. Speaker 5: Vela Yes. Speaker 1: Mayor is the Ashcraft? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That carries unanimously backed by Vice. Speaker 0: All right, perfect. Thank you. Then we move on to item six D Public Hearing. Speaker 1: Consider adoption of resolution amending master fee resolution number 121912 add and revise fees. And we do have a speaker on this item. Okay.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for Fiscal Year 2019-20 and to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6972

Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider collection of delinquent integrated waste management accounts via property tax bills. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. I was accord public works coordinator the evening before you asked the Council to move forward with the collection of delinquent integrated waste accounts via property tax bills. This is the last step in a process conducted annually to resolve these delinquent accounts. Staff begins the process in January following our franchise hauler ECI, Alameda County Industry's efforts to collect on the delinquencies. The city sends a series of letters to property owners who then have until June 30th to resolve the delinquency with our finance department. Otherwise, the outstanding amount is collected via the property tax bill. Staff is recommending you move forward with this process. That completes my report and I'm available for any questions you may have. Speaker 0: Do we have any questions of from this? From counsel and questions of staff? Councilmember. Speaker 3: Is there anyone that's contesting or coming today to. Speaker 4: I'm not aware of anybody here contesting. We've had several communications with folks to work out payment plans and otherwise resolve the accounts. Thank you. Speaker 0: Good. Any further questions? And do we have any speakers on the speakers? We have no speakers. Okay. Excuse me. So we are being asked to consider. Approving collection of delinquent integrated waste management accounts via property tax bills. Do I have a motion to that effect? So I was moved by councilmember desire to have a second. Second seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White Voice Vote Please. Speaker 1: Council Member Stations Knox White Yes. Vote yes. Vella Yes. Mayor, as the Ashcroft yes carries unanimously by five votes. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, then we are moving on to item six F. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with one five year option to extend substantially in the form of the attached lease with Non-Listed Technologies for building 530 an eight 82,251 square foot building located at 120 West ORANSKY Avenue Building 529 a 3200 square foot building and Building 608 330 343 square foot

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via Property Tax Bills. (Finance 2450)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6967

Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with one five year option to extend substantially in the form of the attached lease with Non-Listed Technologies for building 530 an eight 82,251 square foot building located at 120 West ORANSKY Avenue Building 529 a 3200 square foot building and Building 608 330 343 square foot building at Alameda Point. This requires four affirmative votes and we have 12 speakers. Speaker 0: So just for clarification, we have that many speakers. Each one will have 2 minutes. And Kelly. Evening, Miss Mercado. Speaker 11: Hi. Good evening. I'm Ninette Mercado from the Community Development Department. This is not our first time with Natalie's, but I'll walk us through it again. Natalie's is a data center that uses innovative water cooling technology that reduces the cost of computing, cuts power usage, eliminates water consumption, decreases air pollution and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. NOVELIS has been interested in developing a data storage facility at Alameda Point for approximately two years. Initially, they were interested in the barge water cooling system they're implementing in the Delta. But after touring Alameda Point and seeing Building 530 with its proximity to the water, lack of windows and privacy, they thought the building would be perfect for a land based facility. A proposed lease was presented to the Council on April 2nd and May 7th. The Council continued its consideration of the lease on May 7th until after a special meeting and tour of Site B Enterprise District. At this special meeting, council toured Building 530 and reviewed the footprint which was reduced to accommodate the future development of Site B. At the May 7th meeting, the Council requested that Naa and Nautilus agreed to eliminate a five year option from the lease required third party environmental monitoring weekly established standards for monitoring at a public meeting with regulators and city biologist allowing public comment. Then the standards for measuring the monitoring will be developed by scientists and regulators. They agreed to report monitoring results to the city and the city would have the ability to terminate the lease should the shared materially adverse environmental impacts be identified. Not a Nautilus estimate said its investment of $6 million and improvements to the building, which includes a new roof facade improvement, environmental asbestos, mold remediation, landscaping, security and parking upgrades. Nautilus will have a significant impact on the Alameda Municipal Power's rate. The Cartwright Station at Island Alameda Point has space capacity to accommodate much of the project demand from Nautilus, but ample require Nautilus to make a contribution to the expansion and future replacement of the facility if Nautilus exceeds a certain capacity. At the May 7th meeting, council expressed concern about AMP staff and capacity to service a large new power user. AMP has confirmed that current staffing levels are adequate to accommodate the project through construction initial ramp up and to which is 2 to 3 years and then full operation at full buildout. AMP estimates there will be 20 to 25 million annual revenue generated from the Northwest project. The increased revenue puts downward pressure on future rates and rate increases for all AMP customers. Nautilus has worked an agreement with Building and Construction Trades Council to hire union workers during construction, which is estimated to be five years at buildout. Nautilus will have 30 full time data center jobs. Staff has followed up on many of the council inquiries, including reaching out to East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Services Manager. Regarding the opinion, getting an opinion on the technology, we were told by the the services manager that the Regional Water Quality Board will be equally, if not better qualified to evaluate the projects and that whatever they would tell us would be just as good as what East Bay Regional Park District would say. Council has asked that there are other tenants who have to go through such rigorous lease conditions. Other green tech companies like Makani, Google or Mattel Energy. Neither of those companies had had to go through a regulatory review. Nortel is a research and manufacturing company. Their operations are fully contained within their building. Mcconney Google did their tests outside, but they have only interfered with the California. They would have only interfered with the California leased turn. So we did not allow them to test within the leased turn season. Subsequently, they moved their testing outside of the lease term buffer zone, so there was no impact to the environment. We have had tenants who were required to secure separate stormwater permits because of the nature of their work and they were required to provide monitoring reports to regional agencies. One tenant was sued by beekeepers for their for their dirty runoff. The tenant paid fines and was under a multiyear consent decree. We have a tenant who wants to test their technology in the Northwest Territories. They've performed all kinds of sound monitoring, reporting, which the city's biologists will bring to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to see if that's the location, if the location works. Those are the only similar situations that we have to Nautilus. If not all this is approved and receives all its permits. They have agreed to come back to the City Council with a report out on on the conditions of approvals and requirements from regulatory agencies. So the city and the residents will know what would be required of their tenancy if the city council approves this lease tonight. It does not comment to the tenants occupancy approval tonight, approves the lease, but more importantly commences the 15 month due diligence period for the tenant. Nautilus must immediately begin its secure process through the city as well as secure permits through regional water quality Control Board Bccdc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, California State Lands and a variety of other regulatory agencies. If the tenant is unable to secure a permit, the lease term terminates and the city retains the security deposit and collects an early termination fee of approximately $50,000. Tonight, we hope the Council will make a decision on the lease, approve the lease to start the environmental evaluation process so the city and the tenant can understand what will be required to implement and monitor this new technology or reject the lease, allowing the tenant to quickly identify another land location that could work for them after their focus on Alameda Point for several years. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Mercado, are there any questions of staff before we go to public comment? Speaker 6: Councilmember Desai Yeah, just one clarifying question. I couldn't quite recall. You said AMP expects revenues from this project. Was that 2.5 million or 25 million. Speaker 11: As 20 to 25 million at full buildout? Speaker 6: And that's over X number of years. Speaker 11: Yes, about six years. They expect to be at full buildout. Speaker 6: So that's 20 to $25 million that would go to AMP's bottom line. Okay. All right. Thank you. Speaker 0: QUESTION Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. So on that issue, I mean, have we evaluated if AMP will need additional headcount to manage that extra load? Because I believe that's pretty, isn't it, 40% of our current load. That's a number I heard batted around. Speaker 11: I don't know how much it is of the current load. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 11: Sorry. Speaker 3: Well, if it is 40%, I mean, is that your contention then that we would be able to manage that workload with our existing employees? Speaker 11: So we check with AMP to see because it came up at the last meeting and they said that they would be able to ramp up over the 3 to 5 year period to handle the operations and maintenance. Speaker 7: And I believe you're correct. I think I believe it is about 40%. Speaker 3: Okay. So by ramp up, does that mean no headcount or additional headcount? Speaker 11: I believe it's additional headcount. Okay. Speaker 3: So then the reality is it's not 22, 25, because you'd have to deduct the cost of of of the employees. And we don't have an idea of what that number is. Speaker 7: Yeah, it'd be 20, 25 million in revenue. But you're right, there would be increased expenses also. Speaker 3: But we don't know what those are. Speaker 7: I don't have that right. The top. Yes, there there would be increased expenses. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Any further clarifying questions? Councilmember Villa. I'm going to take that. I hear that. So no no questions. Okay. So with that, let's go to public speakers, please. And the council, the clerk will call three names in just a word. We'll get out of here earlier if you all hear your name and move toward the aisle. Thank you. Okay. Who's up. Speaker 1: First? Jim Cornette and Mark Klein and Lisa Baker. Speaker 3: Not American Council members. Good to see you again. We're really pleased to be here and really pleased to have so many now interested people from the environmental community. When I was in earlier my career, I had the great privilege of working with thousands of people to get the first federal mandate, phasing out incandescent light bulbs, cutting energy efficiency out of light bulbs by more than 70%. Our project is that big. I mean, the success of our project just from energy efficiency, will drive more than 70% improvement in data center performance. And if adopted widely, it can have as big an impact as incandescent bulbs. But I was also fortunate in my career to work on marine conservation issues. I was part of a large group of people to get unanimous legislation at the federal level to end overfishing in America. I had the privilege of working on the earliest programs to tackle marine debris in the marine environment. And I worked hard with many, many people and many from the environmental community to establish four of the largest marine protected areas in the world, inspiring 14 other nations to do the same heroic effort by thousands of people. And I just want to underline the environmental conservation benefits of what we are seeking to do here, not only to showcase now the media are that big and our commitment to protecting the environment to be sure that we'd have negative consequences of that strike. So the only thing we're asking today is the approval of a lease that's conditioned on us going through the gantlet of regulatory processes, including the biggest one led by the city itself on Sequa. We just want the fair chance to teach people about our technology and show that we will 100% comply with the law. There's only two outcomes of this process. Either we pass muster and we have no environmental impact or we don't pass muster and we have no environmental impact because our project will not proceed. And so all we're asking is just to get to the next step. We welcome the conversation with the environmental community. We welcome their engagement. We're going to be 100% transparent. We want to share the hearing. Speaker 0: And the speaker is. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Mark Klein, then Lisa Baker, then Lynne O'Connor. Speaker 0: Okay, remember everyone, you've got 2 minutes. Speaker 8: Okay. I'm with the Harvard SEAL Group. Speaker 3: Originally, I was neutral on this lease. Speaker 0: You get a little close to the microphone. We can all. Speaker 3: Hear. We always neutral, but now I'm against it. The company has brushed off too many key questions by just by just saying wait to the permit process. Specifically, for instance, of course, I'm concerned about the Harvard SEAL flute. And we figured out that there's no room under the float for a five foot wide pipe. So I sent an email to Mr. Kirwan. How are you going to deal with this? The flute will crash against the pipe, and it'll be destroyed in rough weather. And he answered, Don't worry. We'll look into that later. Well, that's not good enough. What's going to happen on the. What? I'm trying to get my thoughts together. When I asked when I asked for that and that that question and I got a brave, vague answer. We'll look into it later. Well, that that worried me. I suspect that he didn't give me a specific answer of how to do with that, because the only way I can imagine they'll deal with it is is to dredge the whole area all the way to the rock wall, and that would destroy the entire habitat. And he didn't want to see that because it would be politically unpopular. So he just pushed me off with a well, look into it. Well, there's no way to fit a five foot wide pipe under that float without dredging, as far as I can see. And dredging would wreck the habitat. So that's why I'm against this. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Klein. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Lisa Baker, then Lynne O'Connor, then Jeffrey Byrne offered. Speaker 0: Hello. Hello. Speaker 4: So I'm Lisa Baker. I'm an Alameda resident, and I've been one of the harbor seal monitors for almost the past three years. And it's been a labor of love. A huge number of people involved with it was amazing to get it together, to have the float made for the SEALs and then to learn that this five foot wide pipe with warm water is that's coming out of a highly estimable environmental conscious group. It just I just don't see how that could be allowed to happen. I mean, if the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and San Francisco Baykeeper all have serious concerns about this, and apparently the technology of this five foot wide pipe that will drain warm water out into the bay is actually mandated by the state of California to be phased out. So why is that technology being used for this project particularly? Is it supposed to be cutting edge and wonderfully environmentally sensitive? Obviously, I'm very concerned about the harbor seals, but my dad was an eminent marine biologist and he told me years ago about the effect of heat on marine organisms and how small differences of temperature in marine water can cause devastating effects to habitats. And so I don't want that to happen. I think I think building the facility might be fine, but find another way to get rid of your warm water. Speaker 0: That's it. Thank you. Speaker 1: Next speaker Lynne O'Connor, then Jeffrey Brentford, then Linda Kurland. Speaker 4: Hello, Mayor and City Council. As a lifelong Bay Area resident and a 30 year old Alameda resident, I am extremely aware of how essential a healthy bay is to the livability and quality of life. To quote something that was said earlier that we enjoy in Alameda and throughout the Bay Area, I have memories of living next to a bay that was less healthy than it is now. And I'm aware of how very small changes can create large environmental consequences for the better or the worse. As a registered nurse, I am a bit of a science geek, so I was extremely concerned when I read the article in the paper about the notably static technologies use proposed use of cool bay water to cool their towers and then pushing out warmer water into the bay. I did a bit of research on this technology and discovered that it's already been banned by the state of California for use in cooling power plants, and the technology would cause warmer water than it's a norm for the bay to be discharged into a fairly placid section of the bay. Even water that is slightly warmer than the norm has potential to cause algae bloom, which decreases oxygen in her bay and can sometimes cause toxic algae blooms, which are toxic to aquatic life. Water that's been discharged at such a high rate, 10,000 gallons per minute will also cause a great deal of sediment. There's evidently a herring spawning ground near that area. I did some research on that. This was all in the last day or two. Herring spawning grounds do not move and they are very adversely affected by sediment. They don't live. Herring is essential to the ecology of our bay, sierra club baykeeper, etc. are against it. So am I. Speaker 0: Good job the next speaker and we don't applaud because it'll just get us out of here later. Speaker 1: So yeah. Jeffrey Bernard Ford, then Linda Colony and then Burkett Evans. Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. $25 million gross charges of electricity. That's a really big toaster that they're running over there. Heat. Heat is amazing. And people these people have to dissipate enormous amounts of heat. So they're using they're using the electricity to create data. And who are they, by the way? What is Nautilus data? Titan Technologies? What organizations are they affiliated with? Who? What and how will it benefit the Bay Area? Rent will be collected by the city, so there is some money in the coffers for the city. And aluminum usable power will also get a fairly large chunk of money out of these guys if they're allowed to do this. The companies that were developing the hotel projects on Bay Farm Island and Park Street in particular were really scrutinized and they were put through a number of ringers in their process for acceptance. I'm hoping that this project will get similar scrutiny, or much more so because of the just the very much unknown. You know, this project is it's unknown. And Lynn was just talking about them not being this technology being, you know, phased out. I think they should build a 5 million square foot barge, take it out in the middle of the ocean and let the ocean dissipate the heat. I think the Bay Area, the bay itself is much too sensitive an environment to allow these people to heat up. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Linda Colony, Denberg Evans and Jill Sexy. Speaker 4: Hi. I'm speaking tonight as a concerned Alameda resident, but also as the president of the board of Golden Gate, Audubon Society, and co-chair of its local conservation committee, which is the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. We urge the Council to vote against the proposals to Nautilus. The proposed cooling system will cause water turbulence at the point of discharge will tend to trap aquatic life at the intake point and will discharge water into the bay. The temperature warmer than when it is drawn in this part of the bay and which will occur is critical environment for the SEALs, as you've heard for our least terns, who fish in that part of the bay for brown pelicans, which there's a huge roost on Breakwater Island just past where this discharge would be. They also need to fish and water. Warmer water temperature is known to adversely impact fish at certain stages, certain species, particularly vulnerable parts of their lifecycle. In addition, warm water cause holds less dissolved oxygen than cooler water, and dissolved oxygen is a critical component of a healthy bay. So if we reduce fish, we're going to reduce the food available for the pelicans, the terns and lots of other birds that eat our fish. So the bay is an important part of what makes Alameda special. We've worked very hard to protect the environment as the council has, and the city as a whole has worked really hard to protect the environment. We can't afford the risks that are posed by this project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speakers. You're all doing extremely well. Speaker 1: Evans then Jill Sachs and Marjorie Powell. Speaker 4: Mayor and city council. I want to speak in opposition to the 15 year lease with Nautilus Data Technologies. Our bay is a delicate ecosystem already badly impacted by human activities. The proposed project would pull 14.4 million gallons of water per day from the bay. That 5,256,000,000 gallons per year from the bay hit it and discharge it into another part of the bay. Even with the best possible fish screens, Nautilus will be pulling in countless aquatic organisms every day, hitting and probably killing them. It will then dump the heated water into the bay, changing the overall temperature of the bay and without doubt affecting the natural processes in a complex ecosystem. In the past, communities across America have allowed corporations to come in, exploit natural resources and extract profit. Those companies often closed down after doing incalculable environmental harm, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. You have only to look at countless mining towns that have been left with toxic tailing ponds. And when one of those ponds fails, destroying life and rivers for miles around, we ask ourselves, How did this happen? This is how that happened. Please deny this lease. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Next speaker Jill suggested that Marjorie Powell, then Richard Baker. Speaker 4: Hi, Madam Mayor. And council members. First of all, I want to thank you, Mayor, for supporting electric vehicles. Keep on doing that. And also, I hope all of you will support the Climate Action Resiliency Plan when it comes before you. On that note, I'm baffled as to why we didn't hear much about the Nautilus Data Technologies project before it became publicized in the paper. I think it's not appropriate for Alameda unless it completely revamped its cooling systems and its energy usage. They proposed dumping 10,000 gallons of warm water per minute. Unbelievable in sensitive wildlife areas, raising the water temperature in those areas for up to four degrees. This is where, as other speakers have said, spill seals, hollow out fish spawn and lease terns who are endangers feed. Even even switching the discharge to the estuary side would still impact wildlife. This is in addition to the vast amount of energy needed to run this facility and its impacts on. Where is AMP going to get this extra energy? Not to mention the higher costs related to that. So I just urge you not to approve this lease. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, speaker. Speaker 1: Marjorie Powell, then Richard Bangert, then Pat Lamborn. Speaker 4: Thank you. Members of the city council. I'm an Alameda resident and I'm also a member of Golden Gate Audubon and the committee that is working on conservation and protection of the least tern reserve. As you've heard, there are concerns about both water intake and expulsion of heated water into areas. Speaker 0: That have. Speaker 4: Fish that are needed not only by the list terns and the harbor seals, but by the great blue heron and the osprey, that nest around Seaplane Lagoon by the black oystercatchers that nest and raise their young on both sides of Alameda and the estuary and in Ballina Bay by the Caspian Terns that are now nesting at the Alameda Reserve by any number of other birds that nest in. Speaker 0: The area, in particular. Speaker 4: The least terns because they are so small and their chicks are so small, they need the very small fish that are most sensitive to the temperature concerns with the water. And while we heard from the first speaker that this is innovative technology, we at this point have no information about the technology except that according to some documents I've seen, it's an old once true calling system, and that is going to raise the temperature in the bay that will have harmful impacts on the fish that all of our birds need. There have been examples around the world, in particular this year, of bird colonies having abandoning their young because there are no fish because of increases in the water temperature. And this has happened in South Africa with the flamingos. It's been happening with the pelicans. I'm sorry, the Galapagos. Penguins in the Galapagos and. Speaker 0: We urge you not to approve. Thank you, Mr. Bangert. And Express. Speaker 1: And then Pat Lamborn. And then Mary Spicer. Speaker 8: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, I'd like to speak just briefly about the permitting process and your role in in this approving or not approving this project. Yes, there's a there's a rigorous permitting process that would take place if you were to move forward tonight. But the fact that there's a rigorous permitting process does not mean that there will be no impacts. The threshold for getting a permit is not zero impact. Quite frequently, there are mitigation measures that are required as as a condition of a permit. Sometimes it's simply paying money into a fund that will later be used for some other worthy project, restoration project around the bay. And given the size of the bay, what are what are the chances that that money will end up back here in Alameda? So you could say that one scenario here is that that you go forward with this project and you're trading away part of our environment for short term economic gain here. I'd say that besides besides the regulatory process, there's your role. Regulators are the ones who work in the permitting section of various agencies are there to issue permits. But you were elected to manage our public property here on Alameda, and it's your decision as to how we use that property and whether it's proper to have this system with its impacts be authorized here in Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Ms.. Lambert. Speaker 4: Good evening. So many speakers have mentioned my points. I'll get to to the asks in reading through the beekeeper and everything that people have said. I have three asks of you tonight. One ask is that you did not sign the lease with Nautilus. It means that you're giving your stamp of approval to the once through cooling system using the bay. That that is what that signifies to all the regulatory agencies that were mentioned, too. If you wanted to delay a vote and consider Nautilus or any other data center there, there are other cooling systems. I shared with all of you an article. It's how do we use waste heat from data centers intelligently, the closed systems and people around the world are figuring out ways to take the waste heat and then use it as renewable energy for homes and businesses. Notley's come back and give you a truly green alternative. Dumping warm water into the bay isn't one of those. Number three, you can convene a study session with scientists, and I want to just share my concern with you. Mr. Cunnington is the CEO of Nautilus. He's not a marine biologist. He's not an and he's not a engineer or a marine engineer. He's a CEO. He's a masterful lobbyist. You say yes tonight. He has access to all of those bureaucracies. He has a long reputation, folks. He was a corporate lawyer for all the major polluters in the nineties who had Superfund sites that earned him a seat as the chair on the Council on Environmental Quality for George Bush and Dick Cheney. We don't have time to talk about their impact on climate change in 24 minutes, but they manipulate science. So I'm going to leave with you in the last 19 seconds, an article that I got. It's from a true scientist. It describes all the current science about the concern for algae blooms in the bay. It is the opposite of the memo that was submitted to you by the kind of experts who hire, which said there was no danger at all. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Lambert. And if you present that material to the clerk, they will give it to us and our next speaker. Hi. Speaker 1: Yes, I love speakers. Speaker 4: Mary Spicer. Hi, I'm Mary Spicer. Nice to see you all in person. I sent you a letter today. I'm a recreational athlete and I spend probably 10 to 12 hours a week on the water. I'm on an outrigger team and we leave from in a small beach. Go out, paddle out the bushes out in the center of the bay, come back through the hole. Exactly. The area where we're talking about building that technology. I spend so much time out there with the harbor seals recently, with the whale, with the two dolphins, two to 1 to 5 dolphins that live on the other side of the wall. There's art in me and the Golden Gate Cetacean Institute has been researching them for years, using the outrigger team to give them data points on what's happening with the pod that's living out there. If you need more information on that, I'm happy to send that to you. But it's directly in the area that will be impacted by this this technology. I think that is our media citizen. And as comedians, we have a real responsibility to the nature and to the water and to the shoreline and to the wildlife that inhabit our area. And I think that there's so much amazing, true, innovative technology in the Bay Area. And I would love to see Alameda really targeting new technology that really is innovative and really does actually help with what's happening with climate change and with the global issue issues that we're having. I think if we came up with the type of plan that we can actually find those right type of companies and invite them here and create a hub for true innovation, that would be amazing. My father owned a company in Oakland that was a that helped retrofit energy savings for industrial light fixtures that PGE ended up giving a discount for because it was such a great invention. I would love to see people like that coming in here and taking over the base. And I. I also do cleanups with the city of Oakland. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Nevertheless, speaker. Okay. At this time I am closing public speaking and the public comment period and I am going to take the unusual step of going first in my comments. So please indulge me. Counsel, I can't support this project and I'll tell you why. We have met with Mr. Connaughton and his team for quite a few months now, even going back to last year. And we have met in closed session because when an item involves a lease or sale of property in price in terms of the transit. Action that is rightfully held in an closed session. We don't do our negotiating in public. But without disclosing specifics, this council has certainly and the council before this, too, had heard this has certainly had a lot of questions that they asked of the Nautilus team. And I am largely persuaded by the letter we got from Baykeeper a couple of weeks ago. And I also think all of the members of the public who wrote me letters, but I was what I paid attention to most in the Baykeeper letter was that the this went through cooling, which is a system, is an antiquated technological approach. And the system proposed here could harm San Francisco Bay in a number in a variety of ways. And in fact, these negative environmental impacts have led the state of California to phase out the use of this ecologically detrimental cooling process by 2024. And the Baykeeper report goes on to talk about the large volume of water that will be processed in in a minute. And they and they they cited some studies, some recent studies from 2019, from 2018 about how waste, heat innovators, things like energy hogs, can the world's huge datacenters be made more efficient? But this is not the way to do it. And then there is that information, science based information from Bay Keepers. And on the other hand, just this week, maybe yesterday, we received from Nautilus a report from Anchor QCA, which is their environmental engineering group that is based in San Francisco. And they, you know, pointed out that, you know, not us would need to get all these environmental approvals and permits. But what I haven't seen from Nautilus in all the months that I've been dealing with this, this outfit is any change in the approach. And so even the Anchor QCA report that seeks to assure us about what Nautilus wants to do says that, you know, San Francisco Bay is still relatively turbid and historically considered a light limited estuary where growth of algae is hindered because of high turbidity in the water. And the U.S. Geological Survey researchers studying first harmful algae bloom in the bay stated that the bloom occurred in the South Bay quotes during a coincidence of unusually weak neap tides. But if you look at the footnote, the studies were both dated 2005. It's 2019 now. And I would submit that climate science has changed a great deal in the intervening years. And but the fact that that was the most relevant data report that could be submitted, I think speaks volumes in itself. I also listened carefully to Mr. Norton in his report remarks, because I'm always willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt. But when you spoke to us this evening, you talked about past projects working on phasing out incandescent light bulbs, previously working on marine environmental issues, inspiring 14 other nations to do the same. And that's certainly laudable. But what I care about and what I'm responsible for is what happens in my city. Money isn't everything. I mean, as much as I hate to say no to millions and millions of dollars. I also very much agree with the last speaker, Miss Spicer, who said there's so much true innovative technology in the Bay Area. Find it, bring it here. And I think that's also been a desire of this council with the loss of the Navy and those 18,000 jobs. We've looked to backfill those lost jobs, but not just any jobs. And Nautilus in particular wasn't going to create a lot of jobs and certainly not a lot of high quality jobs on its own. Certainly it had benefits. I'm not saying this is all one sided, but I am saying that on balance, I cannot find sufficient reason to support moving forward. And I think that at the end of the day, that's actually more considerate of both the Nautilus and the city. So and again, I'm one vote but if the majority of the council. Feels that way as well. It leaves Nautilus to go on and look for other areas to locate. And I will just add that there is talk in the staff report about the project that is being done by Nautilus in Stockton out of a barge in the river. There's a little difference there, a barge in the river. It's also a five year lease. The one we're considering is much longer. And finally, I'm just going to close and say that I was really taken by the saga of Ali, you know, the the whale who found her way into Seaplane Lagoon. And I think she was a it was a she bet. But it was noted that her her color, her sheen wasn't what it should be. She was malnourished. There's a number of reasons that could be, but a large factor has to do with the quality of the waters and what's happening to is and much of it manmade . And so I cannot in good conscience support moving forward with something and taking time and effort to go through the environmental process. When nothing I've seen to this point makes me think that Nautilus is aligned with my values for what I want to see around me to point. So with that, I will call on the next speaker. Councilmember Odie. Speaker 4: Can I speak? Speaker 0: Should we let Councilmember Vella go? Yeah, she's she doesn't get to wave her hand at me. So, yes. Councilmember Vella, you're next. Speaker 5: So I think that we we've spent a lot of time and all of that, spent a lot of time looking at this project and looking at the cultural uses in this building and also this area. Um, you know, I had reservations before regarding the total number of jobs created by whether an office of the refuge for this building and also environmental concerns relative to the marine wildlife and to the nearby sanctuary. And I do think members of the public that have come up to speak on this, as well as the various groups that have come and said that, I think that for many of the reasons that the mayor stated and the other ones that I just stated regarding the earlier to the area, I urge you to count on support of the project. And I think that at this point, you know, especially in light of the fact that we have gone over to this area, that I want out that equal opportunity and to me to see the harbor seals, I think that , you know, in many ways we look at projects, even if we were to take the applicant at their word, that this is environmentally better than, you know, air cooling, these impacts to our marine, local marine life and to the overall bay, I don't think make it worth it. And so I won't be voting in support of this project. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Avella Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: Okay, well, thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to thank everyone for coming out. This has been on the agenda a few times and you know, we haven't had a lot of people come out. So I think it's true testament to our council that we listen to the public when they come out and they present arguments to us. So I'll try to get through this with not too much emotion, even though I think to me this is an emotional issue. I mean, it's rare that we see all of these groups together aligned. And I think the mayor alluded to a lot of what I'm going to say, and I think a lot of the speakers did. But it bears repeating, you know, the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Baykeeper, the Golden Gate, Audubon Society and the Harbor SEAL Group who originally was neutral. And another person who sent in an email, a person who's actually their main focus when they sat on this dais, was the creation of jobs at Alameda Point. And that's my former colleague, Frank Madras. He opposed it and said it's not going to bring the jobs to Alameda Point that he thought it should. So, I mean, those are five very respective names in in my book. So I respect a lot of what they have to say. I look at the I think one of the speakers might have been Pat or Marjorie said, you know, the bay is a fragile ecosystem. Right? So that's something we have to we have to be cognizant of. I mean, that is one of our city council key priorities supporting enhanced living. Stability, livability and quality of life. So if we're going to stay true to that priority, then I think we have to protect our wildlife. And I, I think protecting it means that we don't open up that fragile ecosystem to a laboratory experiment on whether this this technology is going to work and or whether it's going to harm the environment. So, I mean, to me, the best way to avoid adverse environmental impacts is to reject this lease altogether. So I had that opinion last time we had this discussion. My opinion has solidified hearing the public comments and reading the experts. And I think, you know, just real brief, some of you all have touched on it, but, you know, the lease turns. We spent a lot of energy and a lot of time and it's our value to protect them. You know, the spawning grounds, if they're gone, they're gone. And every other ecosystem and species that relies on them will be gone. The SEALs and I was in San Diego last week and we went to lunch one afternoon in La Hoya, and we walked down to the beach because we had an hour to kill. And I saw the I don't know if you've been there, but there's a bunch of seals there on the rocks on the beach. And I thought to myself, isn't it great that these seals don't have to worry about a five foot pipe being stuck underneath their habitat? Like like we're having to deal with here in Alameda. But it sounds like there's not the votes to go forward. So I'm grateful for that. The toxic algae, again, you know, once it's there, it's too late. You know, I don't think we can afford to be an experiment and I'd prefer to avoid that adverse impact. And lastly, no one's really touched on it, but, you know, the impact of a five foot hole on on the sea wall, I think I mean, you mentioned that to me on the phone either yesterday or today, and no one's really talked about that. So this is just too risky for me. I'm also not convinced that it's best in our economic interest. That's our fourth priority, encouraging economic development. I think by tying up an old building in the middle of site B I think actually diminishes the value. And I think our citizens and our residents will suffer long term by not maximizing the value of site B. And I also I'm not sure of the total impact on EMP because while we have a revenue number, we don't have a corresponding expense number. And to me, if you're going to increase load 40%, that's 40% more than we're doing today. I don't know how you do it with without increasing your headcount tremendously and no one's accounted for that. So I appreciate everybody's time and effort and letters and on this and I thank you all for speaking and protecting people that can't do things that can't speak for themselves in seals and fish and and so on. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Who's Councilmember de SAC? Speaker 6: Well, great. Well, thank you very much. I am of the opinion that the regional and state regulations that are in place are strong enough to make make sure that this project does right by the environment. But it's not to the to the regional state organizations that I am accountable. I am accountable to the residents of Alameda. And in this case, I mean, it was overwhelmingly a lot of people were opposed to it. I didn't get one email, frankly, from an Alameda residents indicating that they are supportive of this. I don't think that the project proponent did their own cause any good either, because, frankly, the message really hasn't changed over the over them. Over the past several months. I was hoping to see better examples of why this is good for Alameda or maybe even YouTube videos or something indicating how it is indeed could be safe for the environment. But you know, all we we we didn't really get that kind of information. So, you know, absent a case made by the proponent myself, I think I think the the. Words of caution that the residents are encouraging of us is something that we need to listen to. And in terms of the benefits to AMP, $25 million is a lot of money. But I think one way to think about it is that the load that is the the Marriott the Marriott ships may already constitutes roughly 10 to 11% of our electric load. And in order to get that to accommodate that 10 to 11% electric load, I believe it was back in 1988 that the city of Alameda had expanded our infrastructure in order to accommodate 10 to 11%. I kind of wonder I don't think the issue really is manpower. I think that the issue would be accommodate having the infrastructure to accommodate an additional 40%. But the story about the accommodating the Navy was that in 1988, 1987, the Navy asked Alameda to accommodate them by improving the load capabilities to to handle what were at the time, you know, naval warships. But we all know what had happened was that the at the Navy left and we we still had to pay off the bonds for those for the infrastructure to accommodate. Fortunately married came in in that and married is helping pay for that. But imagine if we had gone into debt in order to to accommodate the 40% increased load and then suddenly, for whatever reason, they weren't here, we'd be up creek. So so that was you know, that's certainly an issue, too, to think about. I still am confident, frankly speaking, that that the regional state entities would have provided us guidance as to whether or not this this project would have been environmentally sound. And so I'm not going to change on that. But I do believe that the residents have clearly spoken that this is not a project that they that they want to see happen here. Speaker 0: Thank you. And vice mayor. Next, what. Speaker 2: I will just more or less echo what would I've heard earlier today or earlier in the in the meeting? I think I've told almost everybody who emailed me and including the project manager or project applicant today that I did not expect to vote to approve the project, the lease this this evening. And I'm going to just. Call for the vote. At this point, I don't think I need to add on to anything anybody out of June thinks. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. And so what we have is an ordinance, uh, authorizing city manager to execute this lease. So let's have a. Speaker 2: A move approved, a move rejection of the staff recommendation to approve this. Speaker 3: Lease. Okay. Speaker 0: Second. Okay. It's a move by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Odie. May we have a voice vote, please? Speaker 1: Councilmember decide. Speaker 6: Yes on the motion. Speaker 1: Not slate. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 3: Vote yes on the motion, Vela. Speaker 5: Some emotion. Speaker 1: May be. Speaker 0: Ashraf also. Yes, on the motion. Speaker 1: That carries five, five eyes as well, you know. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. This project will not go forward. Okay, we are. Thank you, everyone, for coming out. We now move to item seven City Manager Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Fifteen-Year Lease with One Five-Year Option to Extend, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Lease, with Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. for Building 530, an 82,251-Square Foot Building Located at 120 West Oriskany Avenue, Building 529, a 3,200-Square Foot Building, and Building 600, a 343-Square Foot Building, at Alameda Point. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6969

Speaker 0: Avenue Complete Streets. And I'm really excited about the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal that was the probably the largest Alameda recipient with $8.2 million coming from these various funds, which tend to be county and state funds. So that's going to help that third ferry terminal in Alameda. So with that, then I'm going to go right into item ten a, I have been busy. My assistant Michelle Cook tells me that since I last saw you two weeks ago, I have interviewed 34 candidates for various boards and commissions and I'm really excited. We've had such interest this year and we've just got great, smart and our residents. It's been tough to make choices, but here are my nominations, which then council will vote on in two weeks or at the next council member meeting on July 2nd. So for the planning board there are two seats available and I am nominating Hansen Hamm. Mr. Hamm is a former planning director, himself a former community development director. Deep experience in policy planning, land use plans, affordable housing programs, urban design, environmental review and a longtime Alameda resident. Teresa Ruiz is my second nominee. Missouri's is an architect with a San Francisco firm, and she's also active in the Urban Land Institute. And in fact, she works with high school students in a number of Bay Area high schools in their government classes, having them actually set up a mock planning board. And they have a project that they undertake to, you know, deliberate on and vote on. And she puts in a lot of real life issues and she's very impressive in her own right. She's a native of Taiwan who came to this country to start high school when she was in high school, started high school at Fremont High , and she said she didn't know English. When she started high school at Fremont, she knew Spanish because her family on route from Taiwan spent a couple of years in Costa Rica. But that said, she graduated in four years and went to UC Berkeley and then got her architectural degree. And and she's a mother with young kids, but she wants to give back. And so I I'm very happy to appoint both of them for the planning board, the Public Art Commission. We are still doing interviews for applicants. I just can't get through all of them at once. Public Utilities Board. I am reappointing the incumbent, Laura Jean Tierney. She has great and deep financial expertize background, which is very useful for that board. The Recreation and Parks Commission has two openings right now. I have one. I'm nominating Tara Navarro. Ms.. Navarro is a tennis player. She's a mother of two young children. She makes a point to visit all the parks. And she's been involved in the Jackson Park proposals and has, you know, attends recreation parks commission meetings. We think she brings a lot to that commission. And I'm still interviewing nominees. So we'll we'll get that second seat filled probably by the next or nominating. By the next council meeting on the Social Service Human Relations Board, we have one opening. I am nominating Christian Fruit Fong. She is a long time reading specialist at Ruby Bridges School. She's also a third generation Alameda. And although she was born in Topaz, Utah, because her parents were interned there during World War Two. And in fact, just last week, Christian and 45 others, her family members and some others, were taking a trip to Topaz. And her parents were going. And she said her mother had actually designed for everyone. She did research and she designed they all would have the tags because, you know, all the families were numbered and they were these tags. But I said, would you please take pictures and write an article for the local newspapers? So I hope she did that. Anyway, those are my nominees. You all can look up there. You have the applications and their resume or their. Yeah. Resume is if they attach them. And so with that, I am going to adjourn this city council meeting. Thanks, everyone. Really good work tonight. Goodnight. See you July 2nd.

Council Communication

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Parks Commission, and Social Service Human Relations Board.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06042019_2019-6450

Speaker 1: So whereas Alameda is proud to recognize the contributions of our community members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and or questioning to the arts, local businesses, schools, government, community organizations and religious institutions. And. WHEREAS, the Alameda Unified School District's LGBTQ roundtable fosters an inclusive, safe and welcoming environment for all students, faculty and staff. And. Whereas, Alameda and stand united under the motto Everyone belongs here to reduce bullying and harassment and teach respect for everyone, regardless of age, disability, ethnicity, faith, gender, sexual orientation or any differences perceived or real. And. Whereas, on January 17, 2017, the Alameda City Council adopted a resolution affirming Alameda its commitment as a sanctuary city to the values of dignity, inclusivity and respect for all individuals, regardless of ethnic or national origin, gender, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or immigration status. And. Whereas, the city of Alameda affirms the dignity, value, and right to equal treatment of all community members. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Maryland, as the Ashcraft mayor of the city of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the month of June 2019 as LGBTQ Pride Month in the City of Alameda and encourage our meetings to learn more about the history and rich contribution of our LGBTQ community. And with that, and before we get into present the proclamations, would each of you like to speak briefly and to the to the audience into the microphone? Speaker 0: Sure. Okay. Speaker 5: Well, I had prepared something because I was told to. But if you don't want me to read it, I don't have to. Speaker 1: You were you didn't prepare. Speaker 0: You did. I did. Speaker 1: I did. As long as it's not single spaced for three pages. Speaker 5: Sure, sir. No problem. I just wanted to say that we are Jeremy and Andrew and to Houston. In May of 2010, we met in Los Angeles, where we began our relationship together. We and Steve instantly fell in love and decided to make plans for an eternal future together after vacation to San Francisco Bay Area. We were amazed at how much we loved it here and put plans in motion. After careful consideration of the cost of living, we decided to move back to the Midwest, where we both are from to save money with a three year game plan. Our plans consisted of getting married, building our careers, then relocating to the Bay Area of California, where all are welcome, eventually creating a family. We were married in 2014 and started City, Iowa, where same sex marriage was legal at the time and close to where we were living during our time in the Midwest, I was able to complete a cosmetology degree as well. After getting married, we knew we had to leave right away due to not being married legally in our home states. Our adventure to the Bay Area began in September of 2014. We were first looking in San Francisco but didn't feel it was right fit for us in our future plans. After weeks of looking elsewhere but still being close to the city, someone had mentioned Alameda. They had said it was an island city and a hidden gem in the Bay Area. The minute we drove over the Park Street Bridge, we were amazed. It reminded us of home in so many ways. Our mothers agree. We were not settled until we found a place to live in Alameda. Knowing that we were someday going to have a family, we started doing our research. We saw that Alameda was so safe and clean with good schools, great people, and a fabulous community. When. So much support. We have now been in Alameda for nearly five years and as a general manager of the Park Street, Starbucks in Alameda and I'm a hairstylist in Alameda because of our love for Alameda. We quickly got involved. As many of you may know, we are very big in supporting our community for which we love, including the Kiwanis Club of Alameda, which I'm the president and adds are on the board, the Elks Lodge of Alameda, in which we are in charge of two events every year and the Oakland East Bay, Cayman's chorus. In addition, we have also been very involved with many community charity events, raising thousands of dollars so that those less fortunate can do and have things that may seem out of reach, such as college food, clothing, health and a clean city. Our latest adventure is to have a baby. We are actually in step two of three right now in our IVF surrogacy process, hoping to have a baby by fall of 2020. The cost of this is very expensive and timely. We applied for a grant through a third party nonprofit organization and were awarded half the cost where we were so grateful to them as we never thought we could afford this. Also, we are big advocates for fighting for equal rights for everyone. Lately, more issues have been arising that are we are unwilling to stand by and let happen. One of these is fair IVF surrogacy health insurance laws for everyone, including same sex partners in which we have made some good process. We have been working on this for two years now and have gotten so much support and advice from our friends and community. Hopefully it will make it easier and less costly for same sex partners to have a baby via surrogacy. All these things would not be possible if not for living in a non non-judgmental and non prejudiced place. We have no plans of ever leaving Alameda as we feel it deserves the same support from us as it gives back to us. We love you, alameda, and thank you for being so diverse and accepting so that we can walk the street holding hands, build a family, build a career, be successful, and most of all be heard because of your open hearts to diversity and intolerance for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Happy pride. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Who's next? Okay. Come on up. Robbie. Robbie and Lala. Come on. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 8: Hello, guys. My name is Robbie Wilson, and I am a proud Alameda. Hello, you guys. And this is Lala Turner. And she actually is she actually want to say you still want to say something. Speaker 1: To just really bring the microphone into your level? We'd love to hear from you. So how old are you? How old are you? For starters. Speaker 0: Nine now. Nine. Nine years old. Speaker 1: Nine. What grade? Speaker 0: Third. Wow. Going into fourth. Okay. Yeah. You wouldn't say anything else? No. Speaker 8: Okay. Well, she was elbowed before. Intimidated, but. Yeah, we moved here. Oh, it's been 22 years. Two in Alameda. I do a lot of service for Alameda. A lot of you guys. And part of what I love, I'm so honored today and just being up here once again here and the fact that Alameda acknowledges this. And I remember the first year when I was driving by when turned the corner right there and the flag was flying down. And it was the first time in all these years I live there, here. And I saw that and I had to pull over because there was a moment. And so I'm definitely proud to receive this. And you want to see anything now? Okay. Next time. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 8: Thank you guys so much for all you guys do. Speaker 1: Who's next? Deborah and Alison, come on up. Speaker 0: I am just thrilled to live in a town. Speaker 1: I realize I've been. Speaker 3: Here eight years, eight. Speaker 0: Years. And I found. Speaker 3: Alameda because Deborah was here already. Speaker 1: And just that. Speaker 0: Our diversity and welcoming ness just keeps growing. And I'm proud to be here and. Speaker 3: Really grateful that. Speaker 1: You know, we're standing before a. Speaker 0: City council who's. Speaker 1: Like, so. Speaker 0: Genuinely happy and embracing, celebrating this month and giving the proclamation. Thank you, Madam Mayor and council people. Speaker 1: Thank you for being here. It. I wasn't prepared. You were here. That's all right. Well, well, thank you for being here and welcome to you. Okay. With that, Jim and I are going to present proclamations. Speaker 0: With all the political risks to the party, is there any hope for you? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Hey, hey, hey, hey. Who are we to believe? All right. Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. If you want to. Okay. Hey, everybody, to the paparazzi. Let's turn this way, way, way down. All the way down. Do we need an additional marathon? Streep. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So. Thank you, everyone. Yeah. Sonic, give us your address for the proclamation. Thank you. Okay. Our next item is oral communications, where anyone can speak on an item, not on the agenda. There's 15 minutes allocated at this time for public comment. Do we have any speak? Speaker 3: We have no speakers. Speaker 1: We have no speakers left.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring June 2019 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Pride Month. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06042019_2019-6917

Speaker 3: Recommendation to approve Otis Drive, Traffic Calming and Safety Improvement Project Design Concept Recommendations. Speaker 1: All right. So we have. Who do we have here? Speaker 10: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Scott Wickstrom, the city engineer. Tonight, along with David Parisi from Parisi Consultants, we will be presenting the Otis Drive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvements Project. As council member, I'll know the slide projectors not in service. And so our one, we have the best slide presentation that the public will never see. That said, I'm going to go through and really try to hit the highlights of the entirety of the presentation staff report as well. Written should be very thoroughly and will certainly be available for questions at the end. Speaker 1: And I will just add that the staff report is available online and the presentation is excellent. So if you're really interested, you can take a look at it online. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 10: So I'm going to I'm going to jump ahead and I'll kind of let you know the title of the sheet. I'm on the third slide, which is the project goal, and it's singular. I was very specific about that. It's to improve safety for all users. It's really reducing driving speeds. That's one major component about it. It's also improving safety for pedestrians at crossings. It's providing for bicycle safety that doesn't really exist in terms of a dedicated bike facility on the street right now, improving bus stops, operations and then, where possible, doing green infrastructure. Next slide this will be a phased approach project. Two years ago, with the capital budget, the city council authorized or appropriated $500,000 to study this, to reach out to the public through public workshops and then bring back forward ideas. And what we are proposing to do is a two phased approach. The initial phase will be short term, relatively inexpensive, predominantly paint type based improvements that with a request that has been before you already with the 1921 capital budget, an additional $500,000, we believe we could implement final design this fall and actually construct in spring of 2020 should the Council approve our initial approach tonight? There's also some long term improvements that are proposed with this project that depend on the full menu of potential improvements may cost several million dollars and we would be soliciting grant funding for such a project. We are not asking council for final approval of those long term improvements at this time. We're really focusing on looking for approval of the short term recommendations project schedule. We've had a survey that went out last fall. We've held two community workshops. We've been to the Transportation Commission twice, most recently on May 22nd, in which case the Transportation Commission voted 4 to 1 to support the project. And I would say that all five commissioners were in general support of the project. There was one the one dissenting vote was more of a concern about the treatment of the bike facility adjacent to Rattler Park, which we'll be talking about a little more in the future here in this presentation. So as I mentioned before, if approved by council tonight, we're looking to finalize design this fall and go into construction in 2022. Jump ahead a couple of slides to where we talk about vehicular speeds. It is a concern. Everyone who's driven out at unnoticed drive can pretty freely attest to that. I'm sure the residents can speak to it pretty, pretty freely. And they have regularly told us during during our workshops, a couple of notes, you know, the average speed depending on where you are in the quarter, somewhere between 28 and 30 miles an hour. The 85th percentile, which is really what the police can enforce at, is 33 miles an hour. And during a single day, when we recorded speeds in a single afternoon in February, the max speed recorded was 75 miles an hour down the stretch. And the police department has assured me that that is not unusual to see excessively high speeds because of the straightness, the with the lack of stops or other traffic calming devices on the street. Next slide is really types of collisions, and they're kind of clustered at a lot of the intersections. I want to call just one thing to do for which is there's a variety of types of different types of collisions that are tracked. But for the vehicle, bicycle vehicle pedestrian it at this point comprises 19% of. The collisions. And as you would run to the very next slide, you look at the injuries and fatalities over that same four year or five year period. Those 19% of incidents comprise 54% of injuries. And there was one fatality not too long ago at one of the intersections on the street. Moving to next slide, which is traffic volumes, I spend a little bit of time here because it's kind of important to what we're really ultimately proposing to do here. Otis Drive is two lanes each direction. Generally speaking, a simple way of thinking about a lane is its operating capacity as a thousand cars per hour per lane. So you can have 2000 cars per hour going in each direction on Otis Drive. As part of our study, and there's been a very robust collection of data or series of data that have been collected over the last four years. We have 92 separate data points collecting data along here. We generally find that the traffic volumes west of Grand Street are on the order of 4 to 500 vehicles per hour during the pump peak. And Eastern grand to traffic is a little bit heavier, but it's on the order of about 600 vehicles per hour. So it's well less than the current nominal capacity of 2000 cars per per lane or 2000 cars per hour for a two lane street, and still a significant amount of excess capacity, as you would look at a potential lane reduction or a road diet to a two or three lane configuration. So that's a very important point to factor. And we did work with AC Transit very significantly about their bus stops. They we have basically incorporated not only recommendations for improving safety and maintaining their access and use along this quarter. So it's been a good partnership with them. And then I want to jump a little bit into the community survey and the first workshop and I'm going to there's a whole series of slides with some nice pictures, but there's a community workshop, number one, that has key issues affecting Otis Drive. And really the top four items on here are good to take note of speeding. Number one concern, lack of pedestrian crossings, particularly between Grand and West Lane and lack of bicycle facilities. And the fourth one is Safety Grand and Otis and lack of protective left turn. So those comprise the top four issues brought up part of the as part of the workshop. I would be remiss to say that we also did the survey earlier in the year and one of the concerns that came up, or at least a couple of concerns that came up during the initial surveys, were concern that Otis Drive would would be developed in a similar way to Shoreline Drive. There's some concern about that. And I want to say that there are two very different streets, and it's not really appropriate to compare them directly. My personal opinion that the treatment for Otis or sorry for Shoreline Drive is appropriate for Shoreline Drive. Otis Drive demands a different type of a treatment so that fundamentally they're very different streets and have different sorts of approaches about how we would do traffic calming and improve safety for all the users. Secondly, there is also a very significant concern about enforcement and a lot of survey results and general public concern that if there is just better enforcement, the speeds would go down. And Sergeant Foster has been and he's here tonight, has been at all of the committee meetings, and he spoke at length about that. And basically and I'm going to paraphrase a little bit, but what is more correct statement was but we can't really enforce our way out of this issue . The road is just basically too wide. It encourages speeding by its design. So moving ahead to the next sheet, which is, I'll say, measures to implement and I'll spend just a brief time looking at the first six cities. Number one survey result was a center left turn lane going from a four lane road to a three lane road. A road diet. Number two were the addition of bike lanes or bike facilities, depending on how you want to take that landscaping came in there, read curves at corners for visibility. That's a pedestrian improvement, pedestrian safety. And then the last two roundabouts and protected left turn a grande are two different ways of approaching that challenging intersection at Otis and Grand. And and Mr. Parisi will speak a little more directly about what the two different alternatives potentially could be there are and what our what our recommended one is at this point for a potential long term solution. So with that, I'm going to turn over the mic to to David and let him kind of talk through the our toolbox. Speaker 1: Thank thank you. Speaker 11: Thank you, Scott. Madam Chair, City Council members, my name is David Preece in the Civil and traffic engineer with Prezi Transportation Consulting. And I had a great opportunity, the pleasure of working with your staff and the community on this project. And it's been very enjoyable and we've learned a lot. And the first thing we did is. Worked with the community at that first open house to really understand existing issues up and down. Otis Drive the segment, Otis Drive that we are looking at between West Line and Willow is 1.1 miles in length. And as Scott mentioned, there's many, many issues going on with the street. We spent quite a bit of time not just looking at the issues, but also collecting data, looking at traffic volumes, crashes, the infrastructure on the street. And after the first community workshop, we then went back and started developing a toolbox of potential short term and long term measures that could potentially be implemented along Otis Drive. There's a slide that's called traffic calming and safety tools, and there's a bunch of them that were considered. The intent of the project is to provide some measures to improve safety, to encourage more reasonable travel speeds. Scott mentioned there are some speeds that are incredibly excessive, improve the visibility and safety for pedestrians not only crossing the street but walking along the street as well, and to increase bicycle comfort and safety. Next slide is titled Advantages of a Three Lane Street. I'm going to spend a few moments here. Otis Drive a 64 feet wide between the curbs. There's a lot of space. And as Scott mentioned, there's more space than is needed for the traffic volumes that we see today and expect in the future. So we are proposing what is called a road diet and that is reduce the number of thru lanes from 4 to 1 in each direction, plus a continuous left turn lane in the middle of the street to facilitate left turns in and out of side streets as well as driveways. This provides some additional room to not only retain the on street parking along the curves, but to install a bike lane that has a buffered strip between the travel lane and the bike lane. According to FHB Way, who has reviewed lots of road diets that have been developed throughout throughout the United States over the last decade or so. Roadways can reduce collisions substantially by about 19%. Definitely see speed reduction. Average speed reduction about three miles an hour. But what's probably most important is the excessive speeds coming way down. So those those 70 mile an hour speeds or 45 mile an hour speeds being reduced, collision reduction. Obviously, for pedestrians, there be fewer lanes to cross, better visibility, more space for cyclists, particularly if bicycle lanes are provided and the ability to have smoother traffic flow. In other words, speeds that are pretty consistent across the board. Next few slides show some of the tools that are being proposed. They do include the installation of buffered bicycle lanes and some red curb striping at intersection corners and in front of the crosswalks. These certainly would provide better visibility between pedestrians and motorists and vice versa, but also could can provide better visibility for motorists coming out from the side streets as they look to the right or to the left before they enter the traffic stream. We are also proposing not only creating high visibility crosswalks at the locations that already have crosswalks, but installing four new ones along the 1.1 mile long roadway. Certainly at some places there are not left turn lanes, such as at Grand and Otis. We're looking at installing left turn lanes dedicated just for left turns for east west traffic on Otis as well as at Grand. And in the future, when there's money available to dedicate to traffic signal upgrades, providing left turn arrows as well. The short term and long range improvements do include the consideration of curb bulbs in the short term, using paint and and bollards to provide more bouts that can reduce crossing distances, increase sightlines, and also help reduce speeds in the long term. Transitioning those into curbs that are sticking out about six feet into the street, which is slightly less than park cars do. There's a slide titled Modern Roundabouts as a long term solution. We have proposed and we got good feedback from the community. The installation of a modern roundabout at Otis and Grand Modern Roundabouts have been proven to reduce speeds through intersections, reduce the potential for many different types of conflicts, including left turn conflicts and broadside collisions. And also they provide splitter islands for pedestrians can cross a traffic stream one lane at a time and really just to provide a balanced solution for all users traveling through an intersection. There will be street trees. There are a lot there are many streets, trees on the on the streets. Some are in good health, some are not. And actually, there's 21 vacant street tree wells that would be planted with trees as part of the short term improvements. The types of trees will be worked out with your arborist in with the neighbors. There is some. There's a slide called a community workshop, too. And that is where we came back and shared with the community some of the ideas for short term as well as long range improvements, and spent time work with the community at five different tables talking about some of these and getting a further additional input. There is a giant plan that is called Otis Drive Traffic Calming, a safety improvement project that shows in two strips the short term recommendations and then in inset boxes each of the potential long term remedies that can be pursued individually or as a packages in the future as funding becomes available. And I will turn your attention also to a slide called four lane to three lane converge. And this shows what the street would look like with the conversion between intersections. There's plenty of capacity to provide this retain really good traffic operations between intersections with this lane conversion, and it's important to pay attention to how the intersections operate. And so there would be some slight changes at the interchange intersections with left turn lanes in signal phasing or a roundabout. There is also some images here that show grand a photograph of Missouri Otis looking at looking at Otis West of Grant. Under existing conditions, you can see how wide the street is. In some cases, there's some empty walls on the south side of the street in this photo. The next photo is a simulation that, ah, that we prepared that shows what the street conceptually would look like in the future with three lanes, which is inclusive of a continuous to a left turn lane buffered bike lanes and the retention of parking. The last image shows some trees that have matured over time as a short term plans becomes a longer term plan. These are again, the street tree types are to be determined, but certainly trees and canopies can provide traffic calming experience along a roadway such as Otis. I'm not going to go through all the rest of the dozen plus images, but I will just quickly highlight what those show they do. Start from the West at Otis in West Line. In each of these shows, existing conditions followed by short term and then a long range solution. So at Willow, at West Line, the intent is to provide some striping improvements, some areas to protect the cyclists that are crossing this four legged intersection and also moving the bus stop, the westbound bus stop around the corner. Bus stop improvements are part of the overall project. There's currently ten bus stops. Two of the bus stops would be removed. Other bus stops will be relocated to far side locations instead of near side. That is a preference of AC transit as well as the provision of the pavement behind the curb to provide areas for the lifts for the busses. So to make the bus stops in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act at West Sign, a long term improvement looks similar to the short term but has more protection for cyclists and is you'll if you look closely, you'll see curbs and curb extensions for, you know, long term improvements at the intersection. There's a sample of Larchmont. Larchmont is a popular intersection today where many people cross the street. There is not a crosswalk there, not a marked crosswalk. This is a location where we would install a crosswalk initially in the short term conditions with high visibility markings signing, as well as temporary curb bulbs and a long range condition. This would be converted into permanent curb bulbs. There are three other locations that are also do not have crosswalks currently. Those are Torrington Isle, Arlington Isle and Glenwood Isle. Each of those three additional locations would also be provided with crosswalks similar to Larchmont and the existing crosswalk at Waterview and San Creek will be upgraded to provide again high visibility crossings, plus the rectangular rapid flashing beacon assembly. Next, you will see, I believe Otis and Grand is a intersection. We spent quite a bit of time at not only our bus stop, the bus stops being proposed to be relocated, but in the short term, the turn lanes for Grand and for Otis left turn lanes would be provided, the crosswalks would be enhanced, red curb striping would occur just before and after the intersection. To open up the sightlines, temporary curb bulbs would be installed and there'd be. Areas for cyclists who chose to use that either as a through cyclist or as a turning cyclist behind within as a painted curb bulbs. The longer term solution is a modern roundabout. Cost actually would be very similar to upgrading the signal and providing curb bulbs. So the cost difference is actually very is very is about zero compared to what a long term solution would be if we upgraded the signal and provided complete curveballs at the intersection. But over time, the maintenance costs are considerably lower because in electricity and I've previously mentioned some of the safety considerations with a modern roundabout. We also spent quite a bit of time looking at how to treat cyclists or a bicycle facility in front of Rider Park, particularly in the eastbound direction. One of the options is to provide what's called a buffered class two bike lane, where the bike lane where there's parking against a curb followed by a bike lane, and then the buffer lane, which is the proposal for the entire corridor. And then the option that was reviewed was to provide what's called a parking protected bike lane, where the bike lane is against the curb, then there's a buffer and then there is parking in that area. This is a spot where you're doing this would not require removal of a lot of parking spaces, maybe one or two for this option. And it's it's a feasible option. The Transportation Commission, there was one member who was in favor of this. Four were in favor of retaining taining the proposed class. Two buffer bike lane. And last but not least, there would be a transition at Willow. Willow has two streets that are offset, and we have determined there's some ways to do some signal timing adjustments there to make it work a little bit better. But by the time eastbound traffic gets to, well, those can be necessary to restore two traffic lanes at the Western intersection, and that can be done while also retaining a bike lane. There are some treatments, including bike lane, striping and sure lane users through the intersection that are being that will be pursued as well at that location. And similar to other spots where there are bus stops, bus stops would be relocated and we've worked with AC Transit on some better locations than the existing locations for the bus stops. That is. That's it in a nutshell. Those are the proposed improvements, short term and long range. And tonight we're looking for your input on the short range or approval of short range improvements and input on some of the longer range ideas as well. Speaker 1: Thank thank you, Mr. Parisi. And before we go to public comment, I assume we have some speakers slips. We I want to see if council members have any clarifying questions they want to either ask of our city engineer, Mr. Wikström, or of the consultant Mr. Parisi, and he clarifying questions. Counsel Let's start with the Vice Mayor. Speaker 9: Thank you. I guess this is a question for for Mr. Wickstrom in terms of the process tonight. These are not final drawings. These are just kind of initial conceptual concepts, I mean, somewhat fleshed out. But in terms of my interest, just to be clear, is if whatever we approve that we are able to move forward tonight and not come back in six months with new revised drawings. In terms of the ability to discuss additional things here, how does this process accommodate the ability to kind of consider additional tweaks, changes, significant changes? Speaker 10: We can certainly take those under advisement. I think I'd probably start by saying what we're really seeking from council tonight is approval of the concept, the primary components of the concept, which is the reduction of a four lane road to a three lane road. Whether that is acceptable, whether you know, whether how it's structured with a buffer bike lane along the bulk of it, we are certainly throwing up an alternative in front of Riddler Park. So that's something that we want to get feedback from council on in some direction about how to move forward, some of the finer level details in terms of the ball buyouts and potentially our RFP locations. Those are all fine level things that we can certainly take input from council. But without without the expectation, at least my expectation that we would need to come back to this body. I think the big question we're asking for is primarily the four lane to three lane reduction and the improvement of this type and nature of improvements. And if there's some detail comments, that's something we can certainly work through at a later time. Speaker 9: Great. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Okay, Councilmember Odie. Speaker 4: Thanks. My question and I because I received a constituent inquiry about this today, I know it's once a year, but our 4th of July parade comes down Otis and turns on two grand. And I guess the concern was that we'd still be able to have enough clearance for, you know, the larger trucks and floats and everything to do that under under the long term solution. Can you? I think that was discussed at the Transportation Commission, but maybe you can remind everybody here tonight. Speaker 10: Yes, that was that was an issue that was brought up prior to the Transportation Commission. And we did look at the type of vehicles that are used in the parade and also kind of modern roundabouts are designed to handle large vehicles, to handle trucks, to handle fire trucks, to handle that kind of stuff. So while we haven't also studied every potential alternative or say, float size and stripe, there is an expectation that we should be able to accommodate the 4th of July parade through this intersection with the roundabout. And again, that's not a decision we're asking council to make tonight, but certainly if there's a support for it, it would be something that we would absolutely consider as that would go for a grant application or any future potential final design. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: Councilmember Daza Oh, great. Speaker 7: Just a set of questions in a letter to a resident resident named Kline on the second page of the letter. Staff wrote the following The US Federal Highway Administration provides guidance on traffic volume threshold levels for four lane roadways that might be candidates for road diets, Staff continued. Their research indicates that current and projected traffic volumes on Otis Drive are below the threshold for impacts to roadway operations. Because I didn't quite see the specific numbers. What are the FH A's traffic volume numeric thresholds? What are the actual numbers and how does the Otis drive numbers that we see compare to those? Are we significantly, you know, is it is there a significant difference or is it less than 60 this difference less than significant? Speaker 11: That's a great question. So according to have a typically when a roadway has less than 20,000 vehicles per day, it's a good candidate for a road diet. Otis West Grand carries less than 10,000 cars a day. Or does these two grand carries less than 15? Thousand vehicles a day. So at those levels, great candidate for road diet. The issue is really not the street between intersections itself. It's it's really how the intersections, particularly the signals, the controlled intersections are treated and how they operate. So we spend considerable time making sure that the signal timing, the lanes and the configuration would accommodate the traffic volumes existing and future at an acceptable level of service during peak peak periods. Speaker 7: Okay. Second follow up question. The number 19% reduction was quoted that the FH says that there. I suppose research of research. I don't know if they actually did it themselves, but their research of research shows that there was a 19% reduction. So are we saying that the 38 collisions over a five year period would drop down to roughly 30, I guess would be the number which would be I think 30 is roughly 81% of of 38. Is that what we're looking at? Speaker 11: I'm not making a prediction about exactly what will happen with the types of collisions that the FAA researches. Across all the road diets combined, it's a weighted average. I think there's a potential for even larger reductions with Otis Drive. We've spent quite a bit of time looking at the crashes. The crash types went over those, not only at the intersections, but at the Mid-Block locations and many of the treatments that we're proposing. We believe the crash potential not only be reduced, but the severity index would be as reduced as well. So we think that would provide great potential for that. Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. Two more questions. Does the state of California, much in the way that we used, was threshold numbers for the state of California have numbers that that are also used when determining whether or not road diets are appropriate. Speaker 11: You know, I'm not familiar if the state has some, but many of the case studies in the FHA freeway analysis came from California. So and certainly California has been a leader in providing road diets on four lane streets. Speaker 7: Okay. Well, state of California met Caltrans. I mean, because oftentimes we turn to Caltrans, I think for a lot of road changes, whether or not they meet what are called state warrants. Speaker 11: Yeah. Caltrans has also adopted a complete streets policy and they are very much in favor of measures such as road diets and modern roundabouts because both have been proven to reduce or to improve safety and reduce collision potential. Speaker 7: And final question once again, on the typical speed on Otis Drive. Right now, the speed limit is 25. I know we've heard outliers of 75 miles per hour. But what's what's the typical speed that people are actually traveling? Was it 32 miles per hour that I hear? Speaker 10: Yeah, the average is between 28 and 30, depending on what section. I think a little bit west of Grand, they averages is about 30. So the average is in excess of 25. Yeah. Speaker 7: Okay, great. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Villa, do you have any questions on the staff report? Okay. Thank you. And I don't either at this time. Okay. And so we do have public speakers. Speaker 0: We have. Speaker 1: Four. And, you know, my caveat, if any speaker happens to have a child with them, they go first. Speaker 0: Oh, is that. Speaker 3: Mr. Kaiser? Oh. Speaker 0: Yeah. You know. Speaker 1: I believe there is a gentleman with a cute little blond daughter. I'm guessing a daughter brought a child so he could go first or. Speaker 0: I don't know. Speaker 1: You're telling us your name, sir? Speaker 5: My name is Mrs.. Speaker 10: Morgan Belanger, Mrs. Leona. And we ride two miles to preschool every morning. Thank you for having us. Speaker 0: Right. We. That's the city council. Speaker 10: Oh, I'm. I'm speaking in memory to shift the mood. A little bit of teeth rusting. I didn't know Ms.. Rothstein, but I rode past her body on Howard Street in San Francisco about three months ago. She was riding in a class two bike lane until a driver opened a door into her pathway. She swerved and was struck by a passing truck. I came upon the scene about 3 minutes after the collision. It stuck with me pretty well. Open doors are far from the only obstacles present in bike lanes not protected by parking rights. Her vehicles are ubiquitous and I'm sure you've all driven through school zones in Alameda in the morning. It's kind of a disaster when parents drop kids off in the bike lane. Nine year olds on bikes have to swerve around by mixing with traffic. That's an unprotected bike lane. This is our chance to fix this problem cheaply with a little paint and good design. The city we share a border with Move Fast. Howard now has a Class four protected bike lane on the stretch in question. Who knows how many lives been saved in three months? Who knows how many will be saved in future decades? San Francisco has even set a precedent with a very recent protected lane in a school zone on Valencia in front of Friends School. And we we now have an opportunity to get a design right in the first place. I urge you to approve the road, Diane, with the class four parking protected bike lane to keep us and our children safe. I'm sorry to bring the mood down a little bit. Speaker 0: Yeah, thank. Speaker 1: You. That was important. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: The next speaker is Joe Kaiser, then Pat Potter and Jim's trailer. Speaker 5: Big evening. I am a Otis Drive resident and I am here in support of the project. I believe I actually spoke with Mayor Ashcraft a number of years ago about this project or the concept of it. Speaker 1: Rome wasn't built in a day here. Speaker 5: But it's very exciting to have it reach this point. I have two young children, both of whom are attending Wood Middle School currently, and I look forward to when one of them will move on to high school. But I look forward to both of them being able to more safely ride their bikes, walk on the streets, to drive them to and from school and other events without having to worry about people speeding past in the second lane, going upwards of 50, 60, 70 miles an hour. At times, I had the opportunity to work with other residents, to be trained by police, to operate radar guns on the street. And I can tell you that just anecdotally, from standing out there for ten or 15 minutes at a time, we would often record people going 40, 50 miles an hour pretty regularly, certainly well in excess of 35 miles an hour. We would write write down a number of license plates within a ten, 15 minute period. And some people actually the police would reach out to them with a notice. You know, residents recorded you going a certain speed and some people wrote back and were very kind of shocked at their own behavior, glad that they had been notified that they had been, you know, engaging in unsafe driving practices. I think that residents would appreciate having the opportunity to drive on a road that does not encourage those kinds of speeds. I also wanted to reflect to the the council that the city staff, the Privacy and Associates consulting firm, has been very responsive to community, a lot of community input. They've received that input. They've included that input in their plans. I've been very impressed with the level of detail that they have gone into discussing these plans with the community. So I think that, you know, the proposal that's being made to the council has been very thoroughly vetted and researched. I also wanted to put in the note for a video that I believe you all received from Jennie Gong with the two children. She assures me that they actually prepared the entire script for that video. They spent apparently a number of hours putting it together over the course of about a month, maybe more than a month. So if you haven't watched it yet, please watch it. They really poured themselves in the. That project. And they wish they could have been here tonight, but hopefully the video suffices. So thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. I next be. Speaker 3: Here. Pat Potter, then James trailer. Speaker 1: Pat Potter and then Jim. Okay. Hello. Speaker 12: Hello. I'm Pat Potter. I'm part of the city's transportation awareness committee. I'm also the chair of Kansas Transportation Committee and also now president of Bike Walk Alameda. And I'm a little choked up from what that gentleman told us because that's exactly what I came here to talk about. I'm not quite sure how we can put safety in the title of this, given that we're not getting a protected bike lane down the entire Otis. However, I do realize there's budget constraints, so I just want to look at a protected class for Bike Lane in front of Riddler. And the reason is, is because that is an area where parents park their cars right along sorry, right along the sidewalk to get into the park for their kids to play sports. So what happens is when they come out and they get in their cars and they take off and they don't look, if we don't have that protected bike lane, we're going to have a bicyclist squeeze between that car that hasn't looked and the car that's coming down the street that has only one lane because now we've put in the center lane. So what happens? The car pulls out, bam, the bicycle get hit, gets hit. Then there's a second thing that can happen. So the car pulls out, doesn't look. The bicyclist sees the car, he swerves so he doesn't get hit and bam, he gets hit by the car that's coming down the street. Car can't go anywhere but right into him. And there's a third. So the the parent is late to the game. The bicycle is riding down. The parent swerves in front of him to get into that parking spot, nix his front wheel. The bicyclist goes flying. Where is the safety in that? So I strongly, strongly urge you, beg you put in the protected bike lane so you have the sidewalk, the bike lane, the barrier, the cars park and then the traffic. Thanks very much. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Speaker 6: The building. Madam Mayor. Council Members and Citizens Council. One block away is simply a very satisfactory route as Shoreline Drive obviating the need for all of this and, you know, work on all of this. The big thing is, is Otis Drive is an emergency master emergency safety route. Once you road diet, you're not going to get that lane back. So you are making decisions that affect the safety of the island for a long time. If you must have a bike lane, please. Class two and not class four for the following reasons. Because class four puts bikes on the passenger side of the cars that will be parking along Otis Drive. Currently one vehicle parks on Otis Drive. You have the car and you got a curb. Stepped right out. There's nothing in between. But when you have a lane in between now the passengers exiting a car now have to look. Not only the driver has to look on the left, the passengers now have to look on the right side. So it's dangerous. Now, look at the exception that they made for Whitner Park. It's Woodland Park, not Litter Park. People said, please do not have a class for near Rattler Park. They, the kids leave their vehicles quickly, etc.. So right now they are already proposing that you have class four over here driving. Then they want to switch over at Riddler Park and then switch back again under their current proposal, because they see that there is a reason not to have a Class four at Riddler Park. My argument is that same argument, the entire length of the project. It doesn't mix well in transportation. The lanes are supposed to be from center to curb. Fast, fast as fast, slower, slow. And then, you know, off to the curb. With class four, you've got fast, you've got zero when you've got cars parked and another fast lane because you've got bicyclists now going 12 miles an hour. But oh my God, the thing that I run into most is the damn scooters that are going a 20 miles an hour and they will use the bike lane. So you will have 25 mile an hour zero for the park cars and 20 miles an hour on the passenger side when you if you pass class four. So I am totally against class four. The proposed diet is similar to Front Side Boulevard, west of High Street, and Public Works has always mentioned a desire to further road diet for Inside Boulevard. They're not going to do it now, but they're proposing that it's law enforcement that will make the difference on speed. Speaker 1: Just that. Do we have any further public comment? Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment and we will move into council discussion. Who would like to lead off? Councilmember Daisuke. Speaker 7: Well, thank you very much. I I will pick up where the last public speaker talked on the on the topic of law enforcement. You know, having grown up in Alameda in the seventies and in the eighties, I think everyone in town always knew that Otis Drive was a speed trap. And this was the case in sixties when I talk with people who grew up here and then and it was a speed trap because you would have cops who would literally stay at at any of the intersections where there was the intersection by Cruzi Park in Otis or the intersection, they would hang out at the intersection. It might have been the same court, by the way, just shifting from one part of Otis Drive to the next. But it was a law, and I think that everyone knew it. And I think what we what we don't have is we don't have that level of of of attention from our police force. I think that's the part that that we need to focus on is enforcement. Because when we get back that culture, people always talk, yeah, you know, don't don't spit on Otis. Don't spit on Otis. Just like we did back in the seventies. In the eighties. And when I look at the data that's presented here, while staff had indicated for leading issues, the one issue that just pops out automatically is speed, whether it was at the workshops or I'm sure through the online. And just, you know, by your experience, I hear that the maybe the typical speed is 33 miles per hour, but I don't think so. I think the speed is certainly hovering above that. So speed, I think, is an issue. And I think the remedy is is enforcement like we used to do. I at the end of the day, Otis Drive still needs to handle a vehicular var a volume of vehicular traffic that allows people to go from one part of the island to, say, shop at South Shore and back, or even allows people who live around South Shore to get to work in a orderly, safe manner. And right now, obviously, it's a speed trap. But but I think the remedy that's being promoted here is a bit too excessive. I would I would support enhanced enforcement by the police back in the way that we used to do it. I'm intrigued by the the discussion about the bike lanes, whether it's class four or class two. I'm open to the class four, like bike lanes of, you know, sidewalk bike lanes and and parking stalls. I'm open to that. But in terms of like redoing the streets from four streets to streets one way, going this way and one going that way, I'm just not there and honest. I just don't think the data supports it. I don't think it supports that as the remedy. It's tragic. You know, what had happened several years ago at Grand Street and Otis Drive in terms of Mr. Sauce. And we certainly want to do everything to prevent that. But by the same token, to me, I think the answer is enforcement. I mean, that's what we used to talk about, the three E's enforcement and engineering. And so it's I think what's missing here is the enforcement part. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember De So who's going next? And I should ask Councilmember Vela. Do you want to go next? Speaker 0: Sharon. I'm not going to go there. Speaker 1: Okay. I thought maybe if Theo let you, you could go now. Speaker 0: Yeah. Um, so I think. And, you know, I think that this is a good start. I think that there are the recommendations that are being put forward. I think I'm going to address a lot of the issues that we have. Certainly visibility and things like that are, you know, we need to make those improvements. And I do think that, you know, to Councilmember Point, there may be some additional things that need to come or become a part of this. And I wouldn't I just don't want to fold it up. And if there are other suggestions from from other council members or change that as we move forward that we're looking at, it will be added. I would want to make sure that the fact is integrated in a way that doesn't delays that I'm getting implemented in terms of the enforcement aspect of it. I think enforcement is important, but I also think that it's not everything you want for me to be enforcement action. Yeah, you can catch people in some days, but you know, that doesn't necessarily overall change the behavior. And a lot of what we need to do is just make the road more visible and and multimodal friendly. Because I think what we're trying to do with a lot of the recommendations that are being made by staff. So I'm looking forward to supporting them, thinking that I wouldn't put this number of different issues in ways that other thoroughfares don't. Mainly because it is such a provide a fine artery of the artery of travel. And so I think that it's going to be evolving. And as you definitely implement things along the way and found that some of the more people in the world but I think the people to learn from that. So I'm I'm prepared to do that. Speaker 1: Thanks. Councilmember Vela, vice mayor. And that's why I would like to go next. Speaker 9: Thank you. So I want to thank staff. I know that this has been a long and well engaged process to get us here, and I think it's exciting. I feel the need, I guess, to to address a couple of points that have come out. I mean, we already have a really good example of protected class for bikeways that handle a lot of people getting out on the passenger side and kids not getting hit. And that's the first side by Lincoln Middle School. Unfortunately, there's no projector tonight, so I can't show some of the video I feel I shot about three months after it opened, but it's quite amazing to watch. Middle school kids probably the least aware children in the entire spectrum of age get out of a car, look to their right, wait for the bicyclists and go, or the bicycle slowing down to let the people cross. I will say along Riddler Park, I think the Transportation Commission got it 100% wrong. The statement that they made was, Let's put in class two and if it's a problem, we'll go to Class four. And it was because a single speaker raised a concern of kids going to soccer games, getting out of their cars and crossing the bike lane, being a safety problem, thereby putting all the kids on bikes in the lane next to the cars and the busses and everything else that drove drive by that. We have a lot of data that suggests that parking protected bike lanes not only are safer, but that they increase biking among populations who are interested in biking but don't feel that they can do so. And it would be my hope that in looking at the two alternatives, we've not heard a reason why not to do a Class four along Riddler. We haven't actually heard a reason why we should do Class two along Riddler. I also wanted to just talk about I would like us to consider whether or not we needed to a turn. Lane On Otis we have streets like High Street, like Fern side, like parts of Broadway that carry 2 to 3 times as much traffic as this section of Otis. And they don't have to wait turn lanes if it's needed in order to create some sort of a median in the middle of the in the middle of the street. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of traffic on this street does not warrant three, let alone four, four lanes. And so I would like to encourage us to look at how we can use that that space a little bit better, even if it's bigger buffers, etc.. I would also I don't want to hold this project up, but I would like us to I some staff, some questions ahead of the meeting I would like us to look at. I have the privilege of working with coordination nation leading by. Facility designers at my job in San Francisco. And I did talk a little bit with them about this. And I think some of the assumptions that went into whether or not we could do a class for along the length of Otis were not quite right for the facts of Otis and the facts being that we have two car garages. These driveways are not driveways like in, in and out or something with high volume. These are these are driveways that are probably used 2 to 3 times a day. The bike way would be one way. We probably don't need to create visible 20 foot visibility zones on either end of the bike of the thing. We could probably get away with something closer to ten or 15 on the near side and going down on Otis the other day, I think we would only lose 1 to 2 parking spaces. I know that there's some issues around per block. Sorry for block face. Yeah, sorry. I can see the city engineer giving the you're nuts look. So to clarify that, I know that there are some issues around bus design and whatever else, but I think that we have a climate plan that is coming forward that says we need to make mode shift real. We have city surveys of our residents that say that something like 75 or 80% want to see better bike facilities in. Less than half of them are concerned about taking lane. So, you know, we know that the the larger voice out there is supportive of this road diet. I mean, in fact, a group during the last election ran a weekly ad in the paper saying that my biggest flaw was that I might support road diets on four lane roads and I won. So apparently that's not a not a reason not to vote for people. So I would like us to go a little bit bigger. I would like us to I don't want this to slow down, but I definitely do not. I would like us to look at how busy answered the question. How could we? What would it take to get a class for along Otis as opposed to the are there problems? And therefore let's put in class two. I would like to look at the I really appreciate the the the neck down at Grand in Otis. I think that there are some additional parking protected or sorry, protecting the intersection designs that could be included into the short term design, using posts that go out into the middle of the intersection and actually carrying the bulb about further, that the bikes would come around. And I'd be happy to, to, to share some photos of what that would look like, what San Jose and other cities have done. Regard regarding that. I would like to look I would also like to make sure that we look a little bit more at the merge at Willow. I am as somebody who when I biked down Central Avenue in the bike lanes and at High Street in the bike lane is to the right. And then we all have to merge into a lane on the other side of High Street. It's a very uncomfortable thing to do, and I'd like to see if we can find a way to design where the the second lane that pops up along the curb actually is a shared lane with a bike box at that intersection, so that the folks who are going through the intersection are already merged and not trying to merge as they're as you have. Right turn lane. Right turning traffic. I also just wanted to call out the mayor and I had the opportunity to go to the AC TSI all day retreat last week and the county presented its new high injury network of streets, which are the 14% of streets in the county that are responsible for 72% of all collisions. And this this street is one of them. So if we're going to address safety, these are the this is this is the right. And I've been asked a lot, why are you doing this street? This street is out of the entire county, one of the 14% most dangerous or not most dangerous, but most collision prone streets. So, again, I think that there's been a lot of great work here. I think we have a decent project. I just ask I want to ask the question, how could we go a little bit further and what would that look like? We designed this this neighborhood is designed like a lot of suburban neighborhoods that don't even allow street parking. If every house has two cars, every house has a two car driveway and you can park four cars off the street without ever needing to park on the street. So I'm not as worried about losing a couple of spots here and there. There are some design issues with big gaps and whatever else that will be challenging. I'm not saying it's easy or a slam dunk, but if we could just look at how we could go a little bit further, I think that would be fantastic. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Speaker 4: Thank you. All the good points have been taken already. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: No, I will. I do have a few to add. So I mean, I agree with a lot of what the vice mayor said. I mean, road diets, to me, that's not a flaw. To me, that's you know, that's a positive trait and and a positive value and a positive policy we want to make. I do agree with a lot of what he said. I think we can do better in some areas. So first of all on the the area I think class for I think. That's what we need to do. You know, what we have to start doing, I think, is shifting our our perspective. Now we look at this and this is all about safety, but it's also about encouraging more bicyclists, encouraging safer pedestrian access, encouraging more bus. So this whole multimodal thing, that's what we want people to do. So as if we're going to focus on that, then we can't prioritize parking as something we consider in these designs. You know, we have to start prioritizing that because what we want to do is encourage people to drive less and park less and, you know, have fewer cars in the city. So I think that's going forward. I hope we can have a better focus and not think parking, you know, is the the issue that kind of stops our progress as far as some of these multi-modal projects are. I do agree with the vice mayor also. I do think we should consider some type of class for all the way down. Otis I don't know why we wouldn't want to do that. I look at the West Line Drive and, you know, I'm not an engineer, so I don't really know. But a lot of that looks like paint from like short term to long term. So, you know, if we do it, just having people come into the middle, you know, maybe that's something people could take a look at and maybe move more towards that long term. Because I think on the long term, the bike lane stays on the right hand side and doesn't you're not making bicyclists cut across traffic and go into a center lane because if we're going to encourage more people to commute than I imagine most people are going to be turning down the West Line and not going into the park like they probably are today. I do agree that the Willow intersection is a little bit messed up, so I'm going to go through there many times a day. But, you know, I'll leave that for the engineers. I do like the idea of the traffic circle. I think this is something, you know, I forget where I think it was in Kauai. I saw it last and it you know, they work there all over Europe. They seem to work as an interesting spot. For one, I think there are other places in Alameda. There was some blog post this morning about some ideas. And, you know, I think putting traffic circles in is long overdue. And I didn't realize until today when I heard the presentation that the actual long term cost of that is less than maintaining street light or traffic signal . So I think that's something we need to do more of, especially at some of those those more problematic intersections. There was one other thing I wanted to say, but I kind of lost lost it because I didn't write it down. But, you know, I think this is a good a good first step. I do think we can do better. I support moving forward with the the short term fixes, with the with the class for and just as as we look more for for traffic circles, let's just make sure, though, you know, our parade is sacred to Alameda , so let's just make sure we're not impacting that in any negative way. And the last thing on the safety and we were here a couple of weeks ago with the budget and we heard, you know, we're down, it's 8 to 10 police officers. So I don't know if that's a problem that's going to be long, long term or whether we're going to be able to solve that. There are challenges hiring police officers. Our police chief went through a very eloquent presentation talking about it. So to put all our eggs in the enforcement basket, you know, I don't know if that's the solution. So let's just keep that in mind, too, as we go forward. You know, eventually we're going to want to have more modes of transportation, like Councilmember Vella said. So I'm supportive this excited by it, and I hope that it comes in sooner rather than later. Speaker 1: Okay. Well, I will do my remarks last. And first, I want to thank staff for all your good work and also the consultant. I was able to attend one of the public workshops and I and I told Mr. Parisi afterward that he really has a gift. Not only is he very knowledgeable about his subject matter, he's really good with a crowd and a crowd with tough questions, and he fielded them all well and didn't get ruffled. And and also, I think Sergeant Brian Foster, APD back there in the room, his presence was really useful because he could step in and answer traffic and enforcement related questions. So I think I'm going to start with what I consider a big item, which is the Class four projected bike lane along the stretch of Otis Drive in front of Riddler Park. And I support Class four over Class two. And here's why. In reading the consultant's memo, which is Exhibit six to the staff report on page three, there's an explanation of something called level of traffic stress alerts. So an Altius one is a roadway by. Physical facility bike lane that's considered suitable for children. And at the other end of the spectrum is an LTC for suitable for experienced adult cyclists who are comfortable sharing the road with automobiles traveling at 35 miles per hour or more. So the important thing to know is that under existing conditions, Otis Drive is considered and ELTs for I'm an adult, has been riding a bike most of my life and I live near the intersection of Grant and Otis and I purposefully avoid either walking because I've almost been hit too many times in broad daylight by people making that left turn and certainly riding my bike. I have other ways to get to South Shore on my bike, but if so, LTC two is what a class two treatment would would give us. And that is considered that represents a level of traffic stress that is comfortable for most adults. Well, it might be comfortable for most adults, but it's not good enough for me. I want my city to be as bicycle friendly as possible. And when you think of the location there adjacent to Riddler Park, where as was noted by Miss Potter, lots of sports events take place from Little League to soccer to, you know, school functions. We we want people, families with their children to use these bike facilities. So let's give them the safety to do that. Not only will we reduce accidents, we will also reduce the number of people jumping in their cars to get from place to place. B It's also Riddler Park is also in the very close vicinity of Wood Middle School, and I spend most of the bike to school days at Wood Middle School, and I know that a lot of students ride their bikes. So and they come from I would just drive both ways. So let's make it as safe as possible for them. And as far as the concern about, you know, passengers getting out of a car and stepping across a bike lane, well, you don't walk across the street without looking left and right. So I'm I'm hoping that people will, you know, keep their common sense with them when they get out of the car. And it runs both ways. Bicyclists also, we when we're on our bikes, we need to be cognizant of others around us. I always say use your best biking manners. Set a good example. Don't you know, give us a bad name as as cyclists. So I'm all for class four. The other concern that I have about this plan is, and I think it was touched on in the staff report, but a question that I would just want answered and actually maybe. Mr. WIKSTRÖM You can do it now if or. Mr. Parisi So the intersection at Otis in West Lyon. So you're going westbound on and Western. When I go to Crab Cove this Saturday, I'll be judging the Sandcastle contest. Y'all come out. It's a great event. I will ride down Otis Drive to go into Crab Cove. But the intersection there is really frustrating for a bicyclist. You got to get over and press the button. So is that is that going to be addressed in the in the new treatment? I know they're tossing the coin and whoever loses has to come up and answer my question. Speaker 11: So it is at West Line. Yes, there is no bike lane now through that area. So under the short term solutions, we are showing a bike lane transition into what's called a bike box. So you'd be in front of traffic when light is read and you can elect to go straight across or take a left turn. And in the long and that won't require any curb work but a long term solution. We are showing a protected intersection where you can stay to the right and take advantage of a bike signal. Speaker 1: Okay. But what if you wanted to go straight ahead into Crab. Speaker 0: Cove. Speaker 1: Because. Right. Right now, is there there's not a a well there. Yeah, there's not a you you cross over and one leg of the crosswalk on the south south side of Otis is what you use if you try if you want to go straight through in the auto lane, you've got to hope to get behind an automobile because there's nothing about my bicycle that will trigger the signal to go to green. So is that going to be addressed? Speaker 11: Yes. In the short term solutions with the bike box, the detector will sense that you're there and you can go ahead in front of traffic. Speaker 1: Perfect. Okay. That sounds good. As far as the the modern roundabout. So call that at Grand. And Otis, I, I am told that that's the way to go, that the data shows that it increases safety. So for that reason, I'm for it. This morning I did, or this afternoon I emailed both of our public safety chiefs, police and fire and asked, would you have any concerns? Our fire chief just asked that when you get to that point in designing it, that he be consulted to make sure that whatever vehicles need to may need to traverse that roundabout can do so safely. And I yes, the vice mayor noted that friends friends I drive is an excellent example of a very successful class for Bike Lane. And as it is right now, it does transition from a class two to a class following back to a class two. And it's still a great lane and I'd love to see more class fours, but it works as it is. And I do think that. Speaker 0: The big. Speaker 1: Picture we have to keep in mind is that the name of the game now is Complete Streets. That means we're no longer auto centric, we no longer plan for the automobile and everyone else gets the crumbs. We are trying to get people out of their automobiles. And so we have to make it safe and feasible for people to use other modes of transportation. And I'm impressed every day when I'm out and about seeing Alameda EMS, getting their children around, hauling their groceries, pulling those carts, doing a lot more than I do, just riding my self around on a bike. They they are doing that now and even more will join them if we give them the the safe bicycle facilities to do that. And enforcement, while it's always important and is was noted by Councilmember Ody, the reality is we have a finite number of police officers. We try to increase that number. And as we add to that number, others retire. And so we'll rely on enforcement, but not solely. We have to make smart choices with the design of our road. So with all of that, if there's no further comment, I see we should do this is a recommendation to approve the traffic calming recommendations. The Vice Mayor seems like he'd like to say something. Both Mayor, I. Speaker 9: Have a proposed motion. Speaker 1: I am willing to hear it. Speaker 9: Okay. So understanding that small tweaks and things like that don't need to be in this. Speaker 1: I remember it. Small tweak. Yeah, it's about a. Speaker 9: Meeting that's engineering speak. I would like to move that. We approve the plan and specifically calling out support for a reduction to two lanes of travel, one lane and each way in each direction that we would like to see a class for along Riddler, that we would like staff and the consultant to give class for the full length of Otis. Another look. Speaker 1: May I just interrupt you for a minute? So when you say the full length of is, you are. Speaker 0: In the. Speaker 9: Project. Speaker 1: This project. Okay. Speaker 9: From Willow to Westlake. Thank you. Yes. And and in terms of the long term, I know you're not looking for it, but support for the roundabout as a long term solution, I think at least the other things I've talked about, I feel are following the tweak category. Speaker 1: That was the notion. Okay, so we have a motion. Do I have a second? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Well, that well, that the new mom is second. Okay. So it's been moved by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Vela. We're going to take a voice vote. Speaker 3: Has that Councilmember De said? Speaker 0: Nope. Speaker 3: Next fight. Speaker 9: I. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: Vela. Yes. Mayor. As the Ashcraft. Yes. That passes for to one motion passes. Speaker 1: Four, two, one. Thank you, everyone, for all your time and effort. And now before we move into item six C, I'm going to actually. Yeah, I'm sorry. Speaker 12: I later understand a Yelp incident in your corner. What what was the vote? Because are you saying you want three lanes or are you saying did you all just vote on three lanes or did you all just vote on two lanes? I just want to make sure. Speaker 9: We're down to traveling, distracted, not get into the two way turn lane. We are giving staff the flexibility to look at and make the right engineering decision about how to address giving travel lane in each direction. Speaker 1: Is that sufficient for you? Okay. That's a that's a yes from city engineer. Okay. All right. So I was trying to say thank you, everyone. And then before we move on to our next item, we're going to take a ten minute break. So we will see you back in 10 minutes. It's 833. I'll see you back at 843. Thank you. Speaker 0: There's a couple of recesses on the team just saying that we haven't had a break. Speaker 1: Since we went into closed session. Speaker 0: 20. Hey. Oh, no, it's okay. Speaker 1: It is. We like to see our council members sprint. It is 843. True to our word, we are back for item six. See? Madam Clerk, will you introduce this item? Speaker 3: Yes. Public hearing to consider adoption resolution confirming the ballot results to determine whether majority parties exist in the proceedings. To increase assessment in island city landscaping and lighting. District 84 to Zone four, Park Street District a resolution confirming the ballot results and providing for no majority protests and will have even annual assessment in island city landscaping and

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve Otis Drive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvement Project Design Concept Recommendations. (Planning, Building & Transportation 4226287)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06042019_2019-6901

Speaker 3: Yes. Public hearing to consider adoption resolution confirming the ballot results to determine whether majority parties exist in the proceedings. To increase assessment in island city landscaping and lighting. District 84 to Zone four, Park Street District a resolution confirming the ballot results and providing for no majority protests and will have even annual assessment in island city landscaping and lighting. District 84 attached to Zone four Park Street. Speaker 1: All right. And if this seems highly scripted, it is. So this is kind of like going through a pageant. We're going to see if we all get our lines right. But we should because they're right in front of us. Am I on? Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Mayor, I am the man. This is the time and place fixed for the public hearing related to the modification of and proposed increases to the levy of assessments within the island city. Landscaping and lighting maintenance district number eight for dash to the zone for Park Street to fund ongoing maintenance and servicing of landscaping improvements in the Park Street Business District area. I would now ask the City Clerk to report on the notice of this public hearing. Speaker 3: Notice of the public hearing and distribution of the assessment ballots has been completed in the manner and form as required by law. Speaker 1: Before proceeding further with the public hearing. I would like to ask the City Clerk to provide both the City Council and the audience with a summary of the proceedings that will take place both during and after the close of this public hearing. Speaker 3: So the process that will follow for the assessment ballot procedure and tabulation is that after the staff report is provided to the council, the mayor will open the public hearing a step one. Step two will be to take comments from the public. Step three request any additional ballots be submitted to the city clerk. Step four, close the public hearing. And step five, audit the tabulation of ballots once the ballots have been tabulated. The city clerk will announce the results of the tabulation. Speaker 1: I would now ask Liz Acord from the Public Works Department to provide the staff report. Speaker 13: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I'm Liz Accord, Public Works Coordinator. As you know, assessments in the Park Street Zone of the city's landscaping lighting district have been flat for over two decades since the mid 1990s. These assessments primarily fund enhanced maintenance, including sidewalk cleaning, tree trimming and litter and graffiti removal. As a consequence of the flawed assessments, levels of service have decreased over the years. Beginning in 2013, Public Works has been working with the downtown Alameda Business Association to develop a proposal to increase assessments and thus restore or improve services. And this year, a proposal to more than double assessments in the coming year was approved by the Downtown Association Board. And then the City Council took the necessary steps to initiate the ballot proceedings in April of this year. As you are well aware of, votes to increase assessments are difficult. No one wants to pay more, especially when assessments have been flat for more than two decades. Yet the Downtown Association Board has endorsed the raise assessments, even though there's always a risk of a failed balloting, as occurred when the zone did its last balloting in 2015 . However, let us now turn our attention to finding out whether this balloting effort was successful or not. And following the public hearing and the tabulation of ballots, I'll be back before you to discuss the outcome. That completes my report, and I'm available for any questions you may have. Speaker 1: Thank you. Counsel, do we have any questions for Miss Acord, a council member? Vella. Do you have any questions for Mr. Corey? Okay. And I don't see any other indications. All right. And do we have any public speakers? Speaker 3: We do not have any. Speaker 1: We do not. Well, going through my script, the city council will hear from any interested person who desires to address the City Council on this matter. So can I safely assume because no one's getting out, that no one is interested? All right. Seeing no one else who wishes to be heard or no one who wishes to be heard. Do any members of the city council have any questions for these city staff or consultants now? Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: I would like to remind everyone that all assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots must be received by the city clerk before this public hearing is closed. Assessment ballots or replacement assessment ballots received after the close of this public hearing will not be tabulated. Are there any owners who have not submitted their assessment ballots and need additional time to submit their assessment ballots? Or are there any owners who have submitted their assessment ballots but now wish to submit a replacement assessment ballot? I see no motion from the audience. If so, the City Council will take a five minute recess before closing the public hearing to allow for the submission of such assessment ballots. I am going to proceed on the assumption that no, no one is moving, that we do not need to recess for 5 minutes. So the public hearing will now be closed. The public hearing is now closed. Assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots received by the city clerk after this time shall not be tabulated. The city clerk shall now recess. While the city clerk tabulates the assessment ballots and replacement ballots received by the city clerk prior to the close of the public hearing. Any interested persons are invited to view the unsealing and tabulation of the ballots in Conference Room 391. So then, Madam Clerk, so you and your. Speaker 3: Consultant from NBC. Okay. Yeah. Staff will open the ballots. Anybody can watch and will be right in 391. So we have to recess. Speaker 0: To do this quickly. Speaker 1: So we're now in recess to for the tabulation of the ballots. And we think that might take about. Speaker 3: 10 minutes at. Speaker 1: The most. 10 minutes or so. Don't go too far. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 1: Well. And the council can watch to correct. Speaker 0: And if we. Speaker 1: Why are you sit here? Speaker 0: We'll be. Speaker 5: Looking. Speaker 0: All right. Okay. Speaker 1: So. So Council is now in recess. I'm going to say about 10 minutes. It's 850. We'll see you at nine or I'll check back in with you at 9:00, let you know. Speaker 2: Where we are. All right. Speaker 1: We went in place. Okay. We are going to resume. Madam Clerk. Speaker 3: Okay. 219 assessment ballots were mailed to the owners of property within the boundaries of the assessment district. And 91 of those assessment ballots were received prior to the close of the public hearing. 48 assessment ballots representing $35,204.86 of assessments were submitted in support of the levy of the proposed assessments within the Assessment District. 42 assessment ballots representing $35,038.79 of assessments were submitted in opposition to the levy of the proposed assessments within the Assessment District. Since a majority protest to the levy of assessment has not been filed. The Council may proceed to impose the amendments, and you can consider the resolution confirming the ballots results and providing for no majority. Protest exists in the proceedings to increase assessments and the levy of annual assessment for island city landscaping and lighting. District number 84 to Zone four Park Street. Speaker 1: So the city clerk has notified the city council that she has completed the tabulation of the assessments ballots. Will the city clerk please report the results of the tabulation? And so what you just did. Speaker 3: I did well ahead of your part. I'm so sorry. Speaker 1: That's okay. Okay. Yeah, you're right. So let's go on. Liz Corey, there. Speaker 0: Is. Speaker 13: So obviously this is really great news for the zone and it's especially important given the over 20 years of flat assessments and the decrease in service and what this positive result of the balloting means is next fiscal year, an immediate increase in service to better, clean and maintain the district, including sidewalk washing. And that ultimately creates an even better park street for residents, visitors and shoppers. The Downtown Association, including Steve Bucy, Donna Labor and Ron Mooney, Rich Creek's Kyle Conner and Janet Mckelvie deserve a ton of credit for tonight's results. These folks did a lot of outreach to their members and property owners to make this happen. And so with that, I'd like to invite Donna Leyburn with the Downtown Association up now to share a few words. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Card. Speaker 12: Miss Leyburn City Council Mayor. I do a wahoo if that was okay. Speaker 0: But we all. Speaker 12: Want to do it. So we're here on behalf of the Downtown Business Association. Our merchant members. Speaker 1: Speak, rent a microphone. We want to capture this, have them be a little more centered on the microphone there. They want to speak right into the microphone. Oh, closer. Okay. Speaker 12: Everybody that was involved, we're thrilled that we'll be able to enhance the maintenance of the district. And we'd also like to thank the association's landscaping lighting committee. And you've got the names, but they're all here tonight because we were all we've put in a lot of hours working on this Steve Bussey, Brian Mooney, Rich, Chris Kyle Conner and Janet Maccabee diligence and hard work. And I just have to say that the L.A. doesn't just stand for landscaping, lighting. It stands for Liz and Liam, and we just can't thank them enough for being part of this incredible process. And we're so glad it's over. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you so much. And so now council, we're not done. We need to adopt a resolution confirming the ballot results to determine whether a majority process exists in the proceedings. Do we need to do that, Madam Clerk? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. To determine whether a majority protest exists in the proceedings to increase assessments in Island City lld8 for Dash two zone for Park Street and adoption, a resolution confirming the ballot results and providing for no majority protest in the levy of an annual assessment in Island City. LG eight for dash two zone for Park Street. Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 1: Is there a second? Second. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. A move by Councilmember O'Toole, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White will not take a voice vote. Speaker 3: Councilmember De Sang. Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 3: Knox White. Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 3: Vella. Yes. Mayor as the. Speaker 1: Ashcraft. Yes. Speaker 3: That carries by five. Speaker 1: This and the resolution passes unanimously. Congratulations to all involved. I know a lot of hard work and effort went into that. Well done. Okay, so we now move on to item six, c, d, d I know it says that rent frenemy. Speaker 0: I'm. Speaker 1: 60 man quick. Speaker 3: Public hearing to consider adoption resolution establishing integrated waste collection ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period 18th July 2019 to June 2020. Speaker 0: Welcome back. Speaker 13: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Liz Acord, public works coordinator. The idea before you right now asks council to set integrated waste rates for the coming fiscal year or rate period. This public hearing is part of the annual rate setting process that is set forth in the city's franchise agreement with Alameda County Industries or ASI. And I'm going to turn it over to Marva Sheehan with H.f. and each to walk you through that process and the results. And at the end of Marv's presentation, Marva Staff Ken, Kenny, Criswell, Busa and the team will be available for any questions that you may have.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the Proceedings to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street); and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for No Majority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street). (Public Works 275)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06042019_2019-6897

Speaker 3: Public hearing to consider adoption resolution approving the engineer's report confirming diagramed assessment or levy of assessment maintenance assessment district a1-1 marina cove. Speaker 1: So I'm going to ask the same question of the council. Does anyone have an and I take it no public comment because I don't see the public out there to comment. Do the councilmembers have any questions or comments for Miss Acord? Another great report. Speaker 0: Or. Speaker 9: Another great report. Speaker 10: Move approval. Speaker 1: Okay. I have a motion to approve adopting a resolution approving the engineers report, confirming diagram and assessment and ordering levy of assessment maintenance district 01-1 marina co to have a second second. It's been moved and seconded and maybe have a voice vote, please. Speaker 3: Council member Dave said yes. Not quite. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Vella. Speaker 3: Yes. Mayor, as the Ashcroft. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 3: That also carries my five. Speaker 1: Great work honor roll, Ms.. Speaker 0: Acree. Speaker 1: Okay. So with that, we move to item seven City Manager Communications, Mr. Leavitt.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). (Public Works 276)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05212019_2019-6891

Speaker 2: And I'll read the title really quickly. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 15 of Chapter six to eliminate no cause notice to vacate as a grounds for eviction from Ordinance 3148 City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance OC. Speaker 1: And before Ms.. Potter begins, I'm just going to double check with our city attorney. So the Vice mayor is is a small landlord. And so he feels the need to recuse himself from part of the discussion. Is this the time when he should leave before the staff report? Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. Speaker 5: So if I can clarify, state law requires me to recuse myself in cases where the land that's under discussion represents less than 25% of the of the city's land as one of the alternatives that is on the agenda tonight. And some of the speakers, I believe, will be speaking to there is a recommendation to consider looking at how to treat owner occupied rentals in the city and therefore that is triggering a need for me to recuse myself. So my request of of my colleagues is that if after I will go to the back and listen to the public comment, everything else, if you might be able to take that item up first, is whether there's interest to have that conversation and deal with it first. Then I can return it, have a come and join the conversation, having heard all the public input, etc. from the back of the chamber. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we'll just wait for Mr. and. Speaker 5: A. Speaker 4: Point of order question for the city attorney. If so, I rent out a room, two rooms at my place. Speaker 0: Do I follow under owner occupied. Speaker 5: No. And so, Councilmember, if I may ask you a follow up question. When you say you rent out two rooms, are you essentially a landlord and you are renting out me? Need to be closer to the microphone. Are you renting out two rooms in your home that you occupy and then you're in essence and operating as a landlord in that capacity? Speaker 4: I live in that that housing unit. Yes. Speaker 1: I think we may need to make a distinction about the terms of our ordinance previously. Speaker 5: Mayor and council and and for the benefit of Mr. Chan, who has just recently joined us. Speaker 1: Literally. He's been here a week. Speaker 5: A week? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 5: The way that we define a housing unit under the ordinance, the particular situation that Councilmember de SOG has is not considered a housing unit. And therefore, we have opined that the ordinance, those provisions do not apply to him and therefore he was not required to recuse himself on this matter. Okay. I agree with Mr. Rausch on this very much. To the extent that if you're renting out accessory dwelling units or separate units, that's a. Speaker 4: Difference, not separate units. And they do not have their own kitchen rooms. Yeah. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. So with that, Ms.. Potter. Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And the item before you this evening is introduction of an ordinance to eliminate no cause as grounds for eviction under the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Speaker 1: And I'm just going to do a really quick housekeeping item. You may notice that for Variety, we have the projector, the height and the PowerPoint projected on the sidewall. We went through two nights of budget hearings last week when I had the lights of the projector shining straight in my eyes and I. I threatened to boycott. And so they now they came up with this solution. So I hope it's not shining in your eyes. But if it is. Speaker 5: If it is, I'll move to the other. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, for sure. No, it's. If it's starting now, I wouldn't let it go too long. It's pretty awful. Okay. All right. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 6: On April 2nd, the City Council held a special meeting regarding potential amendments to the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance and at that time directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would eliminate no cause evictions from our existing ordinance. The Genesis, or how the Council got to the April 2nd meeting, dates back to the spring of 2017, when the City Council actually approved the same amendment. The Council approved an amendment in 2017 authorizing the elimination of No Cause evictions. A referendum was was successfully circulated at that time, and ultimately the council repealed that ordinance. And then an initiative was also successfully qualified for the November 2018 ballot. And that initiative would have incorporated the ordinance in the city's charter, which would have precluded any changes to the ordinance without a vote of the people. That initiative failed, and therefore the Council is able to amend the ordinance as it sees fit. And that and really with that outcome of the November 2018 election that led up to the April 2nd meeting that I started this slide with. The ordinance that is before you this evening would eliminate no cause terminations. It would, however, continue to allow no fault terminations. And no fault terminations do require the payment of relocation benefits. No fault terminations include owner move ins and removal, permanent removal of a unit from the rental market. In addition, the ordinance will continue to allow for four cause evictions. For cause terminations do not require the payment of relocation benefits and for cause terminations include the failure to pay rent, breach of a lease nuisance and failure to give access. One of the things that we did hear from some folks while we were out in the community talking about proposed amendments to the ordinance was a concern regarding the temporary tenancies. And as the Council had previously approved in Ordinance 3180, the ordinance that was ultimately repealed, we do have a provision that we will be bringing forward to the Council in July that defines a temporary tenancy as a tenancy that is 12 months or less in a primary residency. And that temporary tenancy does not require at termination the payment of relocation benefits. In addition, excuse me, at the time that the Council looked at these kinds of amendments around temporary tenancies, it also agreed that military personnel renting a primary residence with a temporary tenancy for military personnel would be five years or less. So I just want to clarify that point will be coming back to the Council on July 2nd, when the Council directed staff to begin the process of amending the ordinance regarding no cause eviction protections. Staff indicated and staff concurred with the need to do community outreach. And we have been conducting community outreach over the past month and a half. We did hold a community house on a community open house on May 2nd. We had between 70 and 90 people attend that open house. We've been holding on an ongoing basis focus groups for landlords and tenant organizations. We posted the issue boards that we presented at the Open House online for one week. We had about 280 respondents. That's over 1000 comments that we received online. All of those comments, Open House and from the online survey were included as part of tonight's staff report. And we are continuing our outreach efforts. And in fact, we have scheduled the next community meeting on Thursday, June 6th at the Elks Club, the Rathskeller at 630 in the evening. The staff report did present several alternatives that the council might want to consider as part of its deliberations this evening. And one of those alternatives was a proposal to essentially do a carve out from no cause eviction protections for landlords who live on the property that they rent to tenants. So really it would be landlords living on their property in duplex triplex four plex that carve out what would staff's recommendation if the council wants to consider this would be really to keep the status quo what we have under our ordinance with which is that we permit no cause evictions with certain restrictions. You can you're limited in the number of no cause evictions you can do in a year and you can't raise the rent more than 5% for the next tenant. And you have to pay relocation benefits at. And that would if if the Council were interested in considering this carve out, it would impact just over a thousand tenants. The Council could hold off on adopting the amendment this evening and await state action. There's currently a bill, AB 1481 that is making its way through the legislative process. It was amended just yesterday. The amendments on that just cause eviction protections that would apply statewide. The two amendments yesterday were that were introduced was one to provide a termination date for that legislation of January one, 2030. And the Second Amendment was to require that a tenant live in it in their residence for six months before they would be eligible for the No Cause eviction protection. The logic being that there would be a six months would be ample time for a landlord to determine whether or not there was a good fit. The council could adopt the amendment that's before it this evening and it could commit to revisiting the ordinance a year from now so that we have an opportunity to monitor and gather data on how the No Cause eviction protections are working in the city based on the direction that staff receive from Council on April 2nd. We are recommending that the Council introduce the ordinance that's before you this evening that eliminates no cause terminations. And that concludes my staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions. Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. Do we have clarifying questions on Miss Potter's report? I think Councilmember Vela does. By the way, I'm giving lots of deference to Councilmember Vela. She gets the first crack at a question every time her hand goes up. So, just so you know, Councilmember. Speaker 3: Um, Miss Potter, you mentioned that you met with focus groups. Can you let us know who who those groups might have been? Speaker 6: Absolutely. We have been working with the Alameda Renters Coalition. Who represents them? The tenants here in Alameda. We have been meeting with the East Bay Realtors, has a local government relations committee. We meet with representatives from the Local Government Relations Committee. And then there is an organization that is called the Alameda Housing Providers Association. And we have met with that organization to. Speaker 3: Uh, with regards to the third organization who's, who's the point person for that organization. Speaker 6: So Jeff, Canberra has been working with that group. They have a board of directors and we met with Jeff and a number of his board members. Speaker 3: Okay. Um, with regards to the carve out that's proposed, uh, was there a particular group that proposed that carve out? Speaker 6: I think a lot of the landlords who are active in the East Bay Realtors Association have been promoting that idea. I think a lot of landlords, some of the management organizations, management agencies who represent a lot of the smaller landlords here in the city have been proposing that that potential. Accommodation or carve out. Speaker 3: With regards to the estimate of a thousand tenants being impacted. How did we get that number? Speaker 6: So we worked with our our consultant and asked them to take a look at the number of properties that are duplexes. Triplexes and four plex is where the property owners address matches. The ownership data. And so they came up with 810 properties and then I asked them to break that down. The vast majority of those properties out of 810 properties, about 552 of those properties are duplexes. There are very few for Plex's and then A and then there are 100 or so. Triplexes where the property owner lives on site. Speaker 3: So it's a thousand units then as opposed to a thousand tenants because there could be a family living in a unit. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes. Of households. Right. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: 1000 households. Speaker 6: It's about 1100 tenants that would be impacted if the council pursued that carve out. Speaker 1: Well, do you understand the distinction? Misspell a council member is making. If you're saying a thousand or 1100 households, a household is often more than 110. Speaker 6: Correct. It's 1100 households. Speaker 1: Households. So double that many tenants or. That you don't know. Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that if we could look at that the average household size now but I don't know how many people I that's number of how could we. Speaker 1: Safely assume that they aren't all dwellings with just one tenant in them. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Other questions? Councilmember? Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Miss Potter, for your presentation. So, AB 1481, does that have any carve out for owner occupied? Speaker 6: No. Speaker 9: And then do we have an idea since we put our rent ordinance in place? 3148. How many? No cause evictions have been for nuisance, drug dealing or prostitution. Speaker 6: No. Speaker 9: No idea. Or there aren't any. Speaker 6: We do not know because you don't have to list a cause when you submit for a no cause. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 4: Question. Speaker 1: Councilmember DE So. Speaker 4: Is it correct to say that in fiscal year 2017, 2018, while we might not know how many no cause evictions were attributed to. As Councilmember Otis said, drug dealing or whatever that we do know that in that fiscal year there were altogether just 31. No cause evictions based upon this. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 4: And in the prior year fiscal year, there were altogether 26. No. Cause. Yes. Speaker 6: And I would just point out, though, that that is the number that were reported to the to the rent program staff. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 1: For for clarification, I believe the staff report also indicated that there's no way to determine when a tenant simply leaves. Speaker 0: A. Speaker 1: Property because of, say, a rent increase that they can't afford or correct. Speaker 6: The the program tracks terminations and not voluntary vacancies. Speaker 1: Councilmember Odie, thank you. Speaker 9: One follow up. So of those no, no cause evictions that Councilmember De Saag asked you about, do we know how many of those were for owner occupied? Speaker 6: Well, the the majority are for single family homes. Okay. Yeah, for single family homes. Speaker 9: I'm talking about duplex triplex. The. I guess the ones that are they're being requested for a carve out. I mean, is. Speaker 6: This probably have that information. I just don't have it right here. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other clarifying questions. And then I believe that we're being asked to make a determination of whether we do want to consider the carve out, because if we don't want to consider the carve out, then we'll bring our colleague back. Speaker 6: And council may want to take public testimony and then have that discussion. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. So I guess either way, Mr. White's going to miss out on public comment, but. Speaker 6: Although I believe he said he was going to be listening from. Speaker 1: Oh, that's true. He can do that. Okay. All right. So I take it we have some speakers. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Currently, we have 13 public speakers. 13. Everybody will get two minute speakers. Speaker 1: So 1440. So when we have more than six or seven speakers and you're speaking, time goes down from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. And I think we may get more speakers as we go along. We're going to try to move this item along. So the clerk will call out like three names in a row, listen for your name, scoot over to the aisle or wherever you need to be to be next in line to speak. So 2 minutes and and remember the requests. We don't do applause booths the way what have you. We just speak and listen. Okay. We are ready. Speaker 2: Okay. The first speaker, Sharon Oliver and then Toni Grimm and then Joanne Nader. Oh, yes. Sorry. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: I up and use the microphone. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Sharon Alva and I am the chair of the Alameda. Speaker 3: Chapter of the based Association of Realtors. Speaker 8: And a member of the Local Governmental Relations Committee. I'm here to encourage the City Council to exempt owner occupied in small 1 to 4 unit properties from the eviction control portion of Ordinance 3148. We recognize the need for housing stability for renters, but also we need to protect homeowners who have secondary units to rent in their primary residences and small investors who own 1 to 4 units. Homeowners with a portion of their property rented out have put their savings and sweat equity into their homes. Some evaluators older buildings have rental units, but in these older buildings, sound travels and the living arrangement is proximate, even intimate. If the relationship with the tenant is not good, it can be expensive and contentious to continue living together. If the relationship with the tenant. Speaker 3: Is problematic, where's the owner to go? Often the very reason owners live in a duplex or triplex is because they. Speaker 8: Could not afford a single family home. These are not wealthy owners of large apartment buildings. Speaker 3: They are sharing their home because they need to or small investors. Owners are disincentivized. Speaker 8: To rent when they feel they are losing control of their home. The current market conditions, coupled with more local regulations, are inspiring rental property owners to sell. Smaller rental buildings sold in the current market are often. Speaker 3: If not always purchased by owner occupants, which reduces the supply of rental housing. Speaker 8: Allowing owner occupied a 1 to 4 unit buildings to continue. No cause evictions would not exempt them from the limitations on rent increases when the new. Speaker 3: Tenant moves in. The eviction would not be. Speaker 8: For financial gain. The exemption would allow homeowners to enjoy the property. Speaker 3: They put their savings and dreams into the same property where they are living. Speaker 8: Or in which they count on for their retirement. We urge you to allow owners to be able to evict tenants without a costly legal process. If an unfortunate situation calls for it while protecting tenants in not allowing large rental income. Speaker 1: To enter next speaker is. Speaker 2: Grim. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 3: Everybody. I believe. Speaker 6: That there was only one bit. Speaker 3: Of data, one document that the. Speaker 8: Council needs to be guided by for your decision on just cause evictions. That is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which establishes the concept of. Speaker 3: Due process of law before a person loses a basic human right. And that is an important guarantee of a stable democracy. If you believe that housing is a basic human necessity, then you must believe that housing is a basic human right. That right should not be taken away arbitrarily without a cause, and it should be applied to everyone equally. Speaker 6: It doesn't matter what size building a person lives in. Speaker 8: It's not the. Speaker 6: Building. It's the person who matters. There should be. Speaker 3: No carve outs, no waiting periods, no exemptions. Speaker 8: Equal protection under the law. It says so in our Constitution. Let's live by that. Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker is Nader. And then the next three. Speaker 2: Are Lester Dixon, Karen Lithgow and Kari Johanson. Speaker 1: Thank you. Hello. Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Gene Nader. I'm here representing the Alameda Justice Alliance, which includes the Alameda Renters Coalition. Alameda progressives renewed hope. The Alameda firefighters, the Alameda County County Labor Council, Buena Vista United Methodist Church and the local Teamsters Union, A.J., views housing as a real justice and fairness issue. And that's why we were so involved in fighting to defeat Measure K. In the last two years, there has been a 42% increase in homelessness in Alameda, and that includes seniors, families with children and veterans. And we just don't want to see our neighbors displaced because of no cause of action. No, our neighbors should not live in constant fear of being pulled out of their homes unjustly. And we know that alameda care because two years ago or two or three years ago, there was a survey and 80% of alameda support just cause. So we know it's one of the best ways to stabilize our community. We urge you to support the just cause ordinance with no carve outs. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Dixon. And then followed by Mr. Hansen. Correct. Okay. Come on. Hi. Speaker 5: Good evening, City Council. How y'all doing? Uh, my name is Lester Dixon. I stay on the west side right over there by what used to be known as the Bebe's Now Summer House. I just want to say, hey, just cause I'm okay. Cause no cause is wrong. He can sit up here and pull somebody out when they pay the rent. They doing everything they supposed to do. They selling no drugs. Ain't hang up the apartment. Ain't doing nothing wrong with the. You just decide you want to put somebody out. That's wrong. That's. That's all you know. So look at the human side. And that's all I'm asking you to do is just, you know, like, just cause and all that carve out and all that other stuff. And waiting till 2030 and waiting until the state do whatever they know. Do do us do Alameda. We need just cause right now we don't need to wait, you know, and then, like, whatever happens gonna happen. But, you know, just cause that's all I got to say. So I just asked you all to vote for just cause. Please. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Hampton. Speaker 2: Actually, Mr. Lithgow next. Speaker 1: To this is that he's closer. Yeah. Speaker 0: Hello? Speaker 6: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and city council members. My name is Karen Lythgoe and I'm here as a landlord with a request that owner, occupants of small 1 to 4 buildings retain the right of no cause evictions. And here is why. The four unit building I live in and rent out is a 19th century Victorian home that I bought in 1990, not having the means to buy a single family home for myself without rental income. I bought a fixer upper multi-unit property to provide income support. Fixing up each of these units has allow me to provide nice homes to four families while receiving rental income, which is a win win for all. What's also true is that these older homes were never meant to house multiple families in the walls and floors. Separating units don't provide the kind of privacy found in newer properties, while careful screening of tenants is helpful in creating a good fit in these densely packed communities. Situations occasionally arise where tenants don't fit in and need to be moved on in. These situations aren't always contained within the language of the lease. So those of us that raise our families in these small buildings in a communal type setting, indeed some measure of peace and safety really do need to have ultimate control over who is living under our roof. As buildings turn over to new owners and tenants come and go. Further restrictions put onto landlords will discourage those owners from keeping spaces within their buildings as rentals. Well, the City Council looks to other towns for precedents on how to deal with no cause evictions. It's important to keep in mind the limit is unique, and that's make up of rental stock that we have so many of these older homes carved up into rentals. So special care must be given to the right solutions at what might be the politically popular thing to do isn't necessarily the right thing to do in the long term for our town. And I trust that this city council has the ability and the wisdom to do the right thing. Thank you for your time. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: JOHANSEN We have Alan Teague, Chelsea Lee and Marilyn Schumacher. Speaker 1: Thank you. You do a better job of that than I do. Speaker 0: Hello. Good evening, Councilor. Mayor. And I'm glad to see Millie is still here. I don't think she's glad she's here. But I'm. Speaker 3: Sherry Johansen. I represent the Alameda progressives. And my first statement is I'd like to say that. Speaker 0: I'm very proud that we're a sanctuary city and I approve of the council supporting that. Speaker 3: The AARP, the progressives, urge you to support tenants rights to a secure home. Speaker 0: Free from unjust evictions. Speaker 3: We want, without caveats or without any amendments to the proposed ordinance, with the overwhelming support for no one measure K winning every single precinct. Speaker 0: From Bay Farm to Bayport, homeowners and. Speaker 3: Renters alike. All of the voters of Alameda support eliminating. Speaker 0: Just cause of eviction. Overwhelmingly. Speaker 3: There's been sort of a paradigm change in the living patterns, especially due to the high price of homes in the Bay Area. Renters, homeowners, co-ownership is just kind of out of reach for most young families. And we need to be on the cutting edge of protecting tenants already. Alameda in Alameda, they represent half of our community and the percentage will only go up. So it's really important that we. Speaker 0: Start the. Speaker 3: Protections for that, for that group of people. The tenants also include. Speaker 0: Most of our vulnerable members, seniors, disabled and those in lower income. Speaker 3: So I strongly urge you to please do what the voters have asked you to do. And last November. Speaker 0: And I support just cause tonight. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Mr. Teague. And then Chelsea Lee. And then Marilyn Shoemaker. Speaker 5: Nobody should be kicked out of their home just so the landlord can raise the rent. But equally, nobody should be able to stay in a place regardless of their bad behavior. Three strikes for cause termination is required to make this possible. Without it, we got our second hand ordinance smoke. Our second hand smoke ordinance. Without it, anti-social behavior will be permitted. Councilmember Vella asked me about due process, and due process has been brought up multiple times. Absolutely. People need due process. This has the same due process as every other. Just cause termination the state court system. It is not amateurs. We have judges and juries to adjudicate the evidence and whether or not is indeed a just cause. This is a balanced change to the ordinance. I hope that counts. The Council can balance the extremes and forge a compromise, which many, but not all both sides can live with. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Ms.. Lee. And then Ms.. Schumacher. Speaker 1: I want to compliment all the speakers. You are doing a great job. Thank you. Hello. Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Chelsea and I am a tenants organizing intern with Filipino Advocates for Justice. And this past spring, I worked on a community survey in Alameda. And so we went door to door receiving responses from over 100 Alameda tenants. And from these efforts, we found that 88.5% of respondents oppose evictions without good cause. So a large majority of the folks we talked to believe landlords need a just reason to evict tenants. However, it is also important to note that you can't have true just cause protections without rent control and without a hard cap and limit on how high landlords can increase people's rents. And with that, we also found that 92.9% of respondents believe there should be a cap on rent increases. And 61.9% of respondents have received rent increases of 5% or more in the past 12 months. And also 50.4% are not confident. 23.9 of whom are not confident at all that they can afford where they're currently living over the next 2 to 5 years. And so Alameda tenants deserve and want just cause protections. However true, just cause cannot exist without hard limits on rent increases. And so I entered this work hearing the narrative of the 470 central apartment building, a building once housing a whole community is now empty, a community completely broken and displaced, and people are being uprooted from their homes and lives. My work here started with a narrative of absence and broken communities, and it's very obvious that tenants want and need just cause and real rent control in Alameda. It's time to start. It's time to stop breaking up communities. And it's also important to note that we really, really need just cause for a lot of the folks in Alameda. And as for our survey, our findings can also be found on our website, and then they will also be forwarded to council tomorrow morning. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Following this, Schumacher, we have Denise Galvin, Don Cristobal and Karen Miller. Speaker 6: Madam. Excuse me, Madame Mayor and City Council members, this is different than the. Speaker 3: Carve out that has been referred to. Speaker 6: Previously. The core problem is a small number of landlords. Speaker 3: Are kicking people out just to raise the. Speaker 6: Rents. Speaker 3: Allowing all owner occupied rental properties to accept strict rent control. Waiving costs to Hawkins for three years. Speaker 6: For termination for no cause. Speaker 3: These owners can't raise the rents of tenants and they are paying relocation fees. Speaker 6: This is a simple direct solution to the problem. Speaker 3: And Alameda solution. This was talked about. Speaker 6: At the community open house, but this is not the. Speaker 3: Carve out that the staff presented. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Next we hear. Speaker 2: Yes, we have Ms. come in then, Chris. Mr. Chris following Ms.. Miller. Speaker 1: One at a time, please. Speaker 0: Oh. Speaker 1: No. One at a time. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 8: Honorable City Council members. My name is Denise Galvin. And so now high student and youth leader with Filipino Advocates for Justice. On behalf on behalf of the Filipino community and youth of Alameda, we implore you all to say yes on just cause to stop evictions for no reason. Our own members know this harsh reality having been displaced and struggling with higher and higher rents tonight, we may just get we may get just cause, but this would only be the first step to securing our community. Without a rent cap, families are still in danger of displacement, even with just cause we cannot have rent control without a rent cap. Rent control is a huge issue in Alameda as prices are going up and everything is at stake. Whether it's your apartment, our schools or your friends and family, please prove to us that everyone does belong here and provide us with a provide us with a rent ordinance that includes a rent cap and just cause protections. Thank you for protecting our medians with your. Speaker 2: Votes for just cause. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Next speaker, Mr. Cristobal Dennis Miller. Speaker 8: Hello, guys. My name is Don Cristobal, and I am here to speak to support a just cause ordinance. And I would like to start with democracy is in a democracy the forefront of American ideal. How come the majority of the people living in living in Alameda are unjustly threatened with being evicted with. Sorry, sorry, sorry. With Tanner's. With Tanner's having to pay the rate, with tenants having to pay the expected amount of rent that land owners owners are demanding, which is not at all viable to the majority of the tenants here in Alameda. If we deny the plight of the people who wants a rent cap just because the land owners want to live a life abundant in profits, wouldn't that be too selfish of them to make money from our struggles on families who struggle to make ends meet and rise from hardship? That's not democracy. I stand for just cause and for the people to stay silent, fearing that they will be the next one evicted just like it had been for me and my family who used to live at the Bayview Apartments on 470 Central. We are reliant on the city council members to do what is right, not only what is right, but to create a society where everyone's where everyone thrives equally, despite US's large gap between the rich and the poor. That's democracy. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Next speaker is Miss Miller. And then followed by that is Doyle, Sailor Katherine calling and Laura Thomas. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 6: Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Karen Miller. I live in Alameda. I have a 16 at Victorian that was converted from a single family home. My tenants refer to themselves as housemates. The home was not built as a multi-unit building and the walls are not built with insulation and noise and odors travel between them. I believe there should be an avenue besides a legal court proceeding to evict a tenant for constantly disturbing the other tenants in the building. I was able to do that last year with no cause with a tenant who would not stop smoking and vaping marijuana at her unit. I was getting complaints from all the tenants, especially the one with a seven year old who shared a wall with his tenant and another one who suffers from asthma. I asked her the tenant repeatedly for two years to stop, but with no result, even if it is against the law in Alameda to smoke anything in a multi-unit building, I can pretty much guarantee that if this went to trial, a jury would not find in my favor. How is that fair to the other tenants? I also would ask you to allow owner occupied landlords to evict tenants with no cause they are housemates of the other tenants and should be allowed to choose with whom they live. It said their property. Some speakers are referred to Measure K being defeated to support their position about just cause. There were many folks who voted against Measure K because they were against all rent control. If you want to look at the voters will look at how one was defeated. It was defeated by a much larger margin than L when at the time there is not a one size fits all solution to keeping tenants in their homes. And I ask that you take into account the various nuances of each situation. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. Saylor. Speaker 5: Your Honor, the mayor and city council members. I am Daniel Saylor with renewed hope. We have renewed hopes, strongly support adding eviction control to renters rights for Alameda. We commend the city council to take this important step to protect renters living here from unjust evictions. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: I'm calling in the Miss Thomas. Speaker 1: That was threatened. Okay. Speaker 6: Hi. I'm Catherine calling. Thank you for bringing. Speaker 3: On I'm bringing back this very important topic. Speaker 6: To protect all of this city. And while I appreciate staff's many meetings and the survey they did. Speaker 3: I also have some. Speaker 6: Very serious concerns. Speaker 3: About what's been. Speaker 6: Conducted so far. Just as the numbers were fuzzy in the meeting with the Renters Coalition, the numbers presented were 810 units. Speaker 3: Now we hear it's 1100. Speaker 6: We heard in terms. Speaker 3: Of a thousand people. But on closer questioning, it's many more. Speaker 6: 1100 units would. Speaker 3: Be all of summer. Speaker 0: House and. Speaker 3: 22 complexes. Speaker 6: The size of 470 Central. This is a. Speaker 3: Huge part of our population. Speaker 6: I appreciate that the people here that are presenting owner occupied just me small building but we. Speaker 3: Are talking about a massive carve out of of renters here in Alameda. I support the previous speakers and that we need equal protection it should. Speaker 6: Be fairly applied. Speaker 3: Across the board. No carve outs. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 2: The last Christmas. Thomas. Speaker 1: Laura. Thomas, your last. Did you used to have? She still had time left, didn't she? Catherine. Speaker 0: This part? Yeah. Speaker 1: Did you have a last point you want to make? You were. You had a little time left on your clock. Yes. Speaker 6: The last point is. Speaker 3: Not only was I present. Speaker 6: With the renters and speaking with city staff. I also went to the. Speaker 3: Open house and the second attachment on the. Speaker 6: April 2nd meeting that. Speaker 3: Showed a number of. Speaker 6: Possible renter protections like relocation. Speaker 3: Benefits. Speaker 6: For constructive evictions when there had been so many rent increases that. Speaker 3: People are moved out without. Speaker 6: Any they're simply. Speaker 3: Moved out with. Speaker 6: With no moneys. That second page was not a poster at the open his or included on the. Speaker 1: Surface now taking this Thomas. Speaker 6: Good evening. Laura Thomas, vice president of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. I just thought I'd make a comment that the ordinance before you is, uh, is really a milestone in the renters struggle in Alameda and it deserves your support. Renewed hope was here in 2013 when you, Madam Mayor, were on the council and Marie Gillmor was mayor. And you heard an appeal from the RAC of a four plex where everybody was. Speaker 5: Evicted by a woman. Speaker 6: Who bought the property and felt it was her right to clean everybody out and raise the rents. The tenants were all elderly. Or disabled. And you were able to all you were able to do at the time was write a caustic letter to the landowner, the property owner. But I remember well, the both you and Mayor Gilmore said to the owners, representative, you both told them that if you had to hear any more heartless stories like that one, you would be ready to see rent control in Alameda. Well, it's been over five years, and we've heard a litany of terrible stories. And as Lester Dixon said, we don't need to wait anymore. You, the council, and we the people who must have the power to protect Allem Edens. And this just cause. Speaker 9: Eviction law. Speaker 6: Is long past due. So I think that's all I want to say. I certainly admire the youth that were here that spoke most eloquently. It's clear to them that in a democracy there has to be housing rights and people have to be protected. And that's what's fair. That's what's just. And that's what we hope you do tonight. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. And we have another speaker, Jared Wright. Mr. Wright. Speaker 5: Hi, everyone. Thank you. Thank you so much. First of all, for considering this ordinance for the just cause protections. I hope you'll pass this ordinance without a carve out for only your owner occupied. I just wanted to point out that the Alameda County point in time count was just released by everyone home. It's available online now. The data shows that 8000 people are experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Currently, this is an increase in 1440 3% between 2017 and 2019. And the number of people becoming homelessness, becoming homeless each year is far outpacing the number of people assisted with housing resources. So for every two people becoming homeless, only one is being returned to permanent housing. So this information shows and demonstrates the importance that we must first build as much housing as possible to relieve the growing supply shortage that is causing rampant housing price inflation in the Bay Area. And secondly, we must enact tenant protections and rent stabilization ordinances like this one that prevent Alameda residents from losing their homes just because the rent that they initially agreed to that was initially agreed to between them and their landlord no longer matches a new hyper inflated rent. That is that is now part of the market. So please consider passing this. We cannot afford to have 1100 new households that are vulnerable to being evicted. So thank you so much. Speaker 1: Thank you, Andrea. Okay, so now quick housekeeping detail. It has been a little over an hour. I'm going to call a break. We will be back in 10 minutes, everybody. So it's it's 813, let's say 825. I'm going to start the meeting at 825. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah, it is, definitely. Speaker 1: Okay. As I said, we are coming back at at 825. And I want to now close public comment on this item and open it up for council discussion. But first, let's tackle the threshold issue that our colleague, the vice mayor, asked us to decide to determine whether he comes back or not. And that is, do we want to consider a carve out, as has been proposed for small units? Owner occupied, I think, was the proposal of perhaps a duplex triplex for Plex. What is the council's thought about that? Let's go to Councilmember Vela first, whether she had her hand up or not. Did you. Speaker 0: Have. Speaker 1: To? Speaker 3: But I I'm I'm not in favor of the carve out. And frankly, the reason is, is that I think that it becomes more complicated than it needs to be in terms of at what point does the owner move in? Does that carve out, then go into play if the owner isn't living there? Can they you know, can you what if the property is owned by a trust or something like that or multiple owners? Just one of them is one of them now able to use that exemption? What if it's some sort of inheritance thing where somebody. Inherits a 20% interest or something like that. I think it becomes administratively difficult. And I would I would like to avoid that and then just pass it without the exemptions. And if if there are issues that come up, then we can address those issues. Speaker 1: Okay. And who else? Council member, Judy. Speaker 9: Yeah. Can I ask a couple of. Speaker 1: Questions you may have. Attorney and city attorney. Yes. Speaker 9: And just for transparency, I'd share this. I think it was the three strikes proposal. I'd share that with the city attorney earlier in the day and wondered if he cared to comment on the legality of those proposals. Speaker 0: Oh. Speaker 1: Please. Thank you. Speaker 5: So, Councilmember Ody, I think just to make the public be aware of the questions at hand, I'll just repeat them. One of the questions that that you that you would ask was whether or not a landlord may a may seek the council to amend the ordinance so that a tenant may or may be evicted for three separate violations of terms and conditions of the lease. And then that eviction would be on a no just cost basis. And my thinking on that is that while it is legally permissible for the Council to create an explicit exemption, repeated violations, say, for example, lease terms to the judge to a just cause eviction protection if the council choose to adopt that tonight. Such an exemption. My understanding from your staff is that it's administratively difficult to implement. And in addition to that, that particular exemption would somewhat duplicate what state law currently authorizes under its nuisance theory. Civil Code 1161 four authorizes a landlord to evict a tenant for creating a nuisance and under 1161 sub for a landlord may do so upon demonstrating that the tenant has been maintaining a nuisance and a care is not required under state law. So in a way the landlord is proving the same thing but at different places, which is whether or not there has been repeated actions that deserve eviction. Speaker 9: I don't think there was a second. Thank you. A second part of that, right. Like a three year something or other? Speaker 5: Sure. I believe your second question was a proposal, which essentially is that the proposal? My apologies, my. Speaker 9: Well, it's better than your. Your desktop computer. Sorry. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Speaker 5: I'll adlib that since it jumped out of my my screen. I believe the the the proposal was something to the effect of the landlords would agree to not raise rents for a three year period in exchange for an owner occupied exemption. And what I've indicated to you is that the one legal concern I have is the three year period. I believe that that is a a voluntary waiver of rights under Costa Hawkins. That's not likely lawful under Costa Hawkins. What this council is able to adopt is an ordinance much like the existing ordinance, which is that if a landlord engages in a no cause eviction, that cause to Hawkins, that allows the local agency to say then the next rent can't be any higher. In this case, the council has gone beyond that to say the next rent given going beyond that by giving a little more room, by saying it's a 5% differential. But whatever that control is that the local ordinance provides, that could only govern the next tenant, not the next series of possible tenants for a period of three years . And that particular provision, we have legal concerns. Speaker 9: Okay. I appreciate that. And your expert advice. Did you have a question or I can just go into my quick rattle off? You know, he raised his hand. Speaker 1: Did you did you want to follow up on that? Mr. Johnson. Okay. Okay. Speaker 9: So it's over. Speaker 1: So the question that we're trying to get at, because whether we did bring our our colleague back or not, is having to do with the carve out. Speaker 9: Yeah, I have some. Speaker 1: Just really quick, please. Speaker 9: So. The concerns I have with with such an idea would be creating two classes of tenants. And I think one of the other issues with this is I think customer value brought it up. You know, the definition of owner. You know, San Francisco has a really complicated definition of owner. And I just fear that could be manipulated in such a way that, you know, there's no predictability. You know, Oakland, I think, had some exemptions for four duplexes and they took those away. So I think that is they have a similar housing situation as us, which a lot of with a lot of older units. I you know, I was sad that, you know, we used to have a lot more folks from 470 Central that came in and spoke. But I mean, they've all been forced to leave town. So and when we came up with that original ordinance, you know, I was one of the people that defined that mathematical formula. And I apologize to tenants on that because it didn't work as it was intended. It was intended to stop mass evictions. It didn't always do that. So I do think our ordinance has an aspect of flexibility that if there's a problem that arises, I think we can have our staff come back in whatever time frame. I think it's a year and give us information on that. And I also think that if if nuisances and these owner occupied is the issue. I mean, there's other solutions, house rules, those type of things. So I at this point, I'm not I did think about it a lot so and asked for some opinions from the city attorney. But at at the bottom line, I don't want to create two classes of tenants. Speaker 1: Okay. They were gone. Thank you. Were going to Councilmember Desai. Speaker 4: I think the question right now before us is whether we should have a separate carve out discussion from the discussion of the updated ordinance as a whole. And I think that is something that we can do, that we can have a separate conversation on the carpet out of the hall and have each of the council members here come up with their final decisions. And then sequentially, then we could conceivably take the balance, which is 80% and 90%, the balance of the ordinance. So in an effort to allow Vice Mayor Knox White, I think that's the issue. The issue isn't for for people to opine one way or another. But but how to sequence the issue so that Knox White can take part in the latter part? Speaker 1: Well, I believe that's what we're doing. So I think. Mr. Chen, do you want to. Speaker 5: So it's important to point out that if the council does not make a final decision, in other words, vice mayor cannot continue to take part. So as is part. Speaker 4: Of the the body as a whole. Speaker 5: Exactly. If it's continuing to be considered by the council as a whole, the vice mayor could not take part because of context. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: So do you do you want to opine one way or the other? Mr. de SAC, council member differ. Speaker 4: Yes, I do think that we should we should have a discussion regarding carve out and I think, you know, it it doesn't change anything, you know. Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: I thought that was what we were attempting to do. Am I missing something? Do you want? Do you have anything you'd like to discuss about kava? Speaker 4: Well, here's a here's a question that I hope doesn't go against my time. So the question is, if I have a discussion about carve out now with 7 minutes, 49 seconds, does that eat away at the balance of the 749? And at then after the carve out discussion, are we going to start a whole new 9 minutes? Speaker 1: That's a fair that's a fair point. And I and that's interesting. Speaker 5: So I think it's the chair, given the ambiguities in the rules that the chair has the right to make a call here. Speaker 1: Yeah. And my call is I'm going to call these two separate discussions. The carve out is what we're talking about now. The city clerk looks pained. Speaker 2: So what you could do is you could do your discussion. And when you guys get to your time down to zero, you could just vote to suspend the rules by four votes. Speaker 1: Well, I think if I may be entertaining this, I was thinking that councilman was asking, is this going to count against our greater discussion if when assuming we bring Councilmember Knox White in. Speaker 2: What to. Speaker 1: Villa? Speaker 0: I have a. Speaker 3: Kind of point of order question, which is how many votes are needed to have a carve out conversation if Knox White can't participate? I believe you need three votes. So. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: To even have a carve out discussion. Okay. Okay. So maybe I should go next. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Speaker 9: I'm happy to make a motion that after we have the kind of a discussion, we reset everyone's clock to 9 minutes. Speaker 0: Okay. Chuck. Speaker 1: Is that problematic, Madam Clerk? Speaker 2: I don't think that's problematic. Speaker 1: Good. I don't either. Okay, let's keep moving. I mean, I think we're going to. Speaker 0: Move on that. Are you going to? Speaker 1: I don't think. Shall we vote? Is that okay? Why don't we vote on it then? Okay. So did you want to make that motion? Yes. Okay. So set the motion. Speaker 9: Oh, that after we had this carve out discussion, we reset the council members clocks to 9. Speaker 1: Minutes to have a second. Okay. All in favor. I opposed. Okay. It carries 3 to 1. No, no, it doesn't. It doesn't matter. Six four. It needs. Speaker 2: Four. It says four votes to suspend. Speaker 1: And to suspend. Okay. Speaker 4: All right. Speaker 5: It's worth a try. Speaker 3: I just don't want to. Speaker 1: No, it doesn't. We may do the vote again if we run out of time. Let's I think it's let's just see where we are. Okay. So for right now, we're going to just talk and then we will, you know, if we've run out of time, we'll we'll take another vote and either we'll have more time or we won't. So. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So here's my thought. I do not favor a carve out for reasons already stated. And on top of that, I am one of three representatives from Alameda County to the COSA Compact Legislative Policy Committee. We've been meeting every week for the last almost two months now, I think. And one of the things that the CASA Compact, it's a very ambitious set of legislation going through Sacramento right now to address our housing crisis in California. And there are three principles of the course of combat, and one of the first one is protection and protection of tenants. And the second one is preservation of the housing we already have for rental housing. And the third one is production. We need to produce even more. We have a huge imbalance in supply and demand, and so I view a carve out as one less protection at a time when it's very well needed to the point in time count numbers have been cited. We, I think, need all the all the assistance we can get. And I, I sat in on a meeting last week with Miss Potter representatives from the housing authority, with housing providers. And I'm mindful of your concerns. However, a number of the issues that were raised really had to do with for cause type behavior. And the the suggestion that, well, you know, some providers wanted to be able to do no cause evictions to save legal fees. But then the examples that were raised were of tenants who refused to leave, even when served with a notice, a valid notice, and then it got into legal fees. So that I understand those concerns. There are other ways to address the concerns of smaller landlords with their legal fees, and one of them is the real estate community might even band together and put a fund together much in the same way they offered to do something similar to help tenants. I'm not sure that anything ever came of that, but certainly that's a possibility. But in any event, my concerns are that. The tenants are put in a vulnerable position. When I've said this more than once, when I was running for mayor and walking door to door at the ferry terminals. I would meet tenants all the time who were afraid to tell their landlords about needed repairs because they didn't want to be pegged as that problem tenant and then possibly be evicted. Because right now we have a 2% vacancy rate. We don't have enough housing to go around. I've heard the arguments that, well, if you do this, then we're just going to turn our multifamily units into condominiums. And my response is we need condominiums, too. There are people who would like to be owners and that just might give them that foot in the door. If you want to turn your rental unit into a single family for sale house. There's a need for that, too. And, you know, we're trying to build as fast as we can. But right now, my concern is that we do the right thing and we cannot afford to have another 42% increase in the number of unsheltered individuals in two years. And to think that even this minor, so-called minor carve out would impact 1100 units is just, I think, more than our city can bear. So I would not support a carve out. Do we need to vote on that? Okay. So I'm council. Does someone want to make of it? Councilmember Desai. Speaker 4: A comment. I would like to make a comment with my prepared presentation in large part because it does actually deal strike at the issue of the necessity of what I think is a carve out. Speaker 1: The presentation will be counted against your speech time, correct? Speaker 4: Grant Yes. So I've entitled my presentation. Let us do good based on what our heart. Which is why we're all here, based on what our hearts and our heads tell us. And this is a hopefully a data driven and a number based presentation. Okay. So back in 1993, when I was a grad student at UC Berkeley's Senior Regional Planning, I had an opportunity to work with a real estate outfit in Berkeley, Saint John Associates. And what we were doing is we were analyzing the impacts of Berkeley rent control, which was instituted in 1980. We were looking at 1980 census data, comparing it to 1990 census data. And just by chance, we were also taking a look at Santa monica's 1980 data versus 1990 data, because Santa monica also began as rent control in 1990. And by the way, our city attorney is formerly from Santa monica. And interestingly, single family rentals, just single family rentals, detached rentals from 1980 went from 3900 of basically 4000, and it dropped down to basically 3000. So it had declined. It had declined by 1000 over a spate of. Speaker 2: Its warming up. Speaker 4: It had declined by basically 1000 from 1980 to 1990. And when we compared it to the other rental stock in surrounding cities, both of Santa monica as well as Berkeley, you know, we didn't see the same thing happening. So what that told us was when you have Berkeley style rent control with hard caps and just cause that especially the smaller mom and pop landlords begin to go out of the the rental business. And we saw that in Berkeley in 1980, 1990, and also Santa monica. Now, I've also gathered data that allows us to track what has gone on since then. So to this day, Berkeley's single family rental stock has not come back to what was there in 1980. In 1980, there was 3980, and today there's roughly 3500. Santa monica is has has surpassed its 1980 rate. And my hypothesis is because as a percent of rental stock in Berkeley, Berkeley has a high percentage of single family, had a high percentage of single family homes as well as rental stock, whereas Santa monica had a low percent. So there was a lot of perhaps, you know, mom and pop landlords who probably weren't, you know, there weren't like the landlords or the capital. L They were more landlords, perhaps with a cap, with a small case. L But it's important, though, to, to note the difference, because when you look at Alameda, you know, when in Alameda , our rate of single family rentals, rental stock, single family homes that are rentals is roughly 26.9%, which is based upon the five year census x number. And so what that tells you is that when you when you impose a Berkeley style rent control with just cause and and also hard caps, that's going to affect most especially the single family rentals as well as the duplexes and the triplexes. And you ask yourself, well, why? Why would it affect the smaller units relative instead of not affecting as much the larger units, you know, units that have 20, 20 rental units or 50 rental units. It's because a simple math, you take a look, for example, the median asking rent that's on Craigslist today for a single family home. The median rent is roughly 30 $800 in the city of Alameda. So, okay, 30 $800 a month, times ten years. You get basically $457,800. So people then, you know, if you're operating in the context of a Berkeley style rent control with hard caps and also just cause eviction, people who could start doing the math as a say, well, why am I going to wait around for ten years to gather $475,800 when I could sell a single family home for, what, $800,000? $900,000? And on top of it, you could because of IRS rules, you could take some of that proceeds and buy another rental stock. And it's elsewhere in some other town, in some other state and not be subject to, you know, capital gains or at least be protected for capital gains for some time. So this is my message, especially to the persons who are here. If you don't do a carve out, if you don't seriously address the carve out, what you're going to do is you're not only going to have single family homes or even duplexes. The Triplexes converted either to ownership from rental stock to ownership or converted to to to which to condominium. But what that what's going to happen to people who live in buildings with ten rental units or 20 rent or use and 50 rental units? What's going to happen is as you decline, as you decrease the rental stock, you're going to begin to put pressure on the 20 rental unit buildings, on the 50 rental unit buildings. So you can't just say, oh, you know, we're we're going to impose this kind of rent control on the city of Alameda. We're going to toughen up 3148 from the compromise that it is right now. We're going it we're going to convert it into a Berkeley style rent control. You can't just do that and think that there's not going to be impacts to tenants. Let me repeat. When you put when you decrease the the rental stock as a single family duplex type X level, that's going to put more pressure on the renters. The 20 units, the 50 unit apartments. So as council members, we have to think about those implications. The other thing, I think from a big picture point of view that I'm really concerned about, this just cause imposition is I mean, the very data that we have that I asked earlier from the outset, there have been only 31, 31 no cause cases in the past fiscal year and prior to that there was only 26 no cause cases. Now think about it, 31 no cause cases from which, you know, maybe justifiably there should be some kind of just cause maybe 31 no cause cases out of 13,389 rental units. So we are about to make this incredible, profound change to our rental stock. Based upon the record of only 31, no court cases. I'm sorry, but the data does not support the type of changes, the magnitude of changes that we're seeking. If we want to help out the tenants and the small landlords. I think the and within the context of the 3148. I think tonight we really seriously have to take a look at at the carve outs for single family rentals as well as duplexes and triplexes because at the end of the day, when you start seeing the numbers decline like you did in Berkeley and in Santa monica from 1980 to 1990, you're going to see the same magnitude of declines for the reasons that I said. The math is just the math. You know, the amount of dollars that you get for rent for ten years. Why wait ten years when you could just sell it and get 800,000, $900,000 and then reinvest? Thank you. Speaker 1: Councilmember De Saag. All right. Do I? Yes. Councilmember Avella and then Councilmember Brody. Speaker 3: Uh, so I'd like to respond a little bit. I'm. I'm all for data. Um, in fact, I teach classes on data. I think data gets stale, and data depends on what you actually look at. And I think that there's a few problems with the hypothesis that's being presented. So first of all, single family home stock can also decline if you convert a single family home into a multi-unit rental or if you add an ADU, it's no longer a single family home. It's also not taking into account that there's been a real focus in the communities of both Santa monica and Berkeley to focus on density . And so there has been a real push to increase the number of units and to not build single family homes for that reason. And finally, the single family home numbers, even if we do take them at face value as they've been presented, are not the focus of the carve out that's being presented. The carve out being presented. As for duplexes triplexes where the owner lives on site, not for a single family home. And so I think, at least based off of those reasons, I kind of see that as being problematic. I also think that regarding the number of no cause evictions, uh, a number that we don't have is the number of tenants who did not report habitability issues like major habitability issues for fear of being retaliated against. And, uh. I think this is a really important point because renters are vulnerable in ways homeowners are not. Namely, if they pay their bills on time and they maintain the property that they live in and they're good neighbors, they can be given notice to move with no reason at all. Worse yet, if a landlord is evicting tenants for discriminatory reasons or in retaliation for asking, you know, for, say, necessary repairs to keep the property property habitable or based on a protected class. We just did a proclamation for API Heritage Month. My grandparents got into the rental business and actually became homeowners because they pulled together with other Filipino families to buy property because people wouldn't rent to them because they were Filipino. I think that's a poignant fact this month. But the point of this is both the discriminatory reason and the retaliation basis are both considered illegal under our laws, and the burden is on the tenant to prove those cases. The burden is not on the landlord. And that's something that's difficult, if not impossible to do. And I think it's very difficult if you're in a position where you don't have the resources available that, say, somebody who is a homeowner may have. And finally, I think we also need to look at trends and there's other trends. One is that there's a lot of communities in California that are passing just cause eviction protections. Namely, Santa Barbara. Recently in April, 6 to 1 voted this year to pass just cause eviction protections. And the council there, you know, really focused on the fact that it was about protecting against mass evictions and about balancing this power relation relationship so that tenants didn't need to be worried and that, you know, these cases rather rather than saying there were 31 families that were evicted for no cause that that an actual articulable cause be put forward. And under our provision as proposed, we can still do that. And I think, as the mayor pointed out, all of the cases that were raised in her meetings and certainly the ones that have been raised to me would qualify under under the proposed ordinance, as is without an exemption. So I'm not going to for those reasons, I'm not really willing at this point to consider an exemption. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Brody. Speaker 9: Thank you. Just a couple of quick comments on the the slides that my colleague presented. Well, first of all, I don't think there's a single family exemption or carve out being proposed. So I'm not going to really address that. I look at the numbers when I see 31 in the last fiscal year and 26 in the year before, you know, I see 57 families that have been displaced from Alameda. That's who I see. Real people. People just like you that sit out here. People just like us. People that now probably don't have an opportunity to live here anymore. And why? Because our landlord decided to take advantage of our laws, which they were freely allowed to do, and tell them, sorry, we don't. I don't want you in my property anymore. So these are 57 real families. So and the second thing, it just reminds me of my friend Mike McMahon, who says there's lies, damned lies and statistics. So, I mean, I look at this. Well, you can look at that one way. You know, we re we've had five more cases in 17, 18 and 16, 17. So you could say, well, that's a 20% jump in. No cause evictions. That's kind of a big number. Right. So we can look at it that way, but we can also look at it in a different way. You know, if on average. The landlords have a tool available to them that out of 13,400 units they only use about two two and a half times a month over a course of two years. Then it just makes you wonder why are they spending so much money and so much energy to protect a tool that they rarely use? So to me, it's not well, there's not that many tenants that are going to be impacted by it. To me, it's like this is something that's rarely used. So I just I don't know if it's worth spending all this energy and making a value judgment to protect something that, you know, it's just not taken advantage of that much. So, again, you can have lies, damn lies and statistics, so we can spin them any way we want to spin them. Speaker 1: Okay. So do we have a motion on whether to move forward with a carve out or not? Yes. Okay. Is the motion to move forward with a carve out? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. It's there. I have a motion to move forward with a carve out in the ordinance. Do I have a second? I do not have a second. The motion fails for a lack of a second. To have a new motion. To not move forward with a carve out. Speaker 9: Sure. I'd like to motion to close debate on the carve out issue and move forward discussing the just cause proposal or ordinance without a carve out. Speaker 1: Do I have a second? Second? Okay. We have a motion to second on favor. I oppose it. Okay, so move. All right, so the motion. The motion to move forward with the ordinance without the carve out passes for do nothing. And we can bring the vice mayor back from exile. Thank you. He's just in the back room. Speaker 9: He's 45 seconds behind this. Speaker 0: At no. Speaker 9: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: So he'll be here in 45 seconds. Great. Speaker 0: Um. Okay. Speaker 1: So we're going to let you do all the talking until you catch up to our time. Speaker 0: If you get 5 minutes. Yeah. Speaker 1: All right. So it can be. Do you want to report out just for the better? Well, he was listening. You were listening. Oh, okay. He didn't hear the last vote. So June the. Speaker 2: Last vote was unanimous to proceed with the discussion without having a carve. Speaker 0: Up. All right. Speaker 1: So so now we come back to the the the item before us, which is to amend the Almaty Municipal Code, the specified article to eliminate no cause as a grounds for eviction from ordinance number 3148. Who would like to lead the discussion? Who's got the most? Well, no. I mean, anyone can start. Speaker 5: Okay. I actually don't have very much to say. I want to thank the city attorney. The explanations that were given while I was in the back room were the same ones he and I discussed earlier today as well. And help me understand the issue as well. I think at this point in time, without belaboring this item that much longer, that everybody has actually expressed the values and the need. And the reason we have are here to talk about just cause perfectly well. And I'm ready to support a motion to support the staff recommendation as soon as somebody as soon as everybody feels they've had what they need to say. Speaker 1: Um, does anyone else want to comment? Do we have a motion? What's your pleasure, Counsel? Councilmember To make a. Speaker 9: Short comment, because I don't think there's a lot of suspense in my feelings on this matter, considering nobody calls me No cause. Jim or carve out Jim, I. I just want a second. I think what Tony Graham said, I mean, to me, that's that was the thing that hit home the most. I think housing is a basic human right period, end of sentence, stop. And if you're going to be that, that rights can be taken away from you and you need due process. Our Constitution demands that. And I think our values demand that. So that's all I have to say. I'm happy to support whoever makes the motion or happy to make it if someone else doesn't. Speaker 1: Other comments. Councilmember Bella. Speaker 3: In my piece. Speaker 5: I'm of approval of the staff recommendation to him in 3148 to remove no cause. Speaker 3: Second. Speaker 1: Any discussion? All in favor. I oppose the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. And I do want to thank all of our speakers and thank staff and the attorneys. Now, we don't. We don't because we have another item and a lady who needs to not stay here too long. Thank you all for for being here for this discussion. Okay. We are moving then to six.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV of Chapter VI to Eliminate “No Cause” (Notice to Vacate) as a Grounds for Eviction from Ordinance No. 3148 (City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance). (Rent Stabilization 265)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6794

Speaker 2: Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with res electric for the Park Street Quarter Safety and Operations Improvement Project and an amount not to exceed 99,750. Speaker 1: And who pulled h. Speaker 2: We have a speaker and. Okay. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Speaker 1: Oh, so we have a speaker. Hello? Speaker 6: So you're probably wondering why I'm up here speaking out on a public works electrical contract? Because it's actually because the devil is in the details. You might remember I spoke at the last council meeting about the need to implement complete street designs. If we're going to make any headway in both reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, which 40% of which come from personal transportation. And if we're going to make any headway in building safer, slower streets, streets where parents can feel safe walking in a crosswalk with small children without having to literally push them out of the way out of the crosswalk to avoid traffic violence, as happened very recently here in Alameda. I want to thank Vice Mayor John Knox White for drafting his call to action this weekend. I hope all of you have had a chance to see it, so I won't waste any more of my time listing his recommendations. I just I want to urge you to do all those things, do all of them with the same urgency that you would give an emergency that you said that we're in. I appreciate that. As a council, you really don't have a lot of opportunity to affect change as much as you'd like or really as much as we would like. But there are things that you can do. You can do the things that the vice mayor recommended. So please do those things. His first recommendation was that we do no more repaving without complete street design and increased safety for people crossing the street. I'm here because I respectfully suggest that we actually expand that recommendation to include all projects, too, that define how we prioritize pedestrians relative to cars. And a big button project is a great example of that. I asked that these contracts and that the final work product are evaluated relative to your mandate that we prioritize people movement over car movement. I what I don't want to see is us ending up with the same type of back button configuration and signal phases that was pretty recently implemented at one of Vista and Sherman. That's a that's a real mess for pedestrian and it clearly prioritizes drivers over over people walking. So if we don't review projects, including the two paving projects that are also on the agenda tonight, from a complete streets perspective, we'll end up with more projects like what Caltrans just did on the other side of the Park Street Bridge. The Park Street Bridge is the first safe estuary crossing for the west half of Alameda. For people who are walking or biking and it was just made exponentially more dangerous because no one did a design review from a Complete Streets perspective. The best way to ensure that all of these projects are reviewed through a complete street lens is to act on the vice mayor's third recommendation, which is to hire a new traffic engineer who gets safe, who gets street safety in cities. Please do this with the urgency of the emergency that you declared. Thank you for your time. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Pena. And do you have any other speakers on this item? But I saw the city engineer. Mr. Wickstrom, did you want to come up and say a few words about this item? Why it might be too strong a verb. I tend to. Speaker 3: And it's certainly. Good evening. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The item that has been pulled is item five H. It's for the Park Street Traffic Safety Improvements. This project is, I'll say, a bit of a legacy project. It dates back to 2011 based on the CP number. The transportation engineer who was previously working on it is no longer with the city. I'm here to kind of bring this forward to see what we can do to push this, I'll say, across the finish line and satisfy all the original grant requirements. I understand there are some considerations about how this signal operations are will be brought into affect once the project is complete. I personally as not being a traffic engineer, I'm not qualified directly to speak on that and would suggest that that's not an appropriate topic for tonight. However, if that would be the direction of the council, there's something we could bring back to to the to this body at a future date prior to. I think those are improvements going operational. Speaker 1: Thank you. Any questions on the staff report or any questions for Mr. Wickstrom? Speaker 0: And go first. Speaker 5: Comment. Speaker 1: A comment would work. Speaker 5: Vice Mayor So I just thank you for that explanation and thank you to the Speaker. I had a chance to speak with public works staff before we are in one of these difficult places where the the entire staff that worked on this project and brought it to the Council for original approval is no longer here. But I do want to reflect that before that project was approved, the issues that Mr. Pena raised related to the pedestrian pushbuttons were agreed to not go into effect, whereby we will not have lights where auto triggering happens and pedestrian triggering doesn't. And so we have that in writing that was promised by by the both the city engineer and the public works director before it was brought to council as a part of the support that bike walk Alameda did for this project originally. So happy to bring it back to council for further discussion on that. But I just wanted to make sure that we pegged that for the public speaker that those issues were addressed before this project moved forward. And my expectation is when it goes in operations, it will go in as as agreed to. Speaker 1: So could that be translated into direction to staff to make sure that that. Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't I mean, I don't think it needs to come personally. I would suggest it doesn't need to come back as long as the, as long as the agreement that was made. And I'm happy to send the emails that show what was agreed to basically that all modes are given equity when the light is triggered, whether it's triggered by signal or by signal, car actuator or pedestrian button. Speaker 1: Okay. Well, and perhaps just to report back to the council when that takes place would be good. Okay. And Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: I had a question on one quick comment. So the speaker kind of triggered something. Is it? I believe it's possible, because I think it's happened to me in San Francisco. Is it possible that you could time crosswalk signals so a pedestrian could just, like walk nonstop over a long period of time? So instead of timing it for autos, you could time it for pedestrians. Right. It's just coincidental that in theory. Yes, in theory, yes, that is possible. The difficulty is that the distance between intersections is so great and the walking speed is so variable between one person and the next. It's really tough to say whether it's going to be 45 seconds or 52 seconds between someone who would get between intersection. So while in theory, yes, you could in practicality, you really can't do that. Okay, maybe I just walk average. And then the other thing, I think the issue on the Park Street, if memory serves me correct, I think that was a city of Oakland design, not a Caltrans issue. So if you want to direct your your anger at anyone, it belongs at the city of Oakland, not at Caltrans.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract Amendment with Ray’s Electric for the Park Street Corridor Safety and Operations Improvement Project, No. P.W. 03-15-03, in an Amount Not to Exceed $99,750, Including Contingency, for a Total Expenditure Under the Agreement, of $429,830. (Public Works 91170)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6835

Speaker 2: entirety Ordinance 2030 to 27 concerning land use requirements in the Zoning Ordinance of the Aluminum Civil Code, Section 30, Dash ten, cannabis that, among other things, permits retail cannabis dispensaries in certain zoning districts subject to a conditional use permit and permits the sale of non medicinal cannabis in certain zoning districts and an ordinance C concerning cannabis regulations and Amateurism Code. Article 16 Cannabis Businesses of Chapters six Businesses, Occupations and Industries that, among other things, establishes the number of retail close dispensaries to be open to the public, including delivery dispensaries, disperses their operations, creates a buffer zone from sensitive uses and permits the sale of number to small cannabis. And lastly, Audience D concerning the land use requirements and zoning ordinance, the code section 30 Dash and cannabis that among other things, permits retail, cannabis dispensaries and certain zoning districts subject to a conditional use permit and permits the sale of numbers of cannabis in certain voting districts. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: Councilmember decide that I'm here as before. I will recuse myself from this matter. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Speaker 5: Assuming there's no comments on the approval. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 1: Okay. Of of all four together and no speakers. Spanish speakers. Okay. Okay. All in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 1: And oppose. I'm going to oppose for reasons that I've stated in the past. So the motion carries 3 to 1. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Speaker 1: And now we are. Speaker 0: Considering. Speaker 1: Moving on to the regular calendar. So item six, a. Speaker 2: Recommendation to receive a report on the status of the methods from center repairs and provide directions on options for a city aquatic center and adoption of related resolutions. Speaker 1: Okay. And who's that? You, me? Wooldridge, our recreation parks director is coming up. Do we have speakers on the side of Laura? Speaker 2: We have one speaker on this item. Sorry. Speaker 0: In this. Speaker 2: PowerPoint advanced. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director and Interim Assistant City Manager. And I'm here to give you an update and receive input on the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School and changes happening there. So as you know, some recent background, it's a very old center, swim center. We have a joint use agreement with the school district and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. I'll refer to that as the county from here on out has red tagged. The facility will close at the end of May. I negotiated with county staff to work out a plants in that we could get general agreement to work with the school district, come back to the county with a repair plan, with a specific scope of work, and along provide them with a long term plan on how we would build build a city pool with some specific milestones built in so they could see we were making concrete progress. So what we've done since then is we have an ad hoc committee that's of two members of this body, two council members, as well as two school district board members, including one of their youth representatives. There's staff from each agency and three members of the aquatic community. What the aquatic community has done in parallel with the ad hoc committee is they. So this ad hoc committee meets weekly every Tuesday and the community group meets every Wednesday. And so that group is a wide group of representatives, from what I've heard, 20 people that meet every week from swim, water polo, diving, recreational users, masters swimmers, and so they get community input on what the needs are of the community as a whole and work through all of those issues. And then the three liaisons bring that information back to the ad hoc committee. So it's really been, I think, a really great collaborative approach. It's been really helpful to to get information back and forth between the community and then the ad hoc committee. So what the repair plan is and what you have in front of you is funding of 70%. We're estimating a maximum amount of $350,000 to do the repair plan for this is just for the immediate repairs, immediate health and safety repairs. The city would pay 70% of those costs, which is a maximum of 250,000. And the school district would pay 30% of those costs. What that would do is we is is that items before you would be addressed re plastering the dove pool dressing air leaks which helps the water turnover rate things like that. Those were all the key items identified by the county and with the school district has already started addressing some of the smaller issues that are really kind of the low hanging fruit, such as drain covers and things like that. We did meet with the county staff two weeks ago. We're waiting on final confirmation of the approved scope of work. The reason this amount is a little bit higher, 350,000 is really just a just in case. If we if the county provides us written confirmation, which we expect next week and we stay within what we anticipate was the original scope of work that we had talked about with them. I expect it to be more around $250,000 at most in total. And so by authorizing the 250,000 that's really in not to exceed, I expect it to be lower than that. And we would only expend obviously up to what repairs are made. Another piece of the puzzle is the division of state architecture. So any building on a school site has to be reviewed is under the purview of the California Division of State Architects. We don't believe that this requires what's called a DSA permit, but the school district, especially because there's currently with all of the construction happening at Alameda High School, there's two DSA inspectors on site every day, and we have to make sure we do it correctly. So they're going to be to as soon as we get the written confirmation from the county, the school district's going to take it to DSA to confirm, here's what we're doing. We want to let you know and then make sure there's no permit required. The reason that's important is because if a DSA permit is required, it will slow this whole repair process down by 3 to 4 months. Yes. Speaker 1: And just in case, I might have missed the explanation, but DSA stands for the. Speaker 6: Division of State Architecture. Thank you. So in terms of the new aquatic facility and components, I want to be clear that these this is simply just initial conversations. And these are recommendations that have come from that community group that has been talking a lot about what they'd like to see in a new swimming, new swim facility. These are the major components and we've discussed them at the ad hoc committee. Come to general consensus there as well, a 32 basically two pools, a 30 to 50 meter pool, which would be the main competition pool, a smaller 25 yard pool. That would be for practice. Swim lessons, recreational swim, birthday parties, things like that would have a zero depth entry because that's really for both ADA access and is great for seniors and little the little tots and such lighting for evening programing which would extend our potential for revenue and make it a more usable facility for the community . Potentially a recreational splash play structure such as structures that have water splashing out. And that's helpful for the recreational side, again, for revenue generation, for birthday parties. And also just to attract families, we would update and modern or provide a modern fully ADA locker rooms, make sure that there's sufficient seating for bleachers and open lawn for pop up tents. And this is important, especially for larger meets. We've also talked about a multi-use room for training like Red Cross trainings, lifeguard trainings, things like that, a whole host of trainings for classes and also for birthday parties and also a concession snack bar and picnic table area. What's also been discussed is an option to have a noncompetitive the noncompetitive pool, the 25 yard pool indoors. So maybe a mixture of indoor outdoor facility. An example of that would be the city of Albany. They have a pool that's jointly that's at the Albany High School campus and is jointly managed by the city. And they have an indoor pool with swim lessons and such. And they also have an outdoor competitive pool. And also that. Well, I'm going to get in a minute into kind of the next steps and how will be what some opportunities are for even further input. Another thing that the ad hoc committee looked at as potential locations in your packet. There was a list of pros and cons and that that is what the committee brainstormed. And looking at all of those ten locations as to locations that really kind of rose to the top as more ideal locations. One is the existing site at Emerald Swim Center, but we've looked at how we can push out into push out from the existing sites, such as moving the facility all the way out to Oak Street and and moving that tennis court over to another side or the fields and pushing out in different ways enough to nearly double the size of the facility. The other side is at Thompson Field. That obviously would require moving the existing football field first. So I want to be clear that we know where in this plan to we want to move out other sports. So we would need to make sure that there's a suitable football facility done and ready to go before we even started at Thompson Field to put a pool space in there. The up side of Thompson is a really large amount of space, so you could do nearly anything you want at that site, but again, requires relocating the field and being in a very tight neighborhood area would require parking and other transportation facilities on site. Damn good swimmers. The current Emma Hood Swim Center location in a bigger footprint. It's a tighter fit to get all the components that we looked at earlier. But there's existing infrastructure such as the water and the util, the sewer and all of that. It's really close to parking with the parking garage nearby and public transit. I want to be clear that neither of these sites, none of these ten sites have been vetted by the community. Again, it's just gone through the process and we're on a pretty quick timeline. And so that's why we've been moving through the process in this way. Some additional information on how we're considering this new aquatic facility. It is being discussed as a city facility, city built and then ultimately operated and maintained by the city. We are really looking to make sure that it serves both competitive and recreational needs. Currently, both the sites that we've identified as having as being more ideal are on a state owned land. And so that would require some sort of land agreement between the school district and the city. The mechanism of that is still being discussed and definitely has not been finalized. The school board is will be discussing that in closed session next week at their next Tuesday at their meeting. In terms of next steps for the immediate next steps to repair and reopen. Again, it's too for both agencies to authorize the funding. The school board is is an open session next week to authorize their portion of the funding. And we're waiting next week for the county to formally confirm the scope of work. The plan is that the pool at Emma Hood would close at the end of May because then all of the swim teams and everyone can finish their season. We would close for the summer to get all of the repairs done and then and get all all of the inspections and permits finalized and then with the goal to reopen for the school year. In terms of the long term plan, so the reason we're doing this long term plan is really in such a quick timeline is really to address the County Health's request that we do so. And and the requirement was that we provide some sort of really high level plan so they could see we we're making progress and that so there would be milestones that they can hold us to. It's really the M.O. you that we. So the first step would be that we would provide an M.O. you to the county and it's a really high level M.O. You wouldn't stipulate stipulate for example, the location, but it would stipulate that the that will be a city pool, city built, city operated and in partnership with the school district in that they will be a key stakeholder and that they will work with us on any land agreements. And so that's kind of the level of the the M.O. you that we would present to the county. Our current deadline is to get an MRU to them and get the timelines to them is May 31st. We've asked for an extension to June 30th and hope to hear on that next week. I want to be clear to that in terms of finalizing the location, finalizing what exactly type facility we're looking at, indoor outdoor size pools, things like that. There's time for that conversation. We don't need to get to that that to the county right away. What we need to give them is a timeline. So the current timeline has that the M.O., you would give them the M.O. you that I mentioned before, by June 30, we would have a land transfer agreement or not necessarily even a transfer, but some sort of land agreement between the school district and the city by December. And so by December, we would have to have a finalized location and the mechanism to do that. Then we would work on the development of the conceptual design, which would be due by by mid 2020. And then we would start to confirm funding mechanisms around that time, whether it was an infrastructure bond, private funding, some combination thereof, and then look toward timelines on permits and approvals and design and finally construction. So. So we have time to finalize the location until really, you know, sometime this fall and then finalize the mechanism by December and get that all into an agreement the way I have. We've also been looking at the input process on design is then in July to have potentially a joint meeting, public meeting to discuss the design ideas and location and then engage an architect to do conceptual designs such as and provide different options of conceptual designs with cost estimates attached. Because then we can have very real conversations about what's possible and then also work jointly with the school district to finalize a location. So that concludes my report, and I'm open to any questions. Speaker 1: Okay. Are there any clarifying questions on the staff report or should we go to our have a speaker question Council member Dave. Speaker 3: I can wait. Speaker 4: Just a quick clarifying question. In your presentation, you said you indicated as your first bullet point that the pool could be anywhere from 30 to 50 meters. It struck me as kind of odd and people here will know a lot more than me. Aren't most swimming races like, you know, divided by 50, like 25 meter, 50 meter or 100 meter? How would you do a 100 meter race in a 30 meter pool? Speaker 6: I'm actually I'm sure some swimmers can answer that better than I can, but we'll just put that question out there. But I mean, in in some part, I'm following the the desire of the community. A 30 meter pool isn't uncommon. What always boggles my mind, there's also a 25 yard pool. So there's there's different dimensions. But the 30 meter pool is standard. A 50 meter pool is considered an Olympic size is also standard. So they're both standard sizes that are that are used. Speaker 4: But perhaps a. Speaker 0: Person can surely dance. Speaker 1: Okay. So Councilman Rivera and Amy. Speaker 6: Thank you for your presentation. My question is really trying to understand the resolution that's attached and and how it relates to the presentation. Mm hmm. So you had mentioned a high level M.O. you and benchmarks in the. And I just want to clarify, because in the resolution in the amended resolution, I think it's the seventh whereas paragraph requiring that by May 30th, 2019, we've now asked for an extension to June 30th. So potentially it could be May or June. Right. For that paragraph? Yeah. Since we uploaded the staff report, we're trying to get a little bit longer. Yes. Okay. And then in terms of the long term replacement plan in place, we could we could say something like high level long term replacement plan or something like that or conceptual replacement plan or something. Yeah. Okay. And. Uh, okay. And then for the July meeting, you're talking about July of this year, correct? Correct. And it'll be a joint meeting with both the school board and the council. And we would follow the. I think I think our open government policies are a little more robust than we would follow all the the posting regulations. Okay. Thank you. Yes. And just to clarify what that to your to your first point, what what what it could look like in terms of M0, you language would be some a high level agreement on the type of land use basically saying that the city will have full site control but not identifying the specific location. Thank you. Speaker 1: Councilman Brody, thank you. Speaker 3: A few questions. Thanks for the update on this. So the district's meeting in closed session, you said next week. Correct. And I mean, at a high level, because you only have to do a high level for closed session. I mean, what is the what is the topic they're going to be discussing? Speaker 6: It's on options for on land, what they can do with their land, what their options are. Speaker 3: So like price in terms of payment, things like that. Speaker 6: No, not more. Much more high level than that. Okay. What are the what are the what are the available mechanisms to transfer land from the school district to the city? Speaker 3: I mean, I guess I'm wondering if it's worth our council, you know, having that same discussion. Because, you know, we haven't weighed in on that as a full council and given any direction as the committee goes forth and discuss this with the school board. Speaker 6: Direction. What specifically? Because what they're really talking about is what since they own the land, what their legal options are to transfer or sell, lease, whatever the mechanism is to the city and what tools are available to them is what they're. Speaker 3: Well, I think it'd be good to know from a council perspective what, you know, our options are as well. And, you know, based on the different options they're looking at, you know, they have to be there has to be a finite number. Right. So what the impact would be for us as well. I mean, I just think that would be it'd be worthwhile for this body, at least if we're sending off a team to negotiate on the city's behalf that they have some direction and input from. Speaker 6: So just to be clear, we're not negotiating location. We're not negotiating pricing terms or anything like that. Speaker 1: I am vice mayor and that's why it. Speaker 3: Wasn't quite finished, but. Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Cause I wrote them a call in there. Speaker 3: And then on this M.O.. You. So overall scope of the facility location responsibilities you have land transfer in there milestones. So that's an email you that the city and the district is going to negotiate. Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 3: And again, I mean the direction as. Who's who's negotiating that is that the subcommittees that you. Speaker 6: The committee will be looking at it. We're starting a draft of that just kind of high level bullet points for it. The draft of it would go to each body to discuss and approve and then make tweaks and then come back and and and so so each body would be weighing in on the menu before it was finalized. Speaker 3: Okay. So there's going to be an opportunity for the body as a whole to kind of give priority and negotiating authority on, you know, what we want and don't want in that milieu, right? Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 3: I just want to make sure that happens. Speaker 1: By summer next week. Speaker 5: Well, I was going to help answer the question that that was half of it right there is that we're not negotiating the ammo. I think that the conversation tonight hopefully is, you know, we're having the conversation about, you know, what are our various interests. Right. And the school district has some real legal requirements about, you know, required field sizes, etc.. The reason they're going into closed session is because their decision on A, do they do anything with the land? And if they do something, how does it impact their standing with the state? There were some legal issues that they had to deal with. I think our assumption and why we haven't gone in a closed session is unless there's a, in my view, to to negotiate that has legal issues. We felt that we could have the conversation starting tonight with questions like, you know, you know, do we want to do a long term lease? Would we prefer to own the land, etc.? We actually developed a list. The subcommittee did today I have that I can at some point in time propose it. The other thing that I and I may have looked away for 2 seconds here in the presentation, but I don't think I heard it, was that we've also proposed holding the final two meetings of both the board and the Council in June, as so from 6 to 7 before each of our our final meetings in June as joint meetings so that if there are issues with the IMO you that need to be negotiated between both parties like literally we need to sit down and is out before the June 30th deadline. We will have it on our calendar to call those meetings so that all ten members can do it. But I think our assumption is, is that in the same way that we negotiate and we'll use and whatever else is that staff will do most of the work. The subcommittee, because it can meet every week and can talk to our counterparts, is trying to make sure that we're doing the bidding that we hear from from this group and whatnot. But that yeah, of course, everything will come back here. Nobody nobody is going to take something for signing and say, here, we've negotiated it at the subcommittee. I mean. Speaker 1: Council member. Speaker 3: So I don't know whether it's to the chair to the vice mayor or to our assistant city manager. I know. I forgot the question. So is there a contingency plan if there's request for a June 30th extension is not granted. I mean to have this these discussions in May. Speaker 1: Ms. Wooldridge. Speaker 6: We certainly I mean, we're working as quickly as we can and we can certainly hold a special meeting and try and organize one for the last week of May as needed. When I met with them on site a couple of weeks ago, they seemed quite favorable towards the June 30th. So that didn't seem to be a major obstacle. Speaker 3: I mean, it just it might make sense to have something planned in schedule just in case worst case scenario, because the last thing I want to see happen is that we lose that extension and then all of a sudden we don't have an opportunity to weigh in. Speaker 1: Okay. We'll know something next week. You think, from county health? Speaker 6: Yes. It's been two weeks and they told me 2 to 3 weeks and I've been hounding them. So I'm hoping by next week to get written confirmation from county health. Speaker 1: And I'll add that. Mr. Aldridge and the city manager Eric Levitt, and I also met with our county supervisor, Wilma Chan, to keep her in the loop on this and she's offered her assistance. So we are covering the bases. Okay. Speaker 0: If you know. Speaker 1: When we're coming in. Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: Do you wanna go first? Okay. I wanted to ask for clarification from you, from your perception. We have spent a lot of time talking about CITES and we've narrowed down to two and that the school district is certainly talking a little bit more about specifically a rate that the subcommittee has kind of been talking about my hood . We're open to other ones, but it's not that we're going to send them a and start a whole new conversation about sites in July. The hope is not to because at the end of the day, one of our deadlines is going to be a signed land agreement in December. We're not going to be able to have another month and a half of conversations on where and then hopefully because that's going to hold up the design, etc.. I just you kept saying in July, we'll talk about the sites. It's true. So we're not necessarily selecting the site now, but there is also been a narrowing. And if there are concerns about that or if there are sites that people feel we're not, that this would be a great time to debate that. Speaker 6: Absolutely. And the conceptual designs will be based on a certain site. Speaker 1: Right. So I certainly want all to hear all of your questions and clarifying clarifying questions and comments for Ms.. Walters. We do have a public speaker, and then we'll go into our council discussion. But if you're still in the clarifying stages, escalate. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 6: So. To that end. I guess my question is if the school board makes a determination because all I look through the list and I think half the list are are properties or, you know, city parks, that sort of thing, and half the list are school district properties. If we are talking about a school district property, ultimately it's their decision whether or not they're going to. Make one of their properties available to us. So I guess my concern is, you know, can we even make a determination tonight on on a school district parcel when ultimately it's their decision to make? I think tonight's really more to brainstorm and hear if there's other ideas and if if we're not necessarily going to for confirmed only select a site tonight but it's it's a continuing it's an evolving conversation and it's a quickly moving one. So I think if there's other sites to be considered, we should talk about that tonight. I think if the school district ultimately decides that they're not interested in doing any kind of land agreement with the school or with the city, then we look at some of the other sites that are sitting on site. Speaker 1: Okay. Any more clarifications? Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Then let's have our public speakers, so on. Speaker 2: Okay. And Amelia Besant, it's. Speaker 1: Okay. So my, my rule for conduct of a council meeting is I'm sure she's absolutely awesome, but we, we don't applaud, we don't cheer, we don't boo, we don't do the wave just because it keeps the council meeting moving along. And for some speakers, they actually find that intimidating and it might discourage someone from speaking. But with that, the floor is yours. And I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. Speaker 6: Hi, my name is Amelia Booth Notes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor and City Council for hearing me. I'm lucky enough to live in Alameda, be raising two young kids in Alameda and also work in Alameda. One of the biggest problems is that I don't leave the island. Not a huge problem for me. I'm also one of the lucky people who gets to see the sunrise at my herd pool and the sunset. I coach masters and as a masters coach on the island, I can tell you that there is not nearly enough accessibility to the water for the city of Alameda. We have a lot of people who have come to ask to learn how to swim, but we don't really have adult learn to swim programs. We try and accommodate them, but there's not enough space. As a mom, I can tell you that there is not nearly enough facilities available for Parks and Rec to grow their aquatics program. The wait lists are already full, like there's already waitlist for the summer, and I would love my kids to have access to the pool here as the high school some coach. We just finished our season. We had a great season. I coach over at ends now and I can tell you that both Alameda High and ends now both have burgeoning aquatics programs and it would be, I believe, crippling to both of those programs if we had to rely on one high school pool. I'm also a member of the Alameda Aquatics Alliance, the group that's been getting together, and it was brought up before how many people this group represents? It's a massive number. You have USA swimmers, you have master swimmers, you have club swimmers, you have club water polo. The list goes on. I'm also going to say you have swimmers who don't realize they're swimmers yet because they haven't had access to water here in Alameda. If you build it, they will come. And this group has had access to these conversations and we're in great support of the plan as it's coming out. Um, and I would just really like to emphasize that it has to move quick because the where we are, there's a great wave of energy around aquatics. And if the district isn't interested in helping build the aquatics program here, I really hope that the city council continues to get behind that so that my kids grow up and they have access to pools. I love living here and hearing this every meeting I've gone to all of the aquatics meetings like this well in 1954, and then there's a really great statement and then in 1973, and then there's a really great statement. And what I would really like to have happen is that in 2019, the really great statement as the city of Alameda got behind aquatics and didn't just leave it up to the district. And that is all I have to say. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. So that's the no, thank you. That is the other I think under a certain age you get away with that. Okay. So now we go to our council discussion of the the issues before us. Who wants to start Councilmember de SAC? Speaker 4: I'll start acting. City Assistant City Manager Amy Wooldridge asked for council input on a range of items, one of the items being the location of the pool, recognizing that the decision is partly a decision of a USDA and also a decision of the city of Alameda City Hall. My take on on this particular thing is to give you how I would see the location decision, the lens through which I'm looking at that decision. And the lens that I would look at this decision is basically to encourage either parties, whether it's a USD or a city hall, to come up with a decision that has the least amount of moving parts, meaning like if you put the pool here, you have to then move this here, then you have to move that. Then there strive. I hope for the decision that is the most elegant with the least moving about parts because, you know, as Occam's razor suggests, the most elegant, parsimonious decision that oftentimes is the best decision. So that would be my encouragement. As you have your discussions with your counterparts at a USD, let's resist any Rube Goldberg type of contraptions because and honestly, I think in the past the city of Alameda and a USD have have entered into such agreements that are very, very complicated. And given that there's possibilities that there are very elegant decision choices, that that would be my suggestion is to resist. Look. Decisions with the most moving parts. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember de so Councilman Rivera. Speaker 6: So I actually, I think that, um, we need to have a contingency plan and I think that contingency plans help move both parties along to get to where we need to be. So to that end, I want to make sure that I'm happy to hear that we're holding spots in June for those joint meetings. I actually think we should try to agenda is one of like just plan on agenda using one of them rather than just holding it so that we can have that joint meeting. And if we need to show that we have the full authority of council or or anything like that, we have it where we're building it and we know we'll be there. I'll be there with my baby. And who's going to be a future pool kid? Because I was a poor kid. And, you know, I think the other the other thing that I think we need to do is to Councilmember Ortiz point. We may maybe need to look at a date in May just in case and get it agenda is because we have the ODC issues and I know we're doing a million things and trying to get the budget ready and everything else, but I really believe that we need to do that just in case something doesn't work out . I also think that we need to have, just like we can pick, hey, here's our ideal a USD site. I think we need to think about what's the ideal city owned site in case a USD doesn't come through. And I went through this list. I know we have other properties in mind, or we have other properties that we own as a city. There was a long conversation a while ago about the Alameda Point officer's pool. I know it's on the other side of town. I know it's not necessarily next to a U.S. but there's you know, I think it rates higher among the city owned facilities in terms of parking. Yes, we're going to need to work on transit. We're going to need to work on some other things. But I think that it strengthens our position to be able to say, look, we have a backup plan in the instance that a USD isn't for some reason able to come through with one of their facilities. You know, I learned to swim in Franklin pool I swam from when I was a little kid. I did double days during summer. I reported my times to Dr. Parker whenever I saw him in middle school. I did water polo in high school and college. And I think that being an island and peninsula community with so much water surrounding us, we really owe it to our community. I'm swimming now. It's the only one of the few activities I can still do, and it brings me great relief. So I really do think that we need to find a way to think about options. I appreciate the work that's gone into this. The reason I was asking the questions about the resolution is I think that just how it's worded could be a little misleading. I know I got a couple of calls from people and, you know, there are shared constituents. So whether you're, you know, a student at Alameda High School or, you know, you're you're not just under the jurisdiction of AOC, I want to make sure that they have access to pools as well. And, you know, and to that end, I also think that if there is some sort of land transfer involved, at least for me , I want to start having a conversation of how do we make sure we preserve Alameda High's access to pools? So I don't, for instance, want them paying for pool time. I want to make sure that we we build that in so that that's part of the cost to me of of having the pool. And if if they're willing to give us the land, yes, we're going to have to build it. But, you know, we need to make sure that our students one of the great things about interscholastic sports is that it's the great equalizer. Everybody should have access. And I think that that's an opportunity that a lot of kids get a lot of things out of being able to just go right after school into their extracurricular activities. So I look forward to the conversations that we can have with the school district on this. It would be great to partner with them on it. I think that there's a lot of potential there. I want to make sure that the facility also meets the needs of the community, and I really appreciate the community work that's gone into this. I want to make sure that there's an opportunity for all of our constituents to weigh in and at least hear from us. I think that there's going to be a lot of input. And and strong feelings. And I just want to make sure. I think that it's helpful to have both of our boards together to hear that input, because I think everybody needs to hear it. And I think asking people to go to two different meetings is very difficult, which is why I like the idea of the joint meeting so that we're all hearing the same thing and hopefully we can get on the same page. And whatever happened in the past with AUC, we can move forward and use this as an opportunity to build a partnership. But I'm also worried about their budget and their ability. I mean, they're having a hard time paying teachers right now. So I don't want to I don't want to nickel and dime them. And I think we're coming up on our budget talks. So I think it's kind of makes sense that we're having this conversation, even though it needs to be expedited, that we're having it in line with when we're talking about our budget and and what that looks like. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Next, we hear. Speaker 3: I'll be. Speaker 1: Sorry, Councilman Rudy. Speaker 3: Thank you. And I appreciate my colleague's comments. I mean, I agree with a lot of what both of them said. But, you know, critically, time is of the essence here. I mean, this is something we should have done literally years ago. So I think it's important knowing that time is of the essence, as Councilmember De said, not to over engineer something that, you know, may look great and, you know, with all the bells and whistles when you really need to get something done and we need to get it done fast. So I think it's critical that we when we pick a site, we consider that in mind. So if you have all these moving parts, you know, there's just more more chance that something gets complicated and followed up and delayed. So we've seen that. So I appreciate Councilmember De SA contributing that to the discussion and to Councilmember Vela's point. These are our shared constituents and we do have to be cognizant of the school district. And I think that to the extent, you know, we have one time money that that we've been successful in in earning as a city and the school district is in financial distress, that it would make sense that the city use some of that one one time money. I mean, the 7030 split is fine, but I mean, there's no reason why, you know, if it's 250,000, you know, why the city couldn't pitch in the other 75 or the other 80,000. You know, and I don't know if it's necessary to, you know, browbeat the school board into submission, you know, because they're really not in the business of running a pool. They're in the business of educating children. So I think we should be cognizant of that as we do our negotiations with them. I also think it's important that, you know, we treat them with respect as an equal partner, as they are an equal partner. And some of the details on this are really fuzzy to me still. And I'd like to have a little more clarity. You know, land transfers, we've done those before and those are super complicated. They have appraisals. You know, do you do we pay for the land? Do we transfer the land? You know, if we transfer land, you know, do land swap like we did with the the school district a while back, I think it was for the island high property. Now, that's a super complicated transaction and that's a policy decision that I think the council needs to weigh in on sooner rather than later over what types of properties we would be willing to transfer and, you know, how long of a process that is. So I appreciate that having a June meeting. But I do think, as I think I asked the question and my colleague, Councilman Avella agreed with me, we should have some contingency plan that we have a meeting on calendar for May. So if any of these issues come up that we have a chance to weigh in because when I see that an IOU is going to be drafted and I don't have any input in the high level terms and bullet points and don't even really know, you know, what they're going to look like. You know, I'd like to have a chance to do that and have the community weigh in if it's something we can do in open session. So, I mean, those are kind of my general comments. You know, I reserve the rest of my time in case I want to respond to anything else that comes up. But let's not like nickel and dime the school district, especially if they do decide to transfer the land. I think we have to. If we own it, then we have a bigger responsibility. And I think that responsibility extends to what the speaker said to make sure we provide, you know, priority one would be the schools and the school aquatics programs because the district would be giving up land to us. So I don't want to lose sight of that either. And, you know, and I you know, I think as Councilman Abella said, you know, I think charging the school district to use land that they transfer to us just so we could build a pool, I think is kind of ridiculous. Speaker 1: Did you already. Speaker 0: Do? Okay. I have some questions. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 1: Excuse me. I want to make my comments now. So I am on the pool subcommittee. Vice Mayor Knox White and I are on the committee and subcommittee, and I want to compliment the members of that subcommittee and especially the Alameda Aquatics Alliance. If I got that right, because it's been really helpful to have the community input. And as I am learning all the time, we have such talented residents in Alameda and they're very generous with their time and sharing their expertize. I mean, we even have a gentleman who's a pool designer on our on our subcommittee and on our the this joint use committee. And we have representatives of the different aquatic communities and swimmers and parents, and we also have members besides the two school board members. We have the shark, the facilities manager should come and and we have the athletic director from Anthony El High and we usually have the principal from Alameda, but he wasn't there today. But anyway, we're definitely getting good input from the schools. I'm a little surprised to hear that we shouldn't browbeat people. I don't see browbeating going on. Maybe it's in the eye of the beholder. We're having discussions. I mean, quite frankly, the city would love to own the land and and put in the majority of the the funding into it, if that can be worked out as far as charging for use there. There's a formula and right now, all daytime use during the school day up till 530 is provided to the school district and no charge. We had some discussion today about what happens on the weekends when there are tournaments and tournaments are revenue generating events. And so, you know, whether there would be some charge for that because those are also when those events are going on, then the city's not collecting revenue when those pools are used for, you know, members of the public. And so I, I do understand that the school district has budget challenges. So do we will we'll get into that next week. But I what I like about this committee is they are truly they we are truly working with the objective of wanting to move as quickly as possible, quickly, but carefully to get Alameda pool reopened when those necessary repairs are made. But then, you know, simultaneously be working on the plan for a new pool. And it's exciting to me to just to see the potential that's there, you know, not one but two poles that can be used because you need your your warm up pool and you need your competition pool. And we hope to have a splash zone for young kids and families and the zero entry pool that Mr. Aldridge described. But everyone is bringing their expertize. I mean, I don't know about scheduling swim events and tournaments and all that, but boy, are there people on the committee who can who can tell us that. But when it comes down to locations, there really are a finite number of possibilities and in kind of declining order of of suitable this suitability the the officers pool just to comment on that. It certainly has some potential as far as space. But again, this would be the pool for Alameda High. And it's a matter of you know, it's not to say that you can't transport kids across town, but that adds another layer of of complexity. But always good to have a plan B. And I think that when one of the things that we are looking at when we do this community meeting in July with both of our, you know, the school board and the city council is this is a community meeting where the community will come. Now, we're not going to start from square one because a lot of vetting has already been done and a lot of really informed decision has taken place because of these people with expertize who have informed us every step of the way. So I think that we are. Speaker 0: I think we're all. Speaker 1: Moving forward in good faith. We have more decisions still to make. But I do think everyone's moving in the same goal. We want there to be very little time that we are without two poles in Alameda. I mean, it will happen. It will have to happen because the army, the pool is is going to have to close down at the end of the school year swim season. So those repairs can be done, but hopefully we get the sign off from county health that they approve the repairs we've proposed and we get those going. And I miss Wooldridge has done a masterful job of reprograming, our city programs, summer swim programs to other, other locations, and we'll keep working at that. But I just want to just a shout out to the aquatics community. I know a lot of you were in the room today and, you know, thank you again for sharing your your time and your your information with us. And I and kudos to the vice mayor because he really helped be the bridge and get the palsy aquatics community together because he's had at least one, if not two sons who were in aquatics at at Alameda High. So with that, would you like to make your comments? Speaker 5: Yeah, I have some comments. I guess I guess. Speaker 0: Whatever. Speaker 5: They're they're their comments. But I actually and I know some people are low on time and I'm hoping this might be an item where we actually allow people to go past the nine minute. Not myself, but I want to comment. I don't think there's a scenario, Amy, there, correct me if I'm wrong. Where? We may not have a commitment in May, but but there's not a scenario where we have to have an MRU by May. The June date was really chosen and suggested by us because the school district goes dark and we know that we're going to have to have a plan and a land use agreement and everything else by the end of December at the very, very latest. And in fact, actually internally we're talking about October because we go dark in August and school district goes dark in July. The end of June was the the last time we can do anything is as far as both bodies before September. And if we start talking about these issues and finalizing these issues in September, there's no way we get to a land use agreement in October. So we did talk about the idea of a joint meeting at the subcommittee today, and the general feeling among everybody was that unless there was a real reason to do so and folks in the room didn't see one at this time, but we're open to hearing one from this council. From the council. If if there was a feeling that that that that that instead we're at a time we're kind of getting this is this is a great time to get the feedback now. Councilmember Odie, the first question on on the list that board member Harris and I agreed to bring back for for discussion was kind of this do we have does the city care about long term lease versus exchange versus sale? At the committee level, we've been talking about supporting solutions that allow the division of state architect to get out of to not be involved. Right. We want to have just one regulatory agency involved in a city pool and let's not have it be the one that also oversees the schools, because it's all we will have county health no matter what. So so a question I would propose if there are feelings about is is, you know, is are any are all of those acceptable? Are any of those acceptable? The school district is probably going to drive a lot of that because they're the ones who own the land and they have to agree. But if we have one that we just say we're not willing to do that, now is a great time to say that. We have heard that people are fairly comfortable with the city proposing and maintaining the building and maintaining the pool. I felt like the comments here said that pretty well. Well, jump to the fees issue, which I'm glad people brought up tonight. The other issue that we're talking about right now is how do we account for the time that AOC is given to use the pool? So currently they have a joint use agreement that outlines very specific hours that are school hours. Right. The city cannot prioritize that. It cannot supplant those in the school, doesn't want to use them, but they actually are using a few more hours than that with some of their programs. And so there has been some discussion about which hours do we, you know, do we block out in our email you in our agreement thing specific hours for your city and which hours do we use or the current use hours? Are they the joint use hours, etc.? Do they include weekends or do we keep things really simple and keep it to weekdays? And then lastly, the fees issue is the fees for use of the pool that that I've heard at least two members here mentioned. You know, first off, is that the sense of the council also, you know, if there are if there are free out some hours that are not charged for is it any hours the school district wants, even if they expand their hours in the future? Is it only for the hours that are in the agreement that we sign and they pay the community hour, which is again still below operating cost? So those are those are the big ones that we will know next week with the school district is interested in moving forward with Emma Hood is the site that has been the site that the community for members in this council two, three weeks ago said that they thought would be great if we could make it happen. And I'd be interested to know if that if it were to happen, if that would be a site you would be able to support. And then, you know, and then hopefully we will have that will become the backbone of an MRU that staff will draft and bring back to the full council. But I think those are kind of the key questions that we've agreed are kind of on the table that we're discussing for this high level. And so you and I would be, you know, I think now is a is now is a great time to to provide that input, because the hope of the subcommittee is that there's not a need for a joint meeting unless for some reason our two organizations are at loggerheads and need to sit down and hash it out together. Speaker 1: Councilmember Vela. I say you guys are my percent. Speaker 0: Yeah, I. Speaker 6: Actually think that those are the exact reasons why we should have a joint meeting. Um, because I think that there's nuances in every point that you raised. So, um, you know, I would want to hear from, I would want to have public comment on that. I would want to hear from the school board, I think, uh, agenda using each of those things that people know, those are the topics that we're going to be talking about. Um, and going over would be helpful. Um, I think that right now we're, we're working off of a proposal that Emma Hood is in fact the location and that the school district's okay with the transfer. In terms of the hours, you know, I think that we need to have a longer conversation about what what does future use of the pool look like? Does it if it's at Emma Hood, does the city, you know, is there separate access during the day time? So maybe it's not during school hours that those that they get blocked off. But there is a difference in time. They do have swim meets that happen on the weekends for high school. That happens. They also have water polo tournaments that happen. And I wouldn't necessarily want to charge the school district for use for those sorts of things. So from my perspective I feel like we do need to agenda is a joint meeting and I think if we add those points and we can have that conversation, we might be able to get to a place of resolution fairly quickly Speaker 1: . Council member, Daisuke. Speaker 4: Yeah, well if you're asking me what to what side I think is preferable. You know, having outlined what I see as the key issues, i.e. the site that has the less moving parts, frankly speaking, I think that's the good project mode site. So if I was, you know, forced to make a suggestion, that would be it. But at the same time, I don't want to, you know, speak for the school district, the school district, while that will have to, you know, go through their process and in determining if their if that's a site that they want to work with . But speaking for myself as one of five, I would suggest certainly Emma Hood, because as I said to me, that looks like the has a less moving parts on the details of fees, user hours, etc.. I have every confidence that our staff members, both at District and and City Hall staff members can figure out the details that are fair to to each to all parties concerned, not just the institutions of the school district and city hall, but also to the users and the various organizations. Speaker 1: Thank you. Counselor Brody. Speaker 3: Thank you. I mean, I guess push comes to shove if I. Based on the information I have now, you know, I would agree that Emma Hood is probably the best place for it. But, you know, there may be something that comes forward that changes my mind. I don't know. I mean, what's concerning here is more of a process issue as opposed to anything else, is that I think those are important questions the vice mayor raised. But, you know, they should be raised in a staff report with some analysis that the council could have some time to think about rather than being raised with , you know, each person having two or 3 minutes on their clock. And we can chime in without any background or any, you know, any thought. So I think that's why I was hoping we would have a meeting. So our council as a whole could give direction on some of these important high level points. Speaker 1: Thank you. So, um, if I, um, understand the concerns, I think that we need to hear back from the school board after they meet next week, I would say. And Council. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 1: Vice Mayor Knox way. I mean, I would say that the the will of both of our bodies in fact the three because there really are three elements to this but the community representation and the school districts in the city, I mean, I would say that Emma Hood is the site that we're we're definitely focusing on. And I mean, the chart you saw has, you know, pretty pretty much lays it out. I mean, I don't think it's a bad idea because it's to say I think it's a good idea to have a plan B that the contingency plan people mentioned so that if for some reason Emma Hood just becomes untenable. But there's there's a lot of reasons that people are moving moving towards making that work. But, you know, you never know what you don't know. So, I mean, but even so, you could look down that list of the pros and the cons and see, I don't know, what would you say the the next one would be. Speaker 0: Well, it could be. Uh. Speaker 1: Thompson Field. But speaking of moving parts, there's a lot of moving parts on that one. And then when we get out to Alameda Point, well, it seems like it's wide open space. Some of that is spoken for, but it's also dependent on infrastructure going in and that means a delay. We can't do that right away. And yet you know that we've got this need for the pool sooner rather than later. So that's I mean, that has to be a significant factor. There's there's there's some factors that are in our control. We cannot decide, you know, we want this developer now to enter this agreement and start paying for infrastructure so we can get moving. I mean, that could be a few more years. And that and the need is now and I agree with everything the coach said about we are we're underserved as an island community. We don't have enough water and space. And and yet I also think. Speaker 0: A. Speaker 1: Predecessor of mine, Maria Gilmore, when she was mayor, used to often say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You know, we could spend a long time chasing that perfect project. We will make this as perfect as we can. And we don't have unlimited budget, so we can't do everything in the world, but we can do quite a bit. And I understand your concerns, Councilmember Ody, about process and you'd like to, you know, have more input on this. We did it as subcommittees because there were just a lot of sort of preliminary things to get out of the way that didn't need to take the time of the whole council and school board. But so here we are now. And I think the vice mayor posed some some good questions when he said that to do so. So I think one of the questions, and I don't mean to speak for you is to chime in anytime you want. But first of all, for this body, are we comfortable with the concept of the city building and maintaining the pool? Just as an overarching theme? Speaker 5: Because I reflect on one place, my expectation is the next three council meetings will have some form of more discussion of this board in developing this. The goal is not for the subcommittee to hear comments today and then bring back a recommended M.O. you at the end, you know, two weeks before this thing is supposed to be signed. So I just want to honored Councilmember Otis point that that there is yes. The the full entire intent is for that to happen. We're trying to get some initial feedback to give to basically we're giving it to staff. We'll find out where the school district is next week. And then staff can work together with shark to to hopefully have the that that draft initial discussion menu that will be agenda ized fully for discussion. Speaker 1: Can we do a quick housekeeping matter since I was on the subcommittee that did the rules on timing council comment and I'm now not speaking because I see my clock is at zero. Um, can, can we have a vote to extend our time on this matter, which I think is fairly significant. Speaker 5: Move approval to waive the time constraints. I think we can. Yeah, just wait. Let's just we need to have this. Speaker 1: This item only to have a second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. Hi. Okay, I heard. One, two, three, four. That's all I need. Do I have a four? I have five. It's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Who was speaking? Was that you? Speaker 3: Love it. I had my hand up. I hadn't been recognized yet. Speaker 0: So we've wave. Okay. Speaker 3: Where's not waving the chair? I don't know. I mean, I understand the the need for the subcommittee because there were some urgent decisions that had to be made, especially related to the closure and the budgeting and the repair schedule. But it seems to me that a lot of those urgent decisions now are passed and we have the opportunity to have I mean, it sounds like everyone in the community has gotten to weigh to weigh in except one, two, three, because we're not allowed to go to these meetings or hear what's going on. So I think, you know, I think we're at a time now where the purpose of the subcommittee to take care of the urgent issues is kind of expired. And the community as a whole, including 60% of the council, should have an opportunity to to weigh in on the these intricacies. I mean, that's pretty much what it is. Speaker 1: Okay. Um, is that. Did you ask me? Speaker 6: Yeah, I was just going to say, I it's also that there's three members of the school board that haven't been able to weigh in. So I think, you know, I don't I don't hear necessarily a theoretical disagreement, um, per se. I just think that, um. I guess I don't see the difference between we're going to gender is this on our council meetings and then the school district is going to agenda, is it on theirs? I think we can do that. That doesn't preclude us from having, let's say, one joint meeting or something like that. And I think we could do both. So that would be my ask. And I think when we do that and what I heard from council member Odie and certainly what I would like is, you know, something, some analysis about the finances from staff in terms of, you know, what the what, what the components of the transfer would look like, what are concerns. And that's why I was asking the question earlier, what comes first? Right. If it's Emma Hood that we're talking about, then we need to hear from the school district first and then we can talk about what they're looking for, which is a staff to staff conversation. But then staff would come to us and say, this is this is basically what the school district's looking for. These are your options. So I think on that point, um, I'm not saying no to Emma Hood. I'm just saying I just want to make sure if for whatever reason, there's something that comes forward where somebody challenges, let's say, the use of that or the transfer from the school district to the city. Um, do we have a contingency plan? And then in terms of funding, you know, if, if we could hear from staff about laying, I mean, we still don't even know how we're going to fund the construction of it, let alone the usage of the pool, that sort of thing. So I think if we can get that information from staff, I'm fine having that agenda used at another future council meeting. And then if we can have that joint meeting with the school district where we can have the conversation, I would find that acceptable. Speaker 1: Yeah. And, and I don't disagree with that. And it'll also be up to the we can't compel the school district to have a meeting with us, but when they're ready, I'm sure that will get done. And just a quick question for the city manager. Um, do we will we in our budget workshops, will we be looking at a cost for a pool? Speaker 0: No, at. Speaker 7: This at this time it's not been looked at in the in the upcoming budget. You can definitely. Speaker 3: Give direction during the budgeting sessions. But this has been going well. The temporary. Speaker 5: I think the temporary cost will. Speaker 7: Be is either. Speaker 3: In this year's budget or next year's budget, but I think it's in this year's budget. But the long term cost is not being looked at and we probably would need a some type of stay because the capital is one one thing and there would have to be a bond or or fundraising or something major for for the capital side. Speaker 7: But it's the ongoing operations. Speaker 3: And subsidy of the system that's going to be the more critical issue, I think, long term for the council. Speaker 1: So good good items to add to our list of discussion. But it's those are those are things details that can be worked out later. We we are on this timeline to get you know our are deadlines with county health and then to the end of the year. But we're not going to wait until the December deadline. I, I still would like to see if we can have some consensus or not about whether people would be comfortable with the the concept of the city building and maintaining the pool with the understanding that we just heard from the city manager that we don't know where that money would come from. So but you know, conceptually. Speaker 0: We got that. Speaker 5: First. Speaker 0: Meeting. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. That's already. Okay. Well, you pose that is one of the questions I'm just going to agree with. But anyway. Okay, so we've established that. Is that was that correct. Okay. And then, oh, you said something and I was going to comment, but no, I don't remember what it was. Well, um, so okay, what, what more do we need to discuss tonight? Speaker 5: So can I ask a couple questions that I proposal for how to move forward? Councilmember De Saag So I heard I heard councilmembers Odie and Vela say that they feel that the for the fees, there's just should be no charges for the schools. Can I ask just a quick question? I'll get to the joint meeting. I'm not ignoring that, is there do you think for any hours they want, no matter how many hours they want, is that based on whatever? You know, if we come to a here are the guaranteed school hours every year. Is that what you're. Because I heard Councilmember de SAC say he's comfortable with what staff wants to do. Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Yeah. Speaker 0: No worries. Speaker 1: It's okay. Is that. Speaker 3: So? Speaker 0: Well, I. I mean. Okay. I'm sorry. Speaker 3: I mean, do we have an idea of what these fees would be? I mean. Speaker 5: About $21,000 a year based on what they're really current usages. Speaker 3: That's like budget. Speaker 0: Dust. Speaker 3: It seems like, you know, if we're going to demand that the district pay that, I mean, I'd like to see analysis like what what it would be, what they're willing to do, what they're not willing to do, what they'd be. You know. You know, it's like a negotiation in order for us to give direction. You know. Speaker 5: I guess what we're trying to do tonight is get a sense of whether you have things you would like analyzed, negotiated for that, or should staff just go off and make their own list? I guess that's my frustration is I hear nobody's arguing that that that shouldn't exist. Now is a time that I think, okay, staff is asking for. What do you think's important for that analysis? Speaker 3: Well, is that is that something urgent that has to be done, like outside of a transparent council meeting? Or is it something that needs to be done in order to meet this deadline? Speaker 5: It is definitely something the school district is very interested in discussing. And they they are the ones who raised it and said they would like to see where we can get for it on it. Yes, I would say yes. Speaker 3: So we need it in order to do that. MRU. That's a yes. Speaker 5: Unless the school district decides they're not. Speaker 3: I mean, I look at this and I see our reserves are like in the thirties and maybe, you know, upper thirties and those are in the thirties now that those are in the thirties. There's just like 329 million. The district is 29 million in reserve. Yeah. Okay. Well, I thought there was a state law. They were supposed to reduce that report and. Our teachers have a one year contract. And, you know, we're sitting here talking about $21,000. It just seems to me kind of ridiculous. Speaker 5: I don't I guess the question is understanding that you don't think they should pay the $21,000. Should they pay for nothing ever? Or is that $21,000 that they're not paying for, for the hours that, let's say, are in the current use agreement? Speaker 3: Well, I don't know. I think a lot depends on where the site is. I mean, if it's Emma Hood and they're going to either transfer the land to us through a swap or some type of sale, then there might be something that they might be entitled to more than if, say, we built it somewhere else. I mean. Speaker 1: So may I. Speaker 3: Sense a resistance to like having a transparent and open process and discussing this and that? We have to discuss this today and let a subcommittee where 60% of the elected members of the two bodies aren't allowed to participate. Speaker 4: Let me say, uh uh. Speaker 1: Rudy. Speaker 4: So let me say one thing. Were we to have a substantive discussion on specific items? The details that I speak of, whether they are the details of how the fees are shared or not shared, the details with regard to poor usage in time, things like that. To me, it seems as though that discussion necessarily has to begin with some kind of staff assessment and staff recommendations, perhaps even encapsulated in a staff report. So at some point in time, it just seems like, you know, that not just because, you know, there there are hired professionals and they and they have proven themselves in in many projects in the past. It just seems as though for us to have a robust, substantive discussion that the public can really engage in is going to begin with staff assessment and staff information anyways. So, um, so I just, that's why I feel comfortable in, and, you know, leaving it to staff and getting their recommendation. I don't necessarily have to agree with what they have to say, but I know that they're going to give their best professional judgment. Speaker 1: Councilmember Vela Yeah. Speaker 6: So Councilmember Desai, you had said that you don't necessarily have to agree with it. Does that mean that the expectation be that there's some sort of staff analysis and then it comes back to council and then we weigh in and then the subcommittee goes back. Speaker 0: What's going to have to happen? Speaker 1: So if I if I could ask intervention, which, by the way, I'm really trying to be mindful of when I go and change venues so you can be more comfortable. Speaker 0: I will ask you. Okay. Speaker 1: You tell me. Right. Okay. Um, so I'm wondering if what we should do now is have our list of things we want staff to bring back to us at our next council meeting. Because I'm hearing that that people want some further input in. And also by the next council meeting, we'll know what the school district decides next week and hopefully have time to get it into a staff report. Um, but I do think we should take a look at the resolution because that's authoring authorizing going forward with the money for the repairs. And I think we can all agree that we need to get those repairs done to meet the deadline set by county health. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 1: Councilmember Avella. Speaker 6: So I don't have a problem with that, assuming the questions or the interpretation of the seventh paragraph is that the authorization requiring because it says by May 30th. Speaker 1: Tell me where we are now. Speaker 6: It's the seventh, whereas paragraph it says is requiring that by May 30th the city oh long term replacement plan in place, that what we mean by replacement plan is some sort of high level discussion and that by May 30th it could be. Or June 30th, essentially. And that really this is this is, again, the high level stuff and that we're still going to have the staff assessment come back to council council feedback so that we can give you guys authority at the subcommittee level. Speaker 0: Whatever. Speaker 1: That sounds reasonable. Ms. WOOLDRIDGE Do you have a good idea of what it is that counsel you know, from, from the discussion, what counsel wants you to come back with or do you want to run it by us? Speaker 6: Sure, absolutely so. And I just want to give kind of a I'll tell you what I'm what I'm hearing of what you want me to bring back, which is absolutely not a problem. And also just talk timing for just a second. With our Sunshine Ordinance, we have to post staff report 12 days in advance, which means for the next council meeting it's due to it posts tomorrow by five. We don't even know Thursday. Sorry. Today's Tuesday. Thank you. So Thursday at five, we don't know. So it's sort of I understand the frustration and part of it is because it's such a fast moving process. Right. So I can't post a staff report before I, I can, but it won't have information about what happened with the school district and what some of their what they're talking about. Right. So. So I just want to give that caveat that we're we're doing that. That's why not all the information is here tonight, because we're continuing to meet and things are evolving every single week. And our our sunshine ordinance doesn't allow for a quick moving process. With that, what I heard for the May 21st staff report is a financial analysis. I can provide a financial analysis on estimated construction costs, estimated land value, estimated operation and maintenance costs as well as I can give you some high level on fees. Really in terms of fees, we just have our existing fee schedule, but there's also concessions and potential revenue for that. There's birthday parties. There's all these things that we don't even have fees for yet. So I can give you a very ballpark on potential revenue. Yes. You also include what the current, um, usage or attach to the current usage agreement, um, the joint use agreement, joint use agreement. And I assume that outlines the hours of use and that sort of things that we can, we can have that informed conversation as well. Yes, I can attach. Do you want me to charge the full joint use agreement? I'm happy to. I'll just. You could also highlight the relevant. Right. That's what I mean. I can also just abbreviate in the staff report that the if you attach it and then abbreviated in the report. Okay. There's also a difference in the committee has been talking a lot about this about the hours that are stipulated in the joint use agreement versus the actual hours you used. So I can bring to you kind of the draft high level points for the memo you. I can also bring you sort of some of the mechanisms that have been talked about. Again, not knowing what the school district is interested in doing. We don't know their legal analysis. We don't know any of that. And so it will be a very high level conversation. We also have looked at our in our committee a draft layout of hood. If you're interested in seeing that kind of what it could potentially how it could play out and why we think it's a site that could work. Speaker 1: So you could attach that to a staff report, the the drawing that we've got. Speaker 6: So those are the types of data points that I have that I currently that I can provide to the council. Speaker 1: How's that sound? Good. Okay. Okay. So with that, let's take a look at the resolution. This is to authorize the repair plan not to exceed $350,000 transfers from one person to another. To do this, to have a motion to approve. Speaker 3: So moved. Speaker 1: A second. Speaker 5: Second. Speaker 1: It's been moved by Councilmember Otis, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. All in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 1: Okay. That was unanimous. All right. With that, we're going to close this item. I'm going to allow a change of venue for the city councilmember. And how are we? Are we hooking up as soon. Speaker 0: As you want to do that? Yeah. Speaker 7: We're going to take a. Speaker 3: Five minute break. Speaker 0: From. Speaker 1: Eric. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Do we want to take a five minute break? Speaker 1: We will take a five minute break. Speaker 0: Without ever able to give you. Speaker 5: Any time. We went somewhere else in the desert. Speaker 3: And people ask me if I'm like. Speaker 1: You, everyone? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. So we are resuming the city council meeting and we just for the record, if you're in the room, Councilmember Vella is joining us. She's in the building, which just in a remote location that's a little more comfortable for her. So now we are moving on to item six B. Madam Clerk, will you introduce the item, please? Speaker 2: Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with two five year options to extend substantially in the form of the attached with novelist Data Technologies, a Delaware corporation for Building 530, an 82,251 square foot building located at one 2120 West Oriented Avenue and the adjacent building 529 a 3200 square foot building and building 608 343 square foot building at Alameda Point. This item requires four affirmative votes and it was continued from the April 2nd. Speaker 1: And also note that we closed public we have a public comment at the last meeting. So this is now just staff presentations and council discussion. Good evening. Speaker 10: Good evening, Mayor. I am Ninette Mercado and from the Community Development Department. As was stated, as has been a topic before the council in three closed sessions and tonight is its second time in the public. At the April 2nd City Council meeting, the Council received a public presentation of the proposed lease with Nautilus Data Technologies for the

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Receive a Report on the Status of the Emma Hood Swim Center Repairs and Provide Direction on Options for a City Aquatic Center; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Fund Transfers Out Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19 by $250,000 and Capital Projects Fund Transfers In and Appropriations by $250,000, Each, for Costs Associated with Repair of the Emma Hood Swim Center. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6780

Speaker 10: Good evening, Mayor. I am Ninette Mercado and from the Community Development Department. As was stated, as has been a topic before the council in three closed sessions and tonight is its second time in the public. At the April 2nd City Council meeting, the Council received a public presentation of the proposed lease with Nautilus Data Technologies for the public. Nautilus Data Technologies uses innovative water cooling technology to operate data centers that reduce the costs of computing power usage, eliminate water consumption, decrease air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. This would be their first site for this technology. And so it's it's a cutting edge technology at that meeting. At the April 2nd meeting, Nautilus provided an overview of its project, but consultants related to its proposed technology. Environmental engineers who would lead the permitting process and the consultant we use to locate and construct the harbor seal haul out advised them and spoke about the project's input . Our impact on the SEALs. In addition, there was a representative from the trade unions and a high tech tenant from Alameda Point who spoke in support of the project. The council asked to postpone the decision on the lease until the city had an opportunity to discuss the Site B development project and any impact Nobelist might have on the development. During the tour, the broker pointed out that we crafted and and novelis accepted a smaller parcel to allow for a greater development opportunity for site B. So tonight we're returning to ask for lease approval for for this lease for a term of 15 years with two five year options, which was negotiated as a result of council direction. The tenant has agreed to pay a development impact fee, also requested by the Council for a total of $1,562,971. At filled out, the project will contribute one and a half to two and a half million dollars in revenue for Alameda Municipal Power, which will help AMP keep rates low for residents. I hope that tonight you will consider this recommendation and support the lease approval. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 10: The applicant is here if you're. Any questions that you might have for them. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Council. Speaker 5: Question. Speaker 1: Council Member Vice Mayor Nothing like this. Speaker 5: I'm not sure this might be my first vote. This requires four votes. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 5: So I guess my question is, before we have any conversation, it seems like there have been a number of council members who have voiced strong concerns about this. If there are two or more of those, I think in the idea of expediency. I would love to know if there are people who are concerned not going to have talking. Speaker 1: We can we can take a straw poll. Does anyone have any questions they want answered? However. Odie. Speaker 3: I'll wait to the straw poll. I mean, I do. Speaker 1: But it's not. You want a straw poll to asking any question? Speaker 3: It would just be to reinforce my opinion. So maybe I'm not going to ask them. Speaker 0: Why? Well, I should. Speaker 3: Be honest about it. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 1: So. Well, for one, I'm not ready to vote because I want to hear council's discussion. But if you I mean, do people. You mean do people truly know how to vote now, how they're going to vote now? Councilmember De So you look quizzical, I'll say. Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I'm kind of quizzical because I know that for the most part I've been quite supportive of this project and I don't see any reason to change my mind. Since we first discussed this, at least I first discussed this in the closed door, largely because I like the impact, their contribution into the into the feet. So it's not the 100% fee, but it's. But at 1 million plus, it is something. Speaker 1: So the developer. Speaker 0: Devoting. Speaker 10: 40% of their to. Speaker 4: That. I know that I could just speak for myself that, you know, I will continue to be supportive of this project. Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember de SAC Gleaning Support. Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: I you know, I would want to have a conversation about some monitoring and and outcomes of the monitoring issues that I think would be problematic for the applicant. But I think if we could get there, it's a project that I could potentially support. Speaker 1: Okay. Leaning support. Um, yeah. Councilmember Vela asked me to. Just logistically, it's easier. She goes last in the comments, but are you ready to comment? Speaker 3: Well, I was skeptical before, and I'm still skeptical, even more so based on the tour that we did a couple weeks ago. Speaker 1: Okay. Leaning skeptical. Councilmember Vela, who's going to come to us over the say? Are you there, Councilmember Vela? Yeah. Here you are. Hi. So you followed that. We're taking just a little informal straw poll here. Speaker 11: I still have some outstanding questions. I think I think they're you know, the thing right now, I think, um, you know, potentially could be helpful to our conversation. Well, I think I think probably. And then questions regarding the the police. Um. And, uh, including the length of it and. Speaker 1: The actual what was something about the lease? The term actual term lease? Got it. Okay. So is it you could be persuaded. Speaker 11: Potentially. Well. Speaker 1: Well, yeah. So it's worth continuing the discussion because I'm going to say that I'm going into this with an open mind. So we have four potential justice to continue the discussion. So to be the fifth to comment, I will say that I think by now applicants have had a chance to see the letter that the counsel received late last night and I forwarded to staff this morning from the Northern Alameda County chapter of the Sierra Club. And I. So I do want questions, answers to the concerns that were raised and specifically the the issue of the data center requiring constant cooling and the impact on contributing to the appearance of toxic algae blooms. Um, and also, um, well, and with the warmer temperatures and I will note that just this week, earlier this week, you may be aware of the report that the United Nations would publish, noting the dramatic decline in biodiversity in the world, largely the result of human activity. And I do think this is potentially one such activity. I will say, and I see one of the applicants is here to respond, and I'm happy to see him, because this environmental issue has been a topic that has been raised by this council in closed session the however many times we've met with you. And so that's why I was disappointed. When in the staff report referencing the project in Stockton, all I saw were bullet points of the permits that you you received or have applied for. But as I said in my email, the staff bullet points don't provide any information. I wanted to see specifics, and I will also note that I think there is some material difference between a data center that is located on a barge in the port of Stockton versus what we're doing. But I did see that there was some communication with the author of the Sierra Club letter is Sophie Hunter, City Council Member in Berkeley. So with that, my biggest concerns are the environmental ones. So please, please address that. Speaker 8: Thank you very much, Madam Mayor and council members. So I want to begin just the high level on the environmental question. Our company was founded to be a solution to a very bad problem, which is the current technologies around data center. So our objective was to design our project to dramatically contribute to the abatement of greenhouse gases, to the reduction of air pollution, and especially in California, to provide a technology solution that will be able to showcase here that will eliminate the consumption of water in data centers, which is common throughout data centers all over the world. And there are other environmental features, too. So so the project is to produce a significant environmental benefit. That's the objective of the technology. And we went through quite rigorous review, federal, state and local regulators with respect to our first effort in Stockton. And the. Madam Chair, you quite thoughtfully asked for the actual permits. We've been happy to provide those. Speaker 1: I thoughtfully asked for them and they were voluminous and I would have appreciated having the opportunity to review them before this meeting because that's what allows me to make an informed decision. Speaker 8: And so I directed to specific actually while voluminous, the specific conclusions, especially of the state regulators, including the State Lands Commission, which involved now Governor Newsom and Alameda resident Betty Yee. I put very specifically to the page where the you know, where the determinations were made about the environmental benefits as well as the lack of any significant adverse impact. So if I can help you find that that would be that would be great. Speaker 1: It would have helped to have found it in its entirety in the actual staff report. But let's talk about the Sierra Club letter that you've had a chance to review now. So in the the second full paragraph, there is the reference to the projected volume of 10,000 gallons per minute. The heat being transferred to the bay will maintain a permanently warmer zone of water next to the Rockwall Jetty at Alameda Point. Movement of the tides will not permanent. They dissipate the relentless infusion of warmer water into the bay? And can we at least agree that that's significantly different than the condition with the barge in the port of Stockton? Speaker 8: Well, actually, we welcomed the engagement with the Sierra Club, as we have with the SEAL folks. What lies ahead of us is actually do the modeling work and the technical work to specifically go after those questions, which are quite important and in which we are 100% aligned to prevent anything like that from happening. So so I want to begin with that if something that were happen, we don't want to do the project that that is not the objective of our project. Now specifically on the on the technical aspects of it, the in the materials that you asked for, it is it was well studied and part of the secret process and part of the state water quality permitting as well as the State Lands Commission process to look specifically at the thermal discharge issue. The thermal discharge, the way we're engineered is the thermal discharge. Well, it's four degrees Fahrenheit difference in temperature leaving our facility when the water hits the nearby receiving water. So the area that's being discussed in the Sierra Club letter, it is highly likely. And the the work ahead of us in the permitting and the modeling will bear this out, that that water impact will be less than 1/10 of a degree Fahrenheit. So it is highly unlikely that there'll be any contribution to algae formation. But the point is, with the least, we can conduct the studies and working with the Sierra Club and working with the Harbor SEAL people and anybody, any other environmental interests, I'm an environmentalist to get that technical information and have the state tell us whether there's a problem or not. That's the advantage of the process that lies ahead of us. Speaker 1: And in the interest of fairness, I should note that this letter was received. I flew in from New York last night, and I think this came to me just before 10:00 at night Pacific time, and I glanced at it. But you didn't get it until today, because that's when I forwarded it to staff. So, I mean, you know, it's in the interest of fairness. You haven't had a lot of time, although again, we've been asking for things from you. But I think the point you're making is that the list of regulatory bodies that you will come before and need to satisfy will be addressing this thermal discharge issue. Is that. Speaker 0: Correct? Speaker 8: That and many, many other issues that we know we will be studying and encountering as a result of our experience up in Stockton. Speaker 1: So then in the second paragraph of the Sierra Club letter, they talk about how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, describes how warmer water could contribute to the growth of harmful algae. EPA Website States Toxic blue green algae prefer. Speaker 0: Warmer water. Speaker 1: Water. Warmer temperatures prevent water from mixing, allowing algae to grow thicker and faster. So I think I mean, as far as my concerns, the the issue of algae, these algae blooms, toxic algae blooms are certainly not something we would want to be fostering. Speaker 8: Not not something you would want to be fostering, not something Nautilus would want to be fostering. And, by the way, certainly not something that the state regulators would approve if that was a projected outcome. The advantage of the lease is the leases expressly conditioned on us going through these regulatory processes, getting the approvals and getting the signoff from the regulators that we will not have any significant adverse impacts. So that's that's our commitment. That's what we're about. And so that's why we embrace the Sierra Club letter. I immediately sent actually a letter back to Ms.. Hahn outlining these very points and actually looking forward to a meeting with her and her colleagues so they can be part of the public process that lies ahead. Should the you know, should the city council decide to move forward with the conditional lease? Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: So thank you. I also received a letter very late last night and actually responded to. At the club and received a response to my questions. And my questions were about this. And so Richard Banger, who is the lead on this project, responded. From what I could tell, his concern and and position was that. It would be untenable for your company to meet any needed. The state could say, go ahead. They could be wrong. What happens if they're wrong? It's going to be very difficult for you to shut have spent millions and millions, millions of dollars and then just shut it down because algae is detected or whatever that is. You know, I have been operating and I was going to ask Mr. McConnell if because we had had to I believe there were two things we asked for. One was clarity on which are the, you know, the state water board, which are the regulatory regulators that addressed this issue. And the other one was some sort of monitoring. And what happens if section I can't find the monitoring section in the exhibits. I can find the no loitering and other. So so my question would be if we were, you know, the only way that I could see us moving forward would be something where we have weekly , you know, I don't know what the frequency is, but some kind of monitoring of the water temperature and some kind of, you know, and possibly even spelling out for the water board what it was that we wanted to make sure that they were confirming in there. Right. So so the Sierra Club has raised very, you know, credible concerns. I would want to make sure that, A, the water board has that they are literally that is what they're approving. And in from talking to some folks there, I imagine that is what they would be confirming is that their belief that this would not lead to those outcomes. But then also what kind of monitoring do we have so that if it starts happening that, you know, essentially those pumps are shut down, which I know is a problem, but, you know, and is that something that could be built into this project so that there is a conversation that could continue? Speaker 1: And if I could just piggyback on your question I'm monitoring sounds like a good idea to me. And I would want it to be independent monitoring as opposed to the monitoring from the the tenants themselves, from models. Is that what you were thinking? Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't think I. I may not have thought it through with that. Yes, as long as we can figure out who that person is. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 5: Who's paying for it. So, I mean, because my guess is it's the city. Speaker 8: So the state water quality board is actually very good at this and they impose actually quite substantial monitoring requirements with respect to their permits, as do some of the other regulators. You know, for example, we have for endangered species permits up on the San Joaquin River. That's how our impacts are so low that we don't have any effect on endangered species in the river. And so we are more than happy to do monitoring and we are more than happy to bear the business risk. So the risk is is ours to bear because we do not foresee this being an issue at all, because of the way we've engineered this, we are very focused on and it is complete a minimization of environmental outcomes as possible. I would note that, you know, at a 10th of a degree in the nearby water, when you move beyond the nearby water, it's you won't be able to measure the thermal load with the heat transfer we're doing is against a modest heat production by the data centers. It's enough that it requires cooling, but it's not a massive amount of heat that we're actually putting out returning. The other thing you should know, because it will be likely be a mile long pipe run, there'll be a lot of exchange, heat exchanges on the way out to the water. It's highly likely the numbers will be even lower just from natural geothermal cooling that will occur. So but we're happy to model all of that. We use an independent modeling firm for this. You met one of the individuals from that firm at the last meeting. She's she's great and her team is great. The models they use are the ones that actually the cities all rely on as well. We'll be working with Dr. Harvey on the the harbor seal question to make sure that there's the complete protection of the whales. So, again, we are so committed to. Speaker 0: A positive. Speaker 1: Outcome. Speaker 0: Well. Speaker 1: I think there SEALs, unless there's been a whale spotting. Speaker 8: I'm sorry. I must say, I misspoke. Sorry. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah. So that. So monitoring. Happy to do it because it will be required of us by the by the state as part of our permits. Speaker 1: Okay. Are there other comments from you guys? Anyone else. So, Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: I guess I'm concerned, like, okay, we monitor what happens, we find toxic algae. Then what? I mean, some of these environmental disasters, once they happen, they're too late. Right. Like, if the SEALs somehow get disturbed and they never come back, that's too late. They're gone. I mean, that's just the way it is. So if we have algae. Toxic algae develops in a year, two years. We've gone down a path. We've tied up a building for 25 years or maybe three. If some for some reason, they have to get out of it. We've limited our marketing opportunities for those three years, lost opportunity cost there, and we may have an environmental thing that can't be reversed. Maybe it can. I don't know that much about it. Or somebody's sunk a lot of money into a building that now they're not going to give back. So when we come back in three years and we're all lamenting, why don't we just do the right thing in the first place and, you know, prioritize the environment? Speaker 1: And so I think we'll ask the applicant to answer that. But as far as you're concerned, that we're locked into a lease. I imagine that we could add a clause or a condition that indicates if some environmental I mean, significant environmental impacts were determined that there would be some some recourse. I see Mr. Roush moving towards his microphone. Speaker 0: So please. Speaker 7: Marin Counsel. I think that's correct. We would have to add some provisions into the lease that would basically have a, for lack of a better term, a poison pill provision such that if there were significant environmental impacts, that the applicant or the property owner or or tenant could not mitigate adequately, then it would be grounds to terminate the lease. Obviously, that's a huge risk that the developer tenant would have to take. But if that's the the kind of provision the council wants to see in the lease than we would we would have to draft that and and bring that back to the council. Speaker 1: Well, and that's something to consider. Something else to consider is perhaps some of these concerns will be answered by the regulatory bodies who are looking at the impact to the water and the likelihood that these conditions will lead to the toxic algae bloom. But I do think that there's there's some ways you can address some of the concerns in the lease and. I you know, again, I don't think there's answers for every question, but we certainly want to address the most significant environmental ones. Councilman Rudy said, I see your hand. Speaker 4: I would just say that if this project moves forward and the project proponent goes and attempts to get approvals from the regulatory body, that the city staff also needs to be involved in that so that they clearly understand the technologies that the regulatory body might be suggesting and be able to evaluate, you know, the adequacy of those technologies, all the while recognizing that the regulatory bodies have a lot more competency in the area. But we've got to be a part of that, that process as well. That's us. That would be my suggestion. Speaker 8: So, Councilmember Desai, if I might, we actually initially at first have to go through the secret process. And because this is a lease on city property, the city will be engaged through that whole process. Actually, the process calls for the city to be involved and then the city will also be involved in each of the permitting processes . So so the answer to your question is it's well answered and there'll be extensive process. This is actually a relational contract. We'll be side by side on this all the way through the period where we are well assured that there's no significant impacts. And if there are significant impacts, we won't go forward with the project. We won't need the city to tell us or the regulators, because the mission of our company is not to produce significant impacts. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Councilmember Vela, your thoughts? Speaker 0: I think my. Speaker 11: Concern is that they've all been fine in terms of getting off the ground. But if there's an issue I and we've discussed this in the past, I would want something that's concrete and laid out, will define what is significant, what we what we deem to be a significant impact. Because I'm not necessarily of the mind that that one of these regulatory board is going to have. They don't have the city's best interests at heart. They have a mission statement that I think how they define significant impact might be different, how we work our decision. So I think that becomes a reality for the people that have done that. From my perspective, it makes me feel a little more secure in how to take it out of the other ways. If we think that there's some risk to our. Speaker 1: Okay. And you've heard you've heard what the acting city attorney said. So. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: The poison pill provision. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: And then and that's what you're thinking of as far as something concrete. To state what we deem as significant risk. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 11: That's I think the other problem. You know, the other question that I have is has to do with the location of the input and output of the water intake valve and discharge. And again, having some sort of provision, not just for me, I guess, if we're going to be probably going to get installed, but for the removal of that and that we actually have a bond on deposit to cover the cost of removal. So one of my questions was, what do you think the cost of installing that system is going to be? Because certainly the security deposit is $68,000 or something like that, and it could cost a significant amount of money to remove the Speaker 8: . Casing this time. Yeah. Speaker 11: That for a location. And you know, will there be opportunities for input from the club or some of the other groups? Speaker 8: So I'll deal with this last point first as part of the secret process and then consistent with the other follow on processes, including the involvement of the B, C, D, C, we'll have a very intensive public process to get input as to the location of the intake and the discharge. We offered what we think is the best solution. That's the least impactful. But we are open to other alternatives. We're not dogmatic about that. The pathways we identified were done in consultation with the city engineer. But again, if there's a if there's a different path that folks want to look at, we're happy to do that. That is part of the secret process. You have a proposal and then you also look at alternatives. So that's an explicit part of the secret process. Speaker 11: What is that from the contract to the lead as we look at one of the factors, the actual construction, I think that concerns me more aspect is now. I think that, you know, other groups like the Sierra Club or some of these other environmental groups might have a difference of opinion in terms of the best location for in taking this charge high good faith, not not having to do with the connection to other infrastructure already in the building, but. With the overall environmental impact, my disapproval of the current calculations about water quality but that we have any idea out. Speaker 8: Yet by the way you are correct we went with that route based on the the discussions related to infrastructure. It may be there's a better environmental alternative, and certainly that's what the secret process will, in fact evaluate. On your second point, I would prefer not to call it a poison pill. I don't like that expression, and we'll call it an assurance of environmental protection provision. We are more than happy to have that included because as I indicated, it's not a problem for us because our objective is not to create that kind of risk. Finally, on the removal we have, actually there is a provision in the lease now following the actually before the last meeting to ensure that we have an obligation to and have posted funding for the removal of the of the intake structure when we're done. So that's included in the lease. Speaker 1: Okay. Can you talk a little bit about what that would look like to remove that those structures because it's fairly, fairly involved? You know, we saw the drawings that were included in the packet. Speaker 8: Yeah, I suppose, Madam Mayor, it's a matter of perspective for us, actually. Wouldn't be involved at all. It's a relatively minor. Speaker 1: Whatever it is, infrastructure project happen. Speaker 8: Well, the proposal is there'll be the intake box that has piles and so the structure actually sits on top of the piles. So we'll use the same process to take pull it out as we would as we as we used to put it in. And so it's just it's just civil works. It's good old fashioned maritime civil works. There's great contractors. We have representative of of the group here. Folks know how to do this. And what we're doing is relatively simple. Think of the pier. That's big. That's complicated. This is a very simple thing under the pier in relative comparison. So and again, you are happy in this process over the next year to put together the plan for how that would be done and make sure that folks are comfortable with that. Because, again, our objective is not to have any, at the minimum, the smallest possible impact on the environment that we can achieve. Speaker 1: Okay. Any further questions? Speaker 3: No questions, but comments. Speaker 7: Mayor, can I ask please. Speaker 1: Mr. Roush. Speaker 7: A clarifying question that I know is part of the the lease provision indicates that the lease as the project would make the council's making a finding that it's categorically exempt under secure based on existing facilities. The applicant has indicated that there is a some sort of separate secret process that the applicant will go through. So the Council may want to ask the applicant to explain that secret process further so that the Council is has assurances that the city and others will have an opportunity to weigh in on that, seek that separate secret process, because this finding will make the project categorically exempt under sequel. Speaker 1: Good point. Okay. Went to the acting city attorney's point. Can you explain that separate secret process? Speaker 8: Yes. As I understand it, actually, the category exempt exemption applies to the existing facility and the property. But it is our belief that our intention will be going through secure for the intake discharge component, the off it's called the offsite improvements. So the lease is split between the building and offsite improvements. The buildings categorically exempt, as I understand it, but the offsite improvements will have to go through secure. Speaker 7: And who will be the lead agency with respect to that second aspect. Speaker 8: Is my understanding will be the city of Alameda. Thank you. And if it isn't, let's make sure it is. That would be our view. Speaker 0: Okay. QUESTION All right. Speaker 1: Councilman Brody. Speaker 0: So can I just. Speaker 10: Say something just so on that on that point, I talked to the the director of Planning and building, Andrew Thomas, as part of this process. And he said that the entitlements that we that are on Alameda Point envisioned an industrial use in the enterprise zone, but not this this intake, the system that Mr. Cunnington was talking about . So he is correct that that process will have to go through a secure process. And Andrew said that the city would be the lead applicant and require almost the exact same studies that they would have to provide to the state regulators. Speaker 1: But with the cost of the secret process being borne by the applicant. Speaker 10: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Councilmember. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. So questions for the interim city attorney. So can you remind us, like the secret process, how it plays out, like what they have to do an application and go and. How long is that take? Speaker 7: Once the application comes in, there will be a determination as to whether or not the the project as as described will have a significant environmental impact on the environment. And depending on what that answer is, there could be a that would mean there could be an exemption or more likely, there would need to be a determination whether a mitigated negative declaration would be sufficient or whether a full blown EIA would be required, depending on what the answer to that is, is going to drive how long that process takes. Typically, a mitigated negative declaration can typically be handled in a, you know, 3 to 6 month process once it's prepared. I mean, from preparation to to approval, if it's an air that can take anywhere from depending on how long it takes to prepare the air and then go through the review process can take anywhere from six months to, you know, two years depending on the on the severity of the project. I would assume this would probably take six months to a year, just as that just kind of my sense of it. Speaker 3: And then thank you and then the other agencies as the review concurrent with that process or do they have to wait to the the secret process is finished? Speaker 7: I'm not quite sure how the timing on that would work. Typically, the the regulatory agencies would want to rely on a city environmental document where they would be considered. They would be part of the review process as a responsible agency. And then once if the environmental document were approved, they would then rely on that and going through their review process. That's typically how. Okay. Speaker 3: I wasn't quite sure either, but that's why I asked the question. So then if somebody opposes a secure approval, they would file a lawsuit and we would be the defendant in that lawsuit and we would we would be the one footing the bill, right? Speaker 7: Correct. But typically, when an application comes through, part of that application process is that we would look to the applicant to provide the legal defense if there were any challenges to the project, either on environmental issues or for other reasons. So even though we would be certainly the the defendant in the case and we would certainly keep control of the litigation, we would expect the the applicant to, number one, have its own counsel and number to be involved very closely with the city and defending that if the council had approved the project and certified the environmental documents Speaker 3: . So we expect mean is that that seems a little squishy to me, but I mean, is that an ironclad this is how it's going to happen or. Speaker 7: That's our normal process for when we have a project that comes forward that, you know, the applicant's going to bear that financial cost if there is a challenge to the project on either the merits or the environmental documents. Speaker 1: And I think the city manager wants to comment. Speaker 7: I would concur with how many cities actually put that, and I think Alameda does to put that in the agreement that it would be their obligation. Speaker 3: So the lease agreement or the secret application or. Speaker 7: As a part? Well, I don't know whether that precisely is in the lease currently, but typically as part of the conditions of approval, it is usually embedded in those documents. So we feel that there is adequate, adequate coverage to make sure that that, in fact, happens. Speaker 3: Well, okay, I still have more, but thank you for the high level overview of a super complicated process. Speaker 1: Yes, he has every day. Speaker 4: So, yes, you know, one word that I heard earlier this evening kind of made my ears pick up. I heard the word developer. So the question that I have is, do we know if the project proponent is going to if it goes through the approvals, local approvals, as well as regional approvals, if the project proponent is also a going to continue with the project itself or if they're going to sell the project to some other person once the entitlements are obtained. Speaker 10: The applicant is going to do the project themselves. I mean, the only thing they could do is sign the interest in the building. They can't sell it because we own it. But there this is a project that is theirs they're committed to. And if they even had to assign it, it would have to be a similar use and we would have to approve it. Speaker 4: Okay. And the B, I said A, so B is if they do the project, do we know if the applicant will do the project with the current corporate structure that's before us that came before us? Or will they create a separate corporate structure? Do we know anything about that? Speaker 10: I believe they're going to use the existing structure that they have now and bid the project out with contractors and project management, like similar to all of our other tenant improvement. Speaker 4: Okay. And could that be a part of the understanding, the legal agreement, that if if if they get council approval? Well, here, let me get maybe I'm being a little opaque. You know, if someone can make agreements, do a lot of things, but maybe they and I'm not a lawyer here, but maybe they can create a limited liability corporation so that, you know, if something goes bad, that that's the responsibility of that separate corporate entity, not themselves. So. Speaker 7: Well, typically the the lease provision will have that that it would typically allow a lessee to assign it to some other similar corporate, you know, where the same people are basically involved. But it may not be have the same exact name as the lessee if the less lessee intends to actually to wants to assign its interest, for example, to a separate, you know, completely separate entity. For lack of a better description that would need to be approved by the city before that that assignment could occur. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 7: That's again I mean, again, typically, if it's sort of an internal restructuring, that's usually allowed sort of by matter of course. But if it's going to be a whole separate new company or entity or whatever you want to call it, then that's going to require an approval by the city for that assignment. Speaker 4: Great. But you get what I'm kind of getting at. What I'm kind of getting at is if the worst case scenario happened and suddenly, after having sunk in all these investments, now they have to pull out the the some of the equipment that was out there. It's completely possible that someone might simply declare bankruptcy and say, well, you know, wait, you don't have the wherewithal to do it. And and by the way, you have to go after that that entity. Speaker 7: And that's, I think, has been brought up as to make sure that there is adequate security with that that the city has access to, so that if the if the improvements need to be removed and the and the responsible party is financially unable to do it, we have a source of funds to go to to make sure that it can occur. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: And I'll just interject. And I just skimmed this this lease, and I'm not pretending to be the attorney, I think. Did Miss Maxwell leave officials there? So I just want to confirm, because I'm not acting as the city attorney, but I do see that on page 20 of the lease agreement under assignment and subletting landlord consent required and we're the landlord that this is section 13 that landlord consent tenant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law mortgage pledge assign or transfer this lease or any interest herein to another. So that would have to come back to the city. Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: And it's is that address the concern that Councilmember de Sug was raising. Speaker 0: It does. And it generally tracks what Mr. Ash was explaining as well about sort of the assigning permitted assigning, as opposed to a unrelated assignee which would need to return. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Another question. Speaker 1: Yes, Councilmember. Speaker 3: Thank you. I mean, since you brought this up, I don't I get too much in the weeds here, but just say there is a need to pull everything out. So what type of environmental review of that process of pulling anything out is going to happen? I mean, could they just go in there and, you know. Come in with their big equipment, pull it out, and then it's gone. Who cares about what the environmental impact of that is? I mean, there does seem to be any standards around this. Speaker 1: Maxwell, this you want to introduce yourself? Speaker 0: Hi, I'm Lisa. Speaker 1: Into the microphone with. Speaker 0: Lisa maxwell. I'm the assistant city attorney, real estate area councilman Odie. The restoration and surrender provisions in the lease, they expressly obligate the tenant to make those to remove their alterations at the end of the lease term. However, it wouldn't be something they'd be able to just do blindly on their own. There'd have to be a consultation with the city and there'd have to be a coordination about the way in which those were restored. And as I mentioned to Mayor Ash, as he Ashcraft this morning, there may be a determination that it was not best to remove all of them, but instead it was better to cap some and to cause them to be inoperable because disturbing them would cause other improvements that maybe had been laid over around them to be just to be damaged. So that would just be something that would have to be determined at the time. But we have the right to cause it to happen. It would just be a matter of making sure that was the right decision. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Mayor, at this time. Housekeeping detail. It is almost 11:00, and we need a motion to consider the remaining items on this this agenda that looked relatively short. But there are some of these are time sensitive and really must come to tonight. That's item 60 is the CDBG item. And then we have six D and six. These are Park Street and Webster Street Business Improvement Associations and then six f is our city attorney contract. We have to approve his arriving next week. So what I'm looking for is a motion to go past 11. I do have a motion. Yes, I have a motion in a second. All right. All in favor. I rise upstairs. Know she's just. Okay, that's unanimous. Let's go as quickly as possible. Actually, I'm wondering whether we're ready to. To to take a vote. Any any more concerns that I see, please. By Ms.. Vela. Speaker 11: So and we previously talked about the threat to the about 40% of the. But 40% of the victims only stayed with the execution. Of his options which is to get a full amount applied to of the. One of my questions is what are we getting in exchange for the fact that we are considerably better than the kind of woman in the city of New York City? Speaker 1: I mean, we have Ms.. McIntyre here to respond. Speaker 10: To the council directed staff to try to get some payment for the deaf. So the calculation was based on the lifetime of the life of the building. And we assumed that the building was was a 60 year life or 66 year based on the wheelchair building that was directly adjacent to it. And so we just did a straight percentage calculation of the first 15 years and then the additional two five years being was seven and a half each. What we're getting from from this lease for the option periods and for this term is we're getting money for infrastructure that we wouldn't ordinarily get. And in a in a ten year lease we wouldn't get, we would just get straight lease revenue. On this deal, we're getting lease revenue plus funding for infrastructure and an acknowledgment that this is a long term lease and this is almost similar to ownership. So we are getting an investment in infrastructure for the for the base, not necessarily for that area, but it's revenue that we can use base wide for infrastructure. Speaker 3: We have approved it, but not until. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: 25 years. Speaker 0: So I do have. Speaker 11: A couple to the point $3 billion in capital, $300,000. That building that nobody likes to come here. Speaker 10: There is more than $100,000 investment in the building. I mean, there they're they're going to put millions of dollars in the building. They're just not getting credit. They were not offering a shell credit for. Speaker 11: Much of the work that's being done in the building, back to improvements for the building and the transfer of over to the equipment that they're getting from such. Speaker 10: A great deal that building needs an entire new roof. Speaker 1: Mr. McConnell, I wonder if we might bring Ms.. Maxwell up and the two of the two of you can? Speaker 10: Sure. I'm also the applicant if you. Speaker 1: Want to nap. Speaker 10: Yes, ma'am. Speaker 1: Sure. Come on. Speaker 0: Up. I was going to clarify, was that the $100,000 was during the first 12 months of the lease term. And then there was the six plus million dollars that would be put in in the next few following years. Right. Speaker 11: But now that you see the building first, as I mentioned, you know, the high the high intermediate price will be the fiber because 5 million for high performance Internet fiber. Do you. Speaker 1: Want to offer a breakdown. Speaker 10: Of where the applicant will come and give a breakdown of the the 6 million estimate? Speaker 8: So the 100,000 is merely to fix up the place so we can all access it better and better lighting for just working in and out of the space. The main money comes after our permit approvals and almost all of it goes to the building and will be part of the what's left for the city when we depart . You know, there may be some small things that come with us in the 6 million. We'll be putting in tens of millions of dollars of overall improvements in equipment and fiber and other infrastructure. I mean, the whole project initially will be about $100 million project and we'll be employing a lot of craft labor in doing that work . So but the 6 million at least is what the city will inherit. You'll get a class industrial building as a result of what we're doing. Speaker 11: And so. But what are the other outside improvements? Speaker 10: I can't remember. Like, just one more thing before I let him answer that. What I can tell you is this when we have had other tenants interested in building 530, we require them. Some of them you heard from tonight. We require them to do extensive work on what it would take to bring the building up to occupancy standards. And that number is about $2 million because they've got to put in a completely new electrical system and it's required by app. So just just for the building alone. So if you want to enter the offsite improvements that you're that she's asking about. Speaker 8: Yes. In addition, on the building there'll be water as well and other associated infrastructure of the building. We'll also be improving the offsite. We'll be improving the exterior areas including landscaping and parking lots and other components and fencing that will go immediately offsite will be bringing two loops of backbone Internet fiber, immensely valuable because once you bring that fiber through and it's in two loops, which means it's redundant inside, highly reliable, and others can access it. So it will be. And that's you know, it's a huge benefit. We did that in Stockton. We ran 20 miles of brand new backbone fiber. And the community is going to be able to access it, especially the least advantaged part of the community. So that's that's a big deal. And then we will be depending on the sequencing of your other infrastructure work, we will pay if it can coincide with our work, laying our pipes. There's other infrastructure that can be put on top of it. And so there'll be a net savings to the city, modest net savings the city, if it were to come in on top of what we're what we're doing and then we'll be repaving the roads and other infrastructure related the roads. In addition, they'll be a substantial upgrade of the electrical infrastructure to that zone because Alameda will be installing and giving us also dual feed. So it'll be good back up. It'll enhance the reliability of the electrical area, not just our area, but the area around us that's fed from the two substations. So those would be the core benefits that that we would see. Speaker 0: So that's going to be one's first requirement. Speaker 11: But that will be some contribution to the expansion. You know. The facility is amazing, but there's only if it is divided. The problem with that is that your usage is going to be high. You think something like that might indicate that the amplifier is only if you're reading this? Speaker 8: We expect the project to go in two phases. One is with respect, we'll take advantage of existing spare capacity from AMP, which will be beneficial to everybody. And then in the event we choose to expand further inside of the building, then there would be a follow on upgrade in the addition of new facilities and new capacity by AMP. But that would be, you know, that's several years down the road. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 11: She did the right thing for developing the funding for the. Speaker 8: And as we understand, it's negotiated directly with AMP in accordance with their rules and procedures, and they've got a set schedule and methodology by which they do that work. Speaker 1: And I will note the amp is governed by the Public Utilities Board in our city. Manager is a member of that board. Speaker 0: And not him. Speaker 11: And so we have been performing that work so that while performing that work. Speaker 10: Yes. Ample perform the work. They'll enter into an agreement with the applicant and perform the work. At the applicant's cost. Speaker 11: Okay. The power a 1.5 to $2.5 million for you. I've been talking for. Speaker 10: The number in the Senate report, the 1.5 to $2 million is what AMP estimates will be the revenue generated from the project at Build. I do not know what that translates in. As for usage. Speaker 1: Do I have a representative from AMP who wants to address that? Once might not be the term. Speaker 0: He would have. Speaker 1: Welcome. Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Council. Speaker 1: Do you want to introduce yourself? Speaker 9: Baba Beetham, the AGM of Administration for AMP. And then that's right. As to initially after about a year of the fall or some roll out, it's about 1.9 million in revenue for the year. You know, depending, as the gentleman said, on the full roll out, it would be about, you know, 40% of what we currently use today . So. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: 40% of what? Speaker 9: The current load of the city of Alameda. If the if there's a full roll out of the data center, you know, down the road and we're talking like five years or so down the road is our understanding that's that's the type of usage we're talking about. Speaker 11: Then 40% of the correct. Speaker 9: Roughly. Speaker 1: And if the Nautilus representative wants to comment. Speaker 8: Yeah. So the initial ramp, so let's assume it's 18 months from now, will be about a million or more. The phase one of the plan is for ten megawatts of use. AMP has 30 megawatts of available capacity, ten megawatts of use. That'll be about 10 million annually to AMP. So we'll grow as we go to 20 megawatts, it'll be roughly $20 million to AMP. Speaker 1: Okay. Um. Speaker 0: One more. Speaker 1: Councilman Rudy. Speaker 3: Is there a project labor agreement on the construction work for this? Speaker 1: That was in Luis agreement? Speaker 0: No. Okay. Speaker 1: Um. Okay. Ah. So what we are looking at is, um. There is a we have an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with two five year options to extend substantially in the form of the attach. I know the contract has been being updated almost daily and for the you've read the staff report, you know, the buildings we're talking about and the location. So do I have a motion to approve this ordinance? Speaker 0: Well. Speaker 1: Councilmember de. So do I have a question? Speaker 4: No. Frankly, I am happy to move the approval of the ordinance, recognizing all the time that went into this by our city staff and also our colleagues here on the dais. I think we've all asked really probing questions. You know, I'm satisfied that that regulations are in place to address the concerns that people have raised. And I've got to believe that the regulators and the people who attend the water quality meetings or any of those are even much more vigilant than we are, as well as being expert. And so I've got to believe that if they don't think that, if they think that this project puts at risk or any part of our bay, especially where the water or the water from this project meets the bay, I've got to believe that they will take the steps internally. I am hearing the what staff has to say as well as our legal staff. It seems as though we're being vigilant and making sure to include controls within our lease agreement. So in terms of how this is unwinding in the past few weeks, I believe that procedures are in place, regulations, regulators are in place. And in terms of moving forward, are that part of of what used to be NASA Alameda? I think this fulfills the process that we put in place to to spur economic development there. This has taken a little bit more time than I would have thought. But but I think it's been well worth it. Will there be four votes? I don't know, but I am certainly supportive of it. Much for the same reason I was supportive of it several weeks ago. But but. But I'm ready to to to move forward. And if there are four votes, that would be that would be great. And if there is not, then. And I would. Yeah, that would be. Speaker 1: Thank you. And do I have a second? Okay. So what I would want to see actually, I mean a second because then we can do discussion. So I will, I will second the motion that's been made. Um, I think that it is appropriate for us to move forward to allow Nautilus to go through the regulatory process. I would want to see the lease conditioned on what was discussed earlier by the acting city attorney. If. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 1: If, um, to add a condition to the lease that if serious environmental impacts were discovered, the project would shut down. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 1: Which might be redundant to the. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 1: To the regulatory process. But I would just want that, that safeguard because this would be assuming that the approvals were obtained. And then as the project went forward. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 1: Some serious environmental impact or condition was discovered. So I would want that in there. But with that, I would. I mean, so you would you would accept an amendment to the motion. Okay, so we have a motion, a second further amended. Speaker 0: Sorry. Speaker 5: So I. Speaker 0: Give. Speaker 5: I appreciate that when I hear you say this is the and with all apologies, the poison pill, just because we all well, we all know it. We all know it. Okay. Take us to questions. Are we asking for it to come back with new language so that we are approving the new language? Are we asking are we are you is what's being proposed a approval of the lease with staff executing the following recommendations? Because those are two things. Speaker 1: The latter. Speaker 5: The latter. Okay. Speaker 1: Because because I just answered your question. I think we've given sufficient direction to the city attorney. And I think. Speaker 0: His his. Speaker 1: Assurances were. Speaker 0: Complete, at least to me. Speaker 5: It's going to play out in a couple. So I have a couple of other I think I think other things I heard was that I would like to see in this something that requests that the water that that as a part of the state water board analysis that we are specifically asking them if we were going to move this forward that we specifically asked them to include, not limit their analysis to algae blooms and long term multi year impacts of warmth to the water. Yeah. So then the next one is going to be weekly ongoing monitoring and reporting. I think, you know, we are I guess what I want to what I have heard from the applicant is that they are very concerned about the environment and that is a core value of their endeavor and whatever from the council is. We do not want to be the council that develops the killer algae bloom of the you know, the great killer al the algae bloom of the 2020. And so I think, you know, at least for the first five years, there needs to be some sort of weekly ongoing monitoring because we don't know what the long term you know, I think we can model what we think the long term impacts are, but there needs to be. The reason I ask the question of whether we're giving staff direction or not is to the Councilmember Village Point. It probably would make sense for us to be a little bit. I guess. I don't know if staff feels they have the. Sense of the council in terms of what we want monitored. Exactly right. And and the reason I say that is because I'm not sure I could tell you right now. So it might be that we need to come in without apologies, come back with with with something. And then the last one is that we definitely talked about and it may be in here and I missed it, but it report back to the council after the state water board gives the clearance before the end. You're off. Right. So there's there's a check in here to make sure that there is agreement. So you I think those are the four conditions I've heard related to the environment, that that if something was going to go forward, I think it's probably the only way that it would be able to go forward and. Speaker 10: Mr. O'Connor So what I think I understand and what I might suggest is that the items that you identified are the things that you definitely want us to monitor. But I also think that we're going to learn a lot from the state water board about what their concerns would be and to be able to identify what things we're going to be monitoring in addition to the items that you listed. And then I think that we could also add another layer of protection for us by consulting with our environmental consultant who helps us with bass cleanup on what he might suggest that we monitor or test based on the operations. And then we have yet another layer that we could add on. And we have a biologist that helps us with some projects with the endangered species. And so we have we have some resources. We could put together a list of of what we would be monitoring so that you could get a pretty extensive report on on what's happening out there. Speaker 5: So so for me, we're monitoring with the idea that if something is found that that water is shut off, not we're going to spend another couple of months trying to figure this out. Right. We find my assumption is we're going forward with the idea that everybody is feeling very confident there will not be bad out. You know, I'm going to call it bad algae, but algae, you know, toxic, toxic algae. Something shows up and, hey, there's toxic algae, boom, we're shutting it off. We're not going to spend another three months saying, don't worry, we're tweaking the pipes and whatever else and the toxic algae is growing and whatever else. So my my question with what you just said sounds fantastic. Is the applicant sitting there going great? Well, Senator, you know, we're ready to move forward with the least developed list in the future. And whatever you put on the list is just fine and that will be acceptable to shut. Ah, you know, like shut it, you know, throw the kill. Speaker 8: Switch. All of that is perfectly fine with us because that's what the regulators would require us in any event and to have you include in all of that. The only thing I would note that we work together. It needs to be standards based. Yes. We just can't shut down because somebody thinks there's something going on. And so whatever language you're working on, I just hope we can all appreciate. Let's agree that there's a standard behind it, otherwise. Otherwise we could, you know, we're just in an unmanageable situation. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Thank you. And Mr. McCann, I just want to comment. I, I did. I did. I, I, I really like your suggestion of consulting with both the environmental consultant we've used around me the point and also the biologist, because they may see this and come up with things that we hadn't even contemplated tonight. So I think that's good since, you know, the question was asked, could we have the Sierra Club do this? My problem with that is the Sierra Club is an organization of individuals. I think we need to have measurable standards. I understand Bccdc and the State Water Control Board, when it comes to the secret process, there's certainly the opportunity or at any time they can comment. But I, I don't I don't think I can support adding the Sierra Club as a list of entities to to check this off. Speaker 5: I mean, I guess for me, I don't necessarily mean that they're going to rate our things. But I think as the the one organization that's written in with concerns, if they were able to speak, say, to the biologists and say here are concerns, the biologists might be able to help find some standards to make sure that we're not going towards those things. Speaker 1: Well, certainly their correspondence can be shared. I'm assuming they raise their concerns and they're certainly can do do that. Mr. McConnell, share their correspondence. Speaker 10: Yes. And I also would just like to add that I think that once I think we all have a lot of education to raise around this issue because of all of the anxiety that we feel about it. And so I believe that the communication that about standards, about monitoring and everything that we learn can come back to the council via the city manager to city manager communication. I'm happy to just give you more than you ever want to know about inflow and outflow and what the regulators say about it so that we can kind of feel good about this as we're moving forward. Speaker 5: Okay. Can I ask one last. Speaker 1: One last question related to that. Speaker 5: Will there be an opportunity within that communication if the council says, ooh, I've got a problem with that, I guess, right? That's only meaningful if the council can say I have a problem with that, add this or change this, or we've got to stop this project. This isn't working. Speaker 10: Out. So okay. I think the. Speaker 5: Fact that you guys are having to say and I want to be clear, the project applicant and the city are arguing over what what objective standards are and can't come to an agreement. There might be a point in time. That's where I'm just a little worried about having this, like, yeah, just create a list and whatever is on the list. I want to make sure that the end of the day is the leaseholders who are raising the concern that we have the. Ability to say, yes, that's the right list or no, that's not the right list and it's not moving forward until this thing is on the list. Speaker 10: I would say that if we're arguing over the standard of the list, that and we have the recommendations from our biologist and our environmental consultant that there shouldn't be any argument. It should be the cities cities requirements. Speaker 3: But but just be. Speaker 1: Clear, Mr. Leavitt. Speaker 3: Just to be clear. Vice Mayor Knox Why? Speaker 7: You're just saying that you want to believe that if we're going back and forth on the standards, on the standard objective criteria, that if there's disagreement that there is ability to move that. Speaker 3: Back to the council. Speaker 5: Oh yeah. If if there's at that at that point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 3: We can definitely do that. We can make sure that's in there. Speaker 10: Okay. And I would envision that this is going to be a process. So you'll be getting information as we move along and and happy to get feedback and questions and and to to craft it in a way that that works for us. I mean, this is our property. Speaker 1: And you said, Councilman Brody, you had your hand up. Speaker 3: Thank you. I was going to just get my comments. So to me, this is a risk versus reward type of analysis. And to me, the risks still totally outweigh the rewards. So I'm not going to support it. We're talking about the environmental risks, so I'm not going to rehash those. But it all the remedy seems to be trust us, we won't let that happen. And if it does, trust the agencies. Yet at the same time, you know, in one presentation today, one presentation last time, and in the letter to the Sierra Club, there's name dropping of Gavin Newsom and Betty. So, I mean, I'm not saying there's any problem with the state regulators, but, you know, the name dropping is a little off putting to me as someone who worked in the state. So and then, you know, some of the regulatory agencies miss it and we still do something bad to the environment, then we'll shut down. It just seems like the risk on that is, well, one, the risk that the environmental problem happens and then too, that it's going to be extremely costly either in litigation or clean up or undoing this lease. That that to me is just not that's not an accept amount of risk I'm willing to take. So and then the other, you know, reward I hear is will we get to, you know, lease a property in in the middle of the enterprise zone? But then the risk on that is that and as staff has been telling us that, you know, long term leases or options to buy of that property are not in the vision or not in the plan yet. This one basically, you know, by the time this lease expires, I'll be 80 years old if I'm still here. So I don't look that old now, but that's a long time. So we're basically tying up the prime property right in the middle of the enterprise zone for 25 years. And to me, the risk on that is that we're going to lose the opportunity to develop something even better there. And everyone's been saying, well, this is, you know, we don't want this type of use. We don't want that type of use. We don't want, you know, minimal job creators. We want maximum job creators. We want a campus. We want tech. We want something shiny, something glass. Well, we're not going to get that if we tie up this building for 25 years. So then the the analysis is, well, okay, but we're going to benefit AMP. Well, and I appreciate that we had the the comments from Mr. Bang are put it in the agenda because I think he kind of debunked a lot of those those myths. I mean the purpose of Alameda point and and our leasing structure shouldn't be to increase revenue for rent for AMP it should be to increase or take care of the well one create jobs and to take care of the infrastructure. And I guess we have the dif but you know, we're not going to see hardly any of it in the first 25 years and then we're not going to see the other of it unless there's two extensions. So when you look at it in the big picture, it's really not a lot of money we're going to see . And then the idea that somehow this is going to create a greener, you know, amp by 2020, as Mr. Banger points out, all of AMP is going to be green, all of it's going to be renewable. So we're not going to create a better source of renewable energy on the island. And I just I'm just not there. And, you know, there's the reward that the trades are going to be able to, you know, do this construction, but the trade to be able to build whatever is built out there. I mean, I personally think that building needs to be torn down after going through that tour and seeing the shape of that building and seeing the position of it in the middle of the enterprise zone. You know, I don't really think we should be spending our time trying to lease that. We should be trying to sell that property and develop something, you know, pardon the trite word at 11:30 p.m.. Something nice. And I don't know how a building with no walls that needs a new roof, $6 million worth of work really is going to be the catalyst to that to that side beat that enterprise zone because we didn't see any market case studies or market reports or analysis that says data centers. Suddenly you put a data center in and all of a sudden all this tech sprouts out around it. I mean, this is the cloud now. You know, we don't need to have people right next to each other. So I didn't even see that it was a, you know, hypothetical was a hope. Maybe it was a business model from 15, 20 years ago, I'm not sure. But I'm just not here on this and I'm not going to be supporting it. And, you know, I think we can do a lot better. Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Feller, did you wish to comment? Speaker 11: Yeah. There's a lot of things that I'm not okay with currently in the first place, so all kind of started. I think that the concept of monitoring is completely unacceptable to me. So if there were any monitoring going on, I don't think it's for the first five years. And frankly, I think the build up over time, if it weren't, I think that the monitoring needs to continue throughout the duration of the lease, not just for a short period of time. I think that much like with other projects, the applicant should be paying for monitoring, but somebody else should be in charge of it. Um, insofar as we talked about standard and 20 to 7 standard, but I'm, you know, it may see our problem is there have been other questions raised. I think that, you know, we need to have a fair conversation about what the standards are, because I think what we're concerned about and what other entities may be concerned about , maybe different things that are and I think biased. So I would actually want to have, you know, a community discussion about what the standards are. I think it's great that we can consult the specialists that we work with and get their input, perhaps setting up a meeting with the interested community members and groups and the people that we already work with to see what standards might make sense for me if something I'd be interested in and support and frankly, that I would want to have for coordination here. I'm very concerned. Not one little thing. And actually three five 3529 is the climate. So he's talking about one building, not three buildings, and we're talking about roughly 85,000 square feet in the enterprise zone. And that's creating very little jobs long term. So we've talked about this before. I'm actually not okay with the the lease option, the renewal option. I don't think we're getting 7.5% death rate in the workplace because we're tying the property for, you know, a quarter century. Speaker 1: So, Mr. Keller, if I if I could just make an inquiry of you because it's almost 1130 and I'm also mindful of not giving you out too late. But I think I'm hearing that you're a no vote and that Councilmember Ody is a no vote as well. Speaker 11: So if I'm laying out what I would want if I'm not saying no, I'm saying these are the things that I want. I heard everybody else kind of go through what they want and believe. These are the things that I find like. Speaker 1: Okay, I'm in the I believe Mr. McConnell said that it would be the state water board that would do the monitoring. And the Nautilus representatives said they're happy to bear that cost. You want it to be more than five years? I think that's a reasonable suggestion. But but if you're saying we can't go forward until we'd had the community conversation, I don't know how we can move forward tonight unless you're saying that in some particular standard. Speaker 11: But people are doing something. I think that there can be a compensation of what many are not. Right. And secondly, we're talking about perhaps consulting with our biologists and. Speaker 0: Our other folks. Oh, okay. Speaker 1: Got it. Speaker 11: And then you have a conversation on this as part okay. Speaker 1: As part of that community conversation. That's what you were referring to that with. Okay. Got it. It's it's it's hard not having you in the room. There's something about being able to see somebody, but. Okay. I'm understanding. Go ahead. Speaker 11: You know, my concern is the usage of I guess it by my name, you know, these green goals. I am concerned about the amount of consumption and pressure being put on our overall system. One of the things that we've heard is about the impacts where system operators that monitor these lines are line workers and everything else. I think it's great that AMP management is fully on board for for having this happen. But I also, if you're talking about 40% of the current load, that's substantial. And you know, I don't know that we want our staff to handle that kind of increase and to tell you about your plan for it and whether or not we actually have the ability to staff up to meet those needs. So I do have concerns about that and partially why that and the fact that we're talking about so much square footage in the enterprise councilmember only point I'd be fine to initially, but two options I want to support two options. So to expand, I don't think that there's enough there for us. And just looking at development timelines and things like that, I wouldn't want to hold the property up for that long. Speaker 1: So you wouldn't support or you wouldn't support two options to extend, but you would support one. Speaker 11: One five year option is on the park. Speaker 1: So the 15 year lease plus five years. So 20 total. Speaker 11: Yeah. And we're talking about I mean some of the technology, you know, the technology is constantly evolving from the start. Before not even know you 15 or 20 years, you're going to need to a program that size we're running that level you know. Speaker 1: Okay. So I am seeing a thumbs up from the Nautilus representative. Was that the thumbs up to the wench? Come on up to the microphone. Speaker 8: So all of that is perfectly acceptable. I would just note that in terms of the consultation, that's exactly what the secret process will do. And so if we are able to move forward to the secret process, that is where all the regulatory requirements are discussed and all the requirements that aren't focused on by the regulators. And so and so for us, we need the approval of the conditional lease in order to initiate all those processes where we're in a catch 22. And so and so I really, you know, we would appreciate just the first step of getting the conversation initiated in the forms that are designed to do exactly what it is that everyone's been discussing. Because I would note, again, we share we are 100% aligned as to as to the end outcome of this. So thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Um. Speaker 0: Can I ask? Speaker 1: So the vice mayor. Speaker 5: I just want to clarify that what Councilmember Vela is asking and what I was talking about, as well as a community, is a city led community discussion with the consultant and biologist or whatnot, not giving the community an opportunity to write letters to a secure process. I just what I heard at the diocese or at the podium and I think what was requested, I just want to make sure that there was clarity on that. Can I ask Councilmember Vella it? I've written down all the different conditions. I'm not clear how to write a condition related to your AMP concern. It was that just a statement or was that a we have to do X in the in the lease. Speaker 11: So that's it. I mean, I have a concern about that legislation that wouldn't be negotiated with the Raiders and come here. You know, one of the things that we talked about was the increase in policing that we needed. And I don't I don't think we've had that conversation with AMP about how they actually plan on drafting up. You're talking about 40% of our current load. I mean, that's right. Speaker 5: So I guess the question I'm asking is, if we're if we're talking about. You said you were. With the right conditions, ready to approve the lease. But that sounds like there's a conversation that before we could we could make that. Speaker 1: I would just I would add that. So I was in Washington, D.C. last week with Nick Operacoes and two members of the Public Utility Board for the Northern California Power Association Conference and some lobbying on the Hill. And he is very supportive of this. And he and the PBE have given lots of thought to this. They this is not something that is an afterthought. And so, I mean, we certainly want to know that our other aid, other departments are, you know, well-run. I, I do think that the due diligence has been done. And we. Speaker 0: Think. Speaker 11: That, yeah, we know that our system operators are currently understaffed. They're currently working on significant amount of overtime, and we're talking about ramping up. They're the ones that monitor the system. 24 seven So if a power outage or a disruption program that we do rely on. I also know that we've been having a hard time maintaining apprentices and getting them up to the journeyman position. Um. With regard to the Green Line, we're talking about adding in a significant amount of, you know, lines out there and everything else. I want to know what the plan is, but I think the vice mayor is going to find at the end of the night considerable amount of. But what I. Speaker 1: Actually I'm the mayor. Speaker 11: The vice mayor was asking, what did I what would my thoughts on, you know, how to try to get there? You know, I do want to get a report back from and at some point I then, you know, to say that he put a lot of thought into this, I would like to know what the actual rollout plan is, how we plan on standing up for a 40% increase. Speaker 1: And I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry we weren't able to address that question when we were in closed session with Mr. Perot, cos he's not here tonight. But if that's a question that your vote hinges on, then I'm afraid we can't answer you tonight if it's something you want consultation with as part of this community conversation. Speaker 5: I heard her say that she wanted a request. She went to request a report back from Apple on how they're going to handle it, but not necessarily contingent on moving forward with this. Is that correct? Councilmember Bell? Speaker 1: Correct. Sorry. Sorry. I must have missed that. Speaker 11: Yeah. And then the other thing, the second option I'm not supportive of. Speaker 1: And the second option? Speaker 5: Only do one five year option, not two. Speaker 1: Yeah, we already got. We got agreement on that. Okay. Are we ready to take a vote? Because we've got three more items to cover. But I think we've also covered this extensively. Okay. Speaker 5: Can I ask one last question? Speaker 1: You can. And I think we may actually have a. Okay. Before you ask questions, let's hear from the the legal team here. Speaker 7: The the question and it was raised and I'm not sure that we got a clear answer if the council moves ahead with approving tonight is staff directed to include in the lease the comments which have been made and then we will just go forward based on that? Or does the council want to see that language before the sort of final vote on the lease is taken? I think we need that. Speaker 1: Okay. I and I thought that I heard Mr. Makana read back to us, which she understood, and that that was sufficient to you. Is that your. Speaker 0: Understanding? Speaker 5: I mean, I think that's a part of the question is, is the motion to give. What I heard was the motion was to give direction to address these and that it didn't need to come back. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I heard, too, so. Speaker 0: Okay, but now. Well. Speaker 1: Jody. Speaker 0: I have a. Speaker 3: Question. I mean, is it going to come back in second reading on modified or come back modified? And I still get to ask questions, even though I'm not going to support it. I mean, I know what you were going to say. Speaker 0: You do so. Speaker 3: And I think, you know, I have still 2 minutes left. Speaker 7: So it's it is an ordinance which needs a second read. And what what I'm I guess what what I'm asking is if there's if there's four votes to sort of move ahead with this, I think the the better course of action would then would be to bring the ordinance back with these revisions for the first reading. Speaker 0: The first reading. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, I think we need to do whatever is most legally correct. But but it will be it will come back and it will be. I mean, does it open it up to something? Is it going to be on consent? Speaker 7: It will be it will be a regular agenda item, because we will need to have the council introduce the ordinance. So there will be a chance for the people to speak about the lease again, just like we did a couple or three weeks ago now or something. But that will give the council the opportunity then to see what language has been drafted. Okay. My concern is that given the time frame, we may not get this back to you on the 21st. But that's I mean, that's yeah. That's just the turnaround time. Right. And plus, your May 21st agenda has rent control on it, which may take some time. Yeah. So we, you know, we're just sort of how we will bring this back as quickly as we can. But obviously, there has to be some drafting. Certainly the applicant is going to want to have some input in terms of what the language says, but we will get it back to you as quickly as we can. Speaker 1: Well, and I think for a number of reason that that works out, because then you'll also have an opportunity to address some of the questions that have been raised tonight in this draft. Speaker 7: And try to translate what's in the leaked document itself. Speaker 1: Your next. Just a minute. Speaker 0: Okay. Yes. Speaker 5: As we put that plan in action, I just want to point out, we have somebody on the phone right now who is going to this requires four votes. Yeah. We currently if I were to read the votes have four votes plus Mr. Odey. Yeah. Speaker 1: It's about to go over. Speaker 5: One of the four votes is about to leave. So I just want to write to you. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 5: This could become a. Am I putting. Speaker 1: Yeah, I got it. And so can I, if I could just ask. So hearing that as a good reminder, is there any way you could see the structure that so that this is a first reading? I mean, I don't I well. Okay. And there's a. Speaker 0: The if I. Speaker 1: Misspell it. Speaker 11: I didn't plan on not being up at the meeting and what I mean and one final the really going into labor and you plan on calling the upcoming meeting. So I, I want to make that clear. I'm fine with this coming back after first reading, I, I think that some of we've given them a lot to put into at least. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 11: And I think it's that we certainly rather than draft or. Speaker 0: You know we. Speaker 11: That we're talking about a 78 pages so I'm a little hesitant to find a draft or find a way to make it fit within the first reading. And I think that gives us the opportunity also to have Nico come back and be present to collect a little bit on the plan. Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know Mr. Bercow's schedule, but I will say, and by the way, the 78 pages of the list are not all necessary to. I've gone through that. A lot of that is boilerplate language that's in every release. But I you know, it's probably a stretch to make this a first reading with staff direction. I can just read your face, Mr. Roush. Speaker 0: It's okay. Speaker 7: I would not. I would not recommend it. Speaker 1: I got you. I Mr. Levitt, did you want to comment? Speaker 5: No, I would agree. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay, Attorney. Speaker 1: We have a person in the second. All right. Okay. So in that case, we have, um. Do we need a further motion at this time? Speaker 7: Let's. Well, I think we would like to. I think from staff's point of view that, I mean, maybe there is a consensus there's for the time. And if that's the case, then we will proceed accordingly without necessarily a vote. If that's if that's a fair characterization of a fair. Speaker 1: Fair point. Because we don't want to put everyone through this excruciating exercise only to come back and have it fail. So it's. So do you want a vote to approve us going forward with a modified ordinance or. Speaker 7: I'd like. I think it would be helpful for us if there was a vote to direct staff to return to the Council with a revised list that encompasses the discussion that the council has made tonight, I think. Thank you. As a for one, I think that will be okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Got it. Do I have such a motion? Speaker 3: Actually, I could second that one because it's just to bring back revised lease. Speaker 1: I have a second. All in favor. I missed it. Oh, I. That's five, right. Speaker 2: Okay. Technically, four other actions will roll. Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry. You know what? In the clinic, this is what happened to me late at night. Because we have a member who's not in the room. We actually have to go by a roll call vote. So we had a motion by Councilmember de Saka, second by Councilmember O.D. and now we're going to vote out, start wherever you want. Speaker 2: Councilmember said. I'm not. Speaker 0: Quite. I yes. La Bella. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Speaker 2: Mia as. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 2: Then. Speaker 1: All right. All right. Thank you, everybody. So now we are moving on. Does anybody need a break? We need a five minute break. Okay, but really, 5 minutes. We are keeping people up way past their bedtime. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: Why don't any of them are here any more? Speaker 11: Because this. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So we are. Speaker 1: We have a couple more items to here. My suggestion is we're now on six C and this is adoption of the fiscal year Community Development BLOCK Grant Partnership Investment Action Plan, etc.. I am going to respectfully suggest that we dispense with this staff report. I understand that we do have speaker slips and I understand that they have committed to speaking really fast. And and I first of all, I apologize for keeping you out this late. Sometimes, you know, you can look an agenda and go, oh, how long could you know? It's mostly just regular agenda items. How long would it take? Well, you never know is the answer, but you do. This is a very important program and you do important work. So let's call you up. You've got 3 minutes, but don't feel that you have to take your full 3 minutes. But you have our rapt attention. Okay, Madam Clerk. Speaker 2: There's five speakers and Stan Ashbrook, Alison, Diane, Aaron Scott, Liz Varella. And we think Catherine Schwartz left and Angie Larson has Watson. Speaker 0: Okay? Speaker 1: Yeah. Come on up. Sure. Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Dan Ashbrook. I'm the development director for Legal Assistance for Seniors. And of course, I want to thank you for your support and ongoing support. And briefly, I just want to say the importance of this funding cannot be understated. Speaker 8: Especially as we all. Speaker 3: Know, more and more seniors are entering our social service systems, the increased senior population, as well as challenging socioeconomic conditions. I just want to say that this funding will help us address elder abuse involving financial exploitation, domestic violence, or neglect. Health law. Advocacy for seniors falling through through the cracks of our Medicare and medical systems. Senior immigrant legal service services to assist in obtaining citizenship, public benefits. Protection to ensure our seniors have access to entitlements which keep them financially independent, legal guardianship advice, education and court representation for those caring for other other children. Speaker 8: And also the launch of our Housing Legal Services to. Speaker 3: Prevent senior evictions. And then finally, a series of community education. Speaker 7: Programs and very. Speaker 3: Importantly. Speaker 7: Our Medicare counseling, as. Speaker 3: We do our high cap counseling through the domestic senior center. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you so much. Just over a minute. Okay. Next speaker. Speaker 2: We have Alison and then Erin. Hi. Hi. Good evening. Speaker 1: I'm Alison DeYoung. And I'm the. Speaker 0: Executive director of even INR, which is the nonprofit that operates 211 Alameda. Speaker 2: County. I've spoken before, mostly before. Speaker 6: Just a quick. Speaker 2: Reminder, 211 is the three digit dialing code available, 24 seven in multiple. Speaker 6: Languages to connect people. Speaker 0: To health, housing and human services. Speaker 2: I'm going to dispense with a lot of stuff. I'm just going to also remind you just some updates from the past year. We are the county wide call center for the coordinated entry system, which the county rolled out about 18 months ago. Speaker 6: To serve people in a housing crisis, literally homeless folks. Speaker 2: 211 screens callers. Speaker 6: To ensure that they meet HUD's. Speaker 2: Definition of literal homelessness and then. Speaker 6: Warm transfer them to one of the housing resource centers. Speaker 2: Since we launched. Speaker 6: We have screened and transferred a total of 383. Speaker 0: Callers to the Mid County West Housing Resource. Speaker 6: Center, which includes Alameda. The only other thing I'll just share updates. Speaker 2: From the past year we've migrated to a new cloud based phone system that also has a number of enhancements. Speaker 0: We've launched two way texting. I'm very happy to announce we're sort of in a pilot phase with that. Speaker 2: And we're partnering with cities. Speaker 0: As you saw in the letter, on a sort of. Speaker 6: A. Speaker 2: Different funding model, which comes with some enhancements, including data visualization. Speaker 6: Disaster preparedness trainings and embedding. Speaker 2: Our online resource. Speaker 6: Directory on the city website. So thank you for your ongoing support. Speaker 1: Thank you for your good work. Next speaker. Speaker 2: Scott and then Liz. Speaker 0: Brook. Good evening, I think. Yes, almost. Good morning. Aaron Scott, the executive director of the Family Violence Law Center. Thank you for your ongoing support. We provide legal services for domestic violence survivors, as all of you I know are aware. One new thing I just want to make you aware of is that we have recently received a grant from the state to provide more direct services around housing, keeping people stably housed. And so we have a new case manager position and an in-house attorney. So not only are we going to be able to provide help with restraining orders and other limited family law matters. But we now have an attorney in-house who specializes in housing and housing matters so she can help people with evictions, keeping people in subsidized housing, etc.. So thank you again for your ongoing support. Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Under one minute now Liz, really top that. Speaker 6: Thank you so much for your support of Midway Shelter once again this year. This funding is really core to keeping our shelter running and going. One thing that's new this year is us really connecting with our services to outreaching to folks on the street to are starting the warming shelter this year in our office on the base we've really made a connection between those three and we hope to do more this next year. So thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you so much for all you do. Speaker 2: And then I believe Kathryn's not here, so I think it's A.A.. Speaker 0: I can make Liz take it away. Speaker 6: So. Hello, I'm Angie Watson, Hugill, and I am the peer housing coordinator for Echo Housing. We are the young fair housing and today landlord program that serves the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: We investigate discrimination complaints in housing, and we work with tenants in which they know what their rights are. Speaker 1: And we. You really. Speaker 0: Are about keeping people in their housing, making sure that they have their rights and that they. Speaker 6: Have support to keep and build this place. And we thank you so much. For 11 years you supported. Speaker 0: Echo Housing and thank you so much for your continued. Speaker 1: Support. Thank you. And really to all of you, we can't thank you enough for all you do. And our community, we've seen it up close and personal and you're all awesome. All right. So what we're looking for is a motion to adopt the fiscal year 20 1920 CDBG Home Action Plan and authorize city manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements, grant modifications and other related documents at funding levels approved by Congress to have a motion. Is that a motion or comment? Speaker 3: I want to make 10 seconds just to thank everyone for staying, and your dedication to this work is amazing. Also staying till midnight to speak about it and I wish we could do more, but I'd like to move approval of that item. Speaker 1: I have a motion to have a second. Speaker 5: I will second that and Councilmember Ortiz comments and also just apologize that you've had to rush through this. At the end of the day, it does. It's not a reflection of our appreciation for all the work you do. Thank you so much. Speaker 1: Councilmember Vela. Do I hear you up there? Out there? Speaker 11: I'm ready to support this. Speaker 1: All right. So then we've got a motion in second. All in favor. I'm sorry. It's a roll call vote, Madam Clerk. Sorry. Speaker 2: I'll get to say hi. Nice. Like I O.D.. Speaker 0: Yes. That La. Speaker 2: Mer as. Speaker 0: I try to. Speaker 1: Make a transcontinental phone call. Thank you, everyone. Okay, that motion passes now. The next. The next item is six D. And again, we're in a speed contest. Ma'am? Madam Clifford, do you want to introduce that one?

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Fifteen-Year Lease with Two Five-Year Options to Extend, Substantially in the Form of the Attached, with Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, for Building 530, an 82,251-Square Foot Building Located at 120 West Oriskany Avenue, and the Adjacent Building 529, a 3,200-Square Foot Building, and Building 600, a 343-Square Foot Building, at Alameda Point. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Base Reuse 819099) [Continued from April 2, 2019 to May 7, 2019; please note: public comment was closed on April 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6665

Speaker 1: All right. Okay. Then we moved to Webster Street, and with that, Councilmember Odessa moves out. And, Madam, quickly, you introduce this item. Speaker 2: Public hearing to consider adoption resolution firming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area Assessment Report for fiscal year 2019 and 2020, leaving the annual assessment. Speaker 1: Okay. So do have any public speakers? No. No. Okay. Speaker 5: Any approval of confirming the Webster by a report for fiscal year 1920 and levying an annual assessment on Webster Street by second? Speaker 1: And we have a motion in 2 seconds. Okay. And we're going to do a roll call vote. Speaker 2: Councilman, nicely. Speaker 0: I. Yes. Speaker 2: Vela Mayor, as I. Right. Speaker 1: Thank you. Also and bring Councilman de sag in from the cold. Okay. So thank you again, everyone, I we owe you. I will take you out to lunch or something. All right. So our next and last regular agenda item is has to be done at a regular meeting.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Assessment Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA. (Community Development 256)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6769

Speaker 1: And that is. Speaker 0: We need to approve the agreement. Speaker 1: Appointing Eben Shinn as our new city attorney, effective May 13, 2019. And I believe, Madam Kirk, do you need to read some specifics? Speaker 2: Take it away in accordance with the Government Code Section 5495333. A summary of the city attorney's salary and benefits is reported as follows The yearly salary for the city attorney will be 247,000. The city attorney will also receive a monthly transportation allowance of $500 and an annual contribution to deferred compensation of $6,000. The city attorney will also receive a relocation allowance of $16,000, consistent with other executive management employees of the city of Alameda. The city attorney is eligible for health benefits, which include vision, dental and comprehensive medical insurance. Other benefits include life dependent life and disability insurance, as well as workers compensation. Paid time off includes 13.5 holidays. That sort of says, yeah, 64 hours of administrative leave, which can be cashed out if not used in an annual accrual of 200 hours of vacation for the benefits include classic CalPERS member retiree benefits and attack deferred savings plan. These benefits are set forth in the contract attached to the staff report. Speaker 1: All right. So we have what we need to do is approve the agreement, appointing even Shin as city attorney. Speaker 3: So moved. Speaker 1: All right. It's been moved in. Second roll call vote. Speaker 2: Councilmember de San Knox. Wait. Speaker 0: Hi. Yes, Vella, I. Speaker 2: Mayor, as I said, yay. Speaker 1: We approve the agreement unanimously. Thanks, everyone. Okay, number seven, City Manager Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Yibin Shen as City Attorney Effective May 13, 2019. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6736

Speaker 4: Thank you. I just have to. Basic questions and that has to do with the the exhibit seven which which was the memorandum of internal controls. And within that memorandum, there is a section called 2018 Dash three Purchasing Policy Compliance. And in that section, there are two sentence, two paragraphs. One, which went one payment was comprised of three vendor invoices totaling 1700 dollars that were individually below the threshold requiring a contract. But the city used the vendor throughout the fiscal year for various repairs. And cumulatively, those small contracts cumulatively totaled $129,800. And in a separate item, there was something similar where a vendor did work for 1300 dollars. But cumulatively, when you add it up, all the different contracts, cumulatively the amount of money spent on the second vendor was roughly to $296,000. So the basic question is, oh, by the way, for for purposes of background, for for the public. In these situations are called out within the memorandum of internal control because the city has a policy that requires the city as a council to sign off on certain contracts. And the the sign off occurs when a certain threshold occurs. But a dollar threshold, when that dollar threshold is exceeded, the council has to approve it. But in these instances, the memorandum is pointing out just two instances where someone has these very, very small contracts that if you look at it individually, you know, it doesn't surpass the threshold. But when you add them all together, suddenly it's a lot of money. So the question I have is, uh. Are we implementing fixes so that something like this doesn't happen again? And is that in place now? Speaker 6: Elena Darrah, finance director for the City. So, yes, we are attempting to fix it. There's a number of issues. Speaker 1: At hand here. One, we have quite a few brand new personnel which we need to train them the new on existing policies. Speaker 6: We also are aware that our current purchasing policy is not exactly up. Speaker 1: To up to par and we do need to revise it. Unfortunately, even though we do know it, we have had other projects in place that take higher priority and that has not happened. Speaker 6: The third item I would say currently there is nothing in the city right. Speaker 1: Now that we can use in terms of technology without manual work from staff to track each individual vendors as to how we. Speaker 6: How much we actually pay in total. Speaker 1: Nor is there a policy. Speaker 6: Or practice to determine, well, is it a rolling 12. Speaker 1: Months? Rolling five. Speaker 6: Years? Is it one fiscal year at the time? So that's part of the items that we would be looking at. Speaker 1: And when you look at the purchasing policy revisions, so there's a multitude of things that need to be looked at and determine how we want. Speaker 6: To proceed with. Speaker 1: That. But that's. Speaker 6: On our list. Speaker 1: To do. Speaker 4: With the implementation of the ERP, because I understand sometimes ERP help, it's not just human resources management but also contract management with the implementation of the ERP. Help in this regard. Speaker 1: We are all and I think I can speak for just about every single person in the city are looking. Speaker 6: Forward to a new ERP and contract management is one of the provisions to include one of the modules for the new system. Speaker 1: And we. Speaker 6: Are all hoping that that's going to. Speaker 1: Be part of our solution. It won't be the only solution, obviously, but yes, we're all looking forward to using that component of it. Speaker 4: Great. Well, thank you very much. With that, I'm satisfied with the staff presentation and the information. Put that in the report. And if no one, I would move. Speaker 0: I am. I mean, to add a comment, I just want to note that in the in this document, the report on that very same page that Councilmember De so was referencing, just for the public to know that management's response was included at the bottom of the page. And it's pretty much what Ms.. Elaina, Ms.. Header just told us, that city staff is aware of current purchasing policy deficiencies and have completed an assessment of citywide procurement processes and review of procedures. The next plan step or to redesign current process to provide for greater efficiencies. This purchasing policy and related city ordinance will be reviewed and proposed changes will be presented to the City Council for approval. So I have no doubt that once we get past the budget, some of those items will be coming to the council. Councilmember Desai Yeah, who. Speaker 4: Who are the entities that received these cumulative amounts that exceed the threshold significantly? Speaker 1: Actually I do have or ed here in the audience. So I'm going to ask her specifically to see if she's aware. Okay. Okay. Speaker 4: So if you just give us off at the end of that. Speaker 1: Of course, yes. Okay. All right. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So we have a motion for approval of and this is the consent calendar, the minutes and the recommendation to accept the audited financial position. We have a motion in second on favor. I oppose abstain and the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Right now we move to a regular city council meeting. Speaker 2: Roll Call has been noted. Five present. Speaker 0: Thank you. And before we get to the rest of the agenda, I just want to make an announcement that we have our new city manager, Eric Leavitt, here with us. This is his first council meeting and we're thrilled to have him on board. So please welcome Eric Levitt. All right. With that, do we have any did you want to say something? Do you want. Speaker 7: To? By the time. Speaker 1: I thought. Speaker 0: We were getting out. Oh, no, we're. I said, would you like to just say hello or whatever? Speaker 3: I want to thank the City Council for providing this opportunity. I'm excited. I've been here. Coming on. This will be the end about a week, week and a half, depending on your your your calculations. And I'm very excited. This is a very engaged community, very engaged city. And I think this is a great opportunity. I want to thank you very much. I'm excited to be all working in partnership with you and the community. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I will just note that Mr. Levitt's a really good sport, because on his very first day on the job, he went with me to the Alameda County Conference of Mayors meeting in Union City. And when I got in, he said, Do you want me to drive? Do you want to drive? And I said, I thought we'd take public transit. And I slapped him. And we walked across the street and we took AC Transit to the Fruitvale Station and we hopped on a BART train to Union City. That was a brand new BART stay, a BART train. And are they slick and quiet and smooth and have electronic screen that shows the map? On the way back, we got the old one that bounced in, you know, like a stagecoach. But he's, you know, saw the gamut. But anyway, I thought that was that was admirable. But we're looking forward to having you as our manager. So agenda changes. Oh, yes. Let's start with the city clerk. Speaker 2: My five d has been withdrawn and is going to come back at the next meeting. And unfortunately, now five P is also going to be brought back at the next meeting instead due to a wrong ordinance being posted and the RFP is still going to be issued next week. Speaker 0: So do you want to explain in a little more detail what those numbers the last five. Speaker 2: Legislative agenda is, D, and then the cannabis item is five. Speaker 0: P. And so the RFP for potential businesses will still go ahead and be issued, but the vote on the ordinances themselves has to come back because we always have to comply with the proper noticing.

Joint Consent Item

Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. [City Council/SACIC] (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6706

Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I am Liam Garland, your public works director. And by approving tonight's item, the city would be amending an agreement with Sky Consulting to conduct a comprehensive stormwater fee study. Oh, it would give us permission to go out and do a citywide community survey and do the underlying financial analysis to then come back to this body in late July and then again in October for a formal request to move forward with balloting. This is an issue we've touched upon quite a few times over the past two years. It's essentially that our stormwater fund, so the fund that enables us to sweep streets and clear storm drains operate stormwater pump stations. That fund is running on empty. We think by fiscal year 2021, there may be no funds left. Right now, we're operating on $1,000,000 deficit. Essentially, we've had a stormwater fee for a little bit more than a decade that has been flat. So as costs have increased, the fee has remained flat. And this is an opportunity to find out from our meetings their priorities when it comes to the stormwater fund and the programs it implements. If we were not to move forward tonight, then staff would have to take a closer look at where cuts would start because we can't go negative on the stormwater funds. So we'd likely look at street sweeping and storm drain maintenance as the areas where cuts might ensue. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. You may have. Speaker 0: Any questions from council? Speaker 7: Councilman Brody I mean, I pull this so I don't have an issue with like, you know, having a study or going through and surveying the community. My issue was that the proposed election, in my opinion, was inequitable because it excluded basically anyone who's not a property owner in Alameda. And I think if if there's going to be a fee assessed on property, which would ultimately be passed on to tenants at some point, that it should be an election that all Alameda INS take part of and not just property owners, including property owners who don't even live on the island. So just that's just my my concern with this whole timeline. Speaker 3: Would you like me to address the concerns as best I can? Speaker 0: Yes, I would. Well, I think that is would too, but I certainly with you. Speaker 3: Sure. So there are definitely pros and cons to various approaches to have tenants, for example, weigh in formally through a ballot would essentially mean a general election open to all registered voters in Alameda, and that would raise the cost of the election. And it would also move the threshold for success from 50% plus 1 to 2 thirds. Now, the wise as to that, why our legal and political structure in the state treats those different elections differently. That is way above my my pay grade. But that is one of the one of the cons with moving forward with the general election. The way that we're attempting to move forward to address some of that concern is in our outreach and citywide community survey. We want to get as much representation in that survey from folks who are not property owners. So to push out the survey online through a press release, through various community groups, to have folks who aren't necessarily property owners weigh in on the merits of moving forward. Speaker 0: Councilor, vice mayor. Not quite. Speaker 5: Yet. So two questions. I know that we are not approving the balloting tonight. Assuming that you've got a timeline to come back to us about an election. Is there a conversation at that point in time about how we would. Do the do the balloting? I mean, it seems like there is an option here, but we could at that time decide to pursue other election ideas if we wanted. Speaker 3: Yeah, let me think that through for a moment. So we would be back in front of council in this second meeting of June and July. And that is a pretty tight timeline. In order to have the balloting completed by the end of this calendar year. If there was to be a shift and we went to the general election, there would be discussions about the financials, about where that money would come from to fund that election. And we'd be looking at either it would have to be a special election and we'd be looking at either November of 2019 or the primary election in March of 2020 or jumping through till November of 2020. And yes, of course, that is up to the council's will at the second meeting of July. In terms of the ways to move forward, what I can do, given this discussion, is flesh those other options out with more detail and have those ready and shared with that council report at the second meeting of July, if that's the desire. Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 5: Sorry, have one other question. Yeah. ACI is going to reach out to 10,000 households and whatever else. I just want to I assuming we move forward, just know with the idea of balloting, how are we going to make sure? Are we going to make sure that the that we receive a actual statistically significant sample of the population and not just whoever, whichever of the 10,000 get back to us. Speaker 3: E we yes. So the results from this survey, we'd anticipate about 2 to 3000 responses and that will be a statistic, a statistically significant sample and so equivalent to what folks think of in terms of polling results that those are scientific surveys. Speaker 5: But we'll be making sure that because you can get 2 to 3000 people to respond, but they may not be demographically representative. Speaker 3: Representative, of course. Speaker 5: Yes. So we'll be comparing that to renters versus homeowners. I mean, that would be my expectation is when they come back, we will understand that the data that will be provided is statistically consistent with the demographics of our cities, so that we if we were to go forward with a cheaper, lower threshold ballot, we would know that we were doing so based on surveys that actually helped us understand that renters versus homeowners, etc., were adequately represented. Speaker 3: I'm sorry to interrupt. I now understand your question a little bit better. Let me give a fuller answer, which is the mailing to property owners. That will be a scientifically valid survey. The communications being pushed out to other non property owners that I can't guarantee that we're trying to solicit as much input from as many people as we can. And I can't I can't assure the scientific validity of that. We're hoping to get a big enough return that it looks pretty clear where aluminum is land or which categories of alum means land in a certain place. But that I couldn't guarantee. Does that make sense? Speaker 5: It makes sense. Yeah, I. I'll wait to see the results. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai, an area that I'm going to say something and council member disagree. Speaker 4: So for purposes of the public is one of the objectives of the surveying to get at the nature of the fee that might be contemplated when it comes to the stormwater fee. For example, what I mean by nature is, you know, summer, summer house or whatever, the old one of his departments is more than 200 units, but they pay. When you look at their assessor, they pay $298 towards the hospital. So this is a large apartment project, but it's on one parcel and it pays $298 where and I pay $298 for my one parcel. So it is a nature of the survey to get at the whether or not there there is receptivity to making sure that the fee is scaled to the intensity of use. Or do we already know from the outset, you know, that that we want to. Speaker 3: We don't the survey is a part of its purpose is to figure out the tolerance for various fee adjustments. And so it gets at that question. Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: And council member. Speaker 7: So I heard the answer to the vice mayor's a question that we would reevaluate this in July. But, you know, the staff report says by approving this a contract amendment, we will proceed according to the timeline below. And the timeline below does not give a decision point. It basically outlines proceeding with a election that, in my opinion, disenfranchizes over half of our voters. So I mean, is there some flexibility in this? And if we if we did have a decision point in July, would it still be a contract at this rate? Hundred and 66,000 or. I have another thing. Speaker 0: And Mr. Garland, if you could hold your answer, which is to me and I'd like to hear from our city manager, Mr. Levitt. Speaker 3: Mayor, as a Ashcraft and Councilmember Ody, I would recommend what you would do is just change the motion and just say direct to come back in July with the report or if it ends up moving to September by, let's say July with the report at that time providing options of how you would move forward with election, I would just revise the motion in that way. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 0: I think that's an inspired suggestion. And I. Speaker 7: I wasn't finished. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes. Okay. That's right. Speaker 7: Thank you. I appreciate that. That input from our new city manager working already in the first hour of his first meeting. I just still have a fundamental problem with I know it's easier. I know it's cheaper. But the right to vote here is not come cheap, is not come free to people, has not come easy. People have died. People have bled. We fought a civil war. We fought a revolutionary war. We fought fascism. And I just don't think it's something we should take away because it's easier and cheaper and disenfranchizing half of our over half of our voters are renters. And to me, it's just a slap in the face to us as the only renter on this council that we're not going to have a say in this. So I will make a motion. I think I'm going to make the motion. So then you guys could decide if you want a second hit with the suggestions by our city manager that in July we have a decision point. Speaker 0: Yeah. And we'd like to hear from the acting city attorney, Mr. Ash. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. I would just also add that. That I think that we would want to take a look at the various timelines concerning the election. We may need to bring something back to the Council before July. If we're going to look at a a an election that doesn't necessarily involve property owners. There's some timelines there. There may be a need to have the election only at the general election. The issue about majority versus two thirds. There's a number of issues that that will flow from that decision, and we may need to have that decided before a July date, because that gets pretty close to a cutoff date if you were going to have a special election, for example, in November. So not saying that we will, but I want to just keep that option open so that we can have a further discussion with Liam's office and come back with something more definite to the council. To supplement that, we'd have to have ballot language ready and approved and then delivered to the county by early August. So that would necessitate, I think, some action before then. Speaker 0: Okay. I didn't hear a second to the motion, so I'm going to make my comment now. I appreciate every thing, the comments we've heard. I also want to caution against conflating two issues that I think both deserve our serious attention, and that is we do need to protect our renters and and our residents. But it's very important giving them the opportunity to perhaps vote down this assessment because they fear it would raise their rent. It might be a possibility, but it could be short sighted. And one of the other things we have to consider as a council is what this means for our city in terms of protecting our information infrastructure , our ability to respond and be prepared for a sea level rise. And as far as a special election, I don't know about the rest of my colleagues. I can say having just come off of one, I'm certainly not excited about doing another one this year any time soon. But that is I do I do think that our new city managers will stop calling you new after the next meeting or so. But I think the and the suggestion is is an inspired one. But again, that last meeting in July then takes us into the August recess. So we wouldn't be coming back until September. I guess so. So Council. What's your pleasure? Yeah, Vice Mayor. Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 5: I'm assuming we don't have any public speakers. Oh, right. Speaker 2: Well, you you didn't have any, and one was just requested, but you've already made a motion, so I. Speaker 5: Know that's why I'm not seconding the motion yet. I think we should take the public view. Speaker 0: Yeah, okay. I guess. You know, I didn't ask if there was public comment. Speaker 2: There wasn't the motion, though. Speaker 0: So we'll make a little exception here, because I didn't maybe if you heard me call for public comment, that would have. Speaker 2: Oh, it's Ruth. Abby. Speaker 0: I thought it might be. Hi. Come on at Miss Abby. Ever use the microphone and we could all hear you. Speaker 8: Sorry to butt in. So I'm Ruth Abby with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. I am coming up to speak in favor of going forward with the study but also to go forward with a property tax assessment. Speaker 1: And a property vote. Speaker 8: I think that what you have to take into consideration is that, you know, what are the consequences of not spending this money? What are the consequences are not asking your residents to to pay for this fee to to have a general. Speaker 1: Election, which requires. Speaker 8: A two thirds vote. Speaker 1: Which is. Speaker 8: Extremely difficult to pass, means that you would not be really favoring the idea of this. Speaker 1: Stormwater fee. Speaker 8: And so if you really think that's what you want and you want to put that level of scrutiny of a two thirds vote to out to our public, that's a really heavy lift for us. And it requires a huge effort on the campaign. Right. So it's possible to do it would really strain a lot of resources of NGOs and others who would have to get involved in it. And the question is, isn't it what we all want? I mean, can't we find out through surveys and through other measures and outreach and education that this is what we want from our public, that we actually want to protect ourselves from sea level rise and flooding. So, you know, maybe it's not as hard of a of of a case that I want to make, but I feel as though if you direct the city staff to go forward with the general election, it will be because you do not favor the idea of having a stormwater fee on property. This is a stormwater fee on property. It's property owners that are appropriate to weigh in on whether they should have this fee. The California legislature. Has put a lot of imposition on local governments in raising fees. You know, and this is one of them. You know, we this is a way we can raise fees. It's very difficult to raise fees. This is one of the ways that we can raise it by going to property owners. So I just wanted to put in that. Speaker 1: You know. Speaker 8: As an organization that is really going to favor the idea of protecting ourselves from sea level rise. I would want you to. Speaker 1: Direct staff appropriately. Speaker 8: And really consider whether you actually want to to have this as a consequence. Speaker 1: So thank you for the opportunity. Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Abby. And now Rosemary Knox. Speaker 5: So I just want to. Speaker 0: Confirm and your next as well. I see you're. Speaker 5: Hinting that the motion on the floor is is to the staff recommendation with the city manager's addendum to. And so I will second that motion. Speaker 0: Okay. I just want a little clarification. The motion is what again, to come back with the. Speaker 2: Present options when it returns as outlined by the city manager in when it returns in July to allow the council to decide or sooner. Speaker 3: Or sooner. Speaker 0: Or sooner. Okay. We've had a motion. It's been settled. And I believe Councilmember Vella has your hand up. Speaker 8: I think we're making a lot of assumptions. Part of what we're trying to do is actually go out and get information from the public about what they are not interested in. And I think we're trying to do that in two different ways. One, we're trying to pull the property owners, which could, you know, could be indicative of kind of where they're at and whether or not they're actually supportive of this fee going out to a ballot at election and mail ballot election. But two, to actually do the general kind of polling and I know that it's not going to be a scientific poll, but do we really want to spend 100 or $200,000 on a scientific poll? I just I don't think that that cost is something that we really want to do. And I think that we can get to it by going to community groups and putting the pull out there. I do think that, again, I don't necessarily you know, I want to see what the the the property owners and the general voting public have to say, because any fee increase is not necessary. We've seen fee increase votes by property owners in other districts get voted down in Alameda. So I don't necessarily think one group is is more favorable to a fee increase than another. So I don't want to make that assumption. That's why we're actually that's why I'm going to be supportive of this contract and the amendments is to actually get that information, to find out if there's any there there where we can move forward. And I think in any event, we're going to have to figure out how to fund this. So whether it's through a fee increase, through property fee increase or through another sort of fee increase, we are going to have to fund this. This is a very real issue. Our streets do flood and we have a major stormwater issue. We've experienced it every winter. I personally have seen it happen where it's impacted me and other folks on my street. So it's something that I know hits at the heart of what we're trying to deal with. And if our stormwater system there is not working, we're going to be experiencing continuous flooding and that's going to impact renters , property owners and everybody else in it. And it currently is. So I'm ready to support this tonight. I'll support it with the amendments. I have no problem with it coming back with the a plethora of options. But I do think that we need to include in those options. If we don't vote to put this out there and to go to a vote, how are we going to fund it? Because that absolutely has to happen. We can't just say no thank you. Speaker 0: Mr.. ALLEN I'll also add that the city has actually been under a consent decree over having sewage leak into the bay, and we've been, you know, paying and doing our share of the repairs required by that Councilmember Day. Sorry, so you're here. Speaker 4: I just want to say quickly that I'm supportive of gathering information, but frankly, I come into this not as a blank slate. I do have my my preferences. And it really has to do with seeing a fee that is adjusted to take into account intensity of uses. Let me give you a case in point. Every time we have storm right around McDonald's, the hamburgers place, McDonald's on shoreline on Shoreline Drive, we always have flooding there. But by the same token, we also have a lot of multifamily apartments there. So whatever fee that we have, I think has to be calibrated to the intensity of uses. And so and I recognize that, you know, that we're at this point, we're just gathering information. But that is a certain concern of mine because it goes back to the hospital tax. When I look at summer hill, summer house, summer house homes only paying 298 and I'm paying the same amount. Speaker 0: So in Councilmember Brody. Speaker 7: I mean, just the last thing since we had that public speaker, I mean, I don't think anyone argues with the need for this. I just think it's a basic civil rights issue that we're going to exclude our renter population, which is predominantly a less wealthy than property owners, which is predominantly more people of color, and is predominantly probably more senior. I mean, to me, it comes down to basic civil rights. And, you know, I'm not one to throw away someone's civil rights because it's easier. It's cheaper. I mean, I'm perfectly happy doing this. I think we should do it the right way and not, you know, not take away people's civil rights and their right to vote. Speaker 0: Okay. But what we're voting on tonight is simply to go forward with the study and get the information, come back to this council with the information you've gathered in July or before then. Okay. So we've had a motion. We've just you may. Speaker 5: Try to my only comment. Speaker 1: Is. Speaker 5: I'll let your expert consultants figure out how to do this. But if you're going to bring back online survey data, I would like to know who has taken that survey, because online surveys tend to target a very specific demographic of people. And it is not necessarily representative of the city. And I am a little concerned that sometimes cities have a have a tendency to get lots of responses from the same types of people on online surveys. And then they come back and say, look at how many people we've heard from who say X, Y and Z. And they're often not the people that Councilmember Ortiz said. So I'm not getting into the ballot fight. I like the solution of just give us options and we'll have a conversation when that when that comes forward. This is clearly something that that we've discussed that I think is very important. And I want that to be clear. I would just like to make sure that if we're going to go out and talk to community groups, as Councilmember Vela has suggested, that we know which community groups and those are listed. And I would like to be able to look at that list and say, I can see how that is representative of our community and not just the same four groups that we go out and talk to all the time. And if we're going to do online surveys, I would like to know what the demographic information is for those surveys so that we can then point to whether or not we actually feel that the responses were getting are indicative of our community or a certain aspect of our community. But I'm happy to support this. Speaker 0: And just for a point of understanding, what would you do to I mean, so survey results are returned and you get the information and you're not satisfied with the respondents. What would you do to compel more people or different people to respond? Speaker 5: Well, I mean, sometimes we do we spend $25,000 to do a statistically significant Democrat study of demographics. We do one every two years for the city using EMC or any of the polling. It's you know, if that's what we're trying to I guess what I'm saying is I'm happy to say, to understand who's talking to me and that, and I will accept that. But I don't think we should then say the community has said X, Y and Z. If it's not, this is the community that's okay. Speaker 0: So if I say so. Speaker 5: So the answer is we have to spend the money to collect the the survey responses. We are saying we want or we need to be careful and very thoughtful. And in pursuing the input from the community, the community that we say we want. Speaker 0: Do I hear? I hear cancer every day. Speaker 4: So I mean, it's an important point, but it does raise our logistical questions. So as we. Paul, are we saying then that our polling is going to include the Renner population, or is our polling going to be specific to those who will be voting at this point, which is primarily property owners? So I mean, so that's the question that has to be answered, I think, right now or well. Speaker 5: Soon enough in our our motion is not to make the decision that we doing one or the other of those things. That's all. Speaker 4: I'm fine with that. Speaker 0: And before I con Councilman Revelle and Mr. Garland, do you feel that you have enough direction? Come on up to the microphone. And while you're thinking of that Councilmember Villa want you in the. Speaker 8: Well, I just want to clarify. I didn't read anything about a poll. I thought that we were going to be conducting a survey, which is. Yeah, they're different. Well, they're but they're different. They are. They are different. And so, you know, when we say the word poll, we we literally mean go out and do a scientific poll where you look at, you know, number of times people voted, that sort of thing. That's not what we're giving direction on, is my understanding. We're giving direction on having a survey performed correct with it with a poll specific to property owners. Speaker 3: That's right. That it it's a scientifically valid poll just happens to be in writing and by mail for property owners. It could be the council's will to do both. In other words, to test out some of the similar questions and a telephone pole. And there would be a segment of the polled respondents that, for example, would be renters, and that that's a potential for the council to consider in terms of moving forward and with full consensus. Speaker 8: What's the cost of that split? Speaker 0: Probably double. What is it. Speaker 3: Worth to have a telephone pole put in the field with results by July? I think we could get that done for about $30,000. Speaker 0: And that would be contacting both renters and property owners or. Speaker 3: Yeah, it'd be difficult. I think I'm by no means a pollster. I'd be different. I it difficult, I think to pull out property owners from their sample. So there would be some crossover. But the difference is with the telephone pole, you could see more specifically the broader representation of all our meetings who are not property owners. Does that make sense? Speaker 0: Um, you probably enough for these purposes. Okay, i. I mean, I. I seems like there's at least two parts to this. So I'm hearing that we want to that the majority of the council may want to hear from all potential voters, renters or and homeowners. But then there's another part. If we decide to make this a general election, then we raise the threshold for passage. And I mean, what and what then? I mean, the implications of that? Or do we want to wait and have that discussion when we see the results? Councilman Brody, was that your hand up? Speaker 7: That was kind of my answer. I assume we would those results would tell us. I mean, if the poll comes back in, 80% of the people are going to like this, then that informs a different decision than if if the numbers were different. I mean, this could be a super popular thing. We don't know. But we're being asked to basically foreclose on a path without having the full data in front of us. So I would imagine you kind of answered the question with your question, at least for my purposes. I want to speak for anyone else. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, have we covered this territory enough? No, no, no. Yes. Speaker 4: Councilmember De just seems to me that earlier, rather than later, we need to hammer out the nature of this election. What is it going to be? Renters and homeowners and property owners? Because from the outset, when we're doing either polling or survey ing, you know, you need to know that because if you're a property owner and then you feel somehow that the outcome of this is is being driven by by. But you know, people who aren't going to pay the fee, ostensibly. Potentially. Then maybe you have a different take on it. So I think we might want to have that conversation first as to, you know, is this going to be your your classic property owner based fee balloting or are we going to do something along the lines that Councilmember Odie wants? I think we should have that conversation first and then let's figure out what kind of polling and survey we're going to be doing. Speaker 0: Okay. And I would then ask about the timing on that. But let's see, I saw I think I saw Councilmember Vela's hand up first and then the vice mayor. Speaker 8: So I just want to be clear, the motion on that that's currently out there does not include polling because people keep talking about polling. And then I hear people say, well, I want polling so that if if the decision is that you want to amend, that you want to amend it so that you can include both some sort of poll as well as the the mail poll, a phone call or an email poll, then that needs to be amended. But the second thing is, I actually think that the question is the questions that we're looking at are do we want to do it? Do we want to do the fee based off of intensity or do we want to do a flat fee increase? There are other questions out there that I think are going to dictate the response that you're going to get. And certainly I think. We have to. We have to get the feedback on those sorts of things before we can make a decision about what we're going to pursue. Speaker 0: And before I call on the Vice Mayor, so my question would be to the acting city attorney and Mr. Garland. Does it make a difference whether the vote, the eventual vote is for a flat fee or based on square footage of your property or some some more proportional individual formula? Speaker 3: Can I go first? And the honorable city attorney will correct me. I think in this instance, there's got to be a nexus between the services provided through the stormwater fee and the actual property. And so it's very likely under either approach that it's going to get to something called impervious surface units, essentially an acre of property. How much payments on it? How much landscaping is on it? One's pervious ones not. And that drives the fee. And that's for larger than single family properties and then for single family properties. Since you had a study conducted to come up with a flat fee that averages out across all those properties using the same methodology, and that that is under either scenario, that's that's the way we go. Speaker 0: Okay. So it's looking like flat fee is what you're saying. Speaker 3: Well, it's flat for single family homes and then it varies based on the conditions of the property for other all other properties. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Do you want to chime in second that whatever? Speaker 3: Well, I don't disagree with that. The only thing that I'm a little bit uncertain about is the percentage that is needed to pass, depending on what what it is that's being considered. And I don't. It may well be two thirds, and it probably is, but I can't. I can't say categorically right now that that's what it's going to be in all incidents, although I believe that's the case. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Well, that's certainly something we would want clarified when you come back. I saw the vice mayor's hand up. Correct. And then Mr. Deegan. Speaker 5: I was just going to I mean, I, I, I think the motion captures what we want, which is you're going to go ahead and get the community feedback. Right. We've given some comments about how we'd like the feedback clarified when it comes back. So we have some understanding who's getting it. And we're going to have a conversation about what are the different thresholds and pros and cons of different types of elections, costs, etc. And at that point in time we can decide that. And if we decide at that point in time, we want to do some more statistically significant surveys because we're gonna go to the voters or something like that. We can do that at that point in time. Right? So I'm just wondering if we're getting wrapped up in trying to decide what type of an election when we've given direction to come back for that conversation in the future. Speaker 0: As long as Mr. Garland has sufficient information with which to go back and put his report together. Speaker 3: I do I do want to make sure I'm following counsel's direction on this vote, which is the the fee study moves forward and in addition, these other things happen, correct? Correct. Speaker 0: Right. Yes. Got it. Yes. Speaker 7: And I. Speaker 0: Was going to miss Councilman. Speaker 1: Brody. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to basically say what John said. You know, we should make that decision with all of the relevant information in front of us. So whether it's who's going to vote for this, how it's going to be structured, you know, what thresholds, you know, all that is for us to make. And, you know, I look forward to the report. Speaker 0: Okay. So then we have a motion it's been seconded all in favor I and he opposed any abstentions hearing then the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. That was item five. Speaker 1: H. Speaker 0: And the next one pulled was five L. Correct. I know. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I have a I have a question about this. A lot of different districts included in the map. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Speaker 8: And so I'm asking I'm just asking a question on the recusal. 45l. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 8: So there's several. There's several maps included. Mm hmm. In five l. That are throughout the city. Speaker 3: And is your and your question is because your personal property is within one of those areas, whether you should recuse yourself with respect to that matter. Speaker 8: Yeah. Because there's so many different areas. Speaker 3: Yeah. I, I think our position on this has been that if your personal property is within that, even though it does contain a large area, I would be concerned that it doesn't reach the 25% threshold. So therefore, if you have property within that district, I would suggest that you recuse yourself on that particular item. Speaker 8: But we could recuse herself based off of the zone. Do we have to recuse ourselves for the rest of the item? Speaker 0: So you're saying you want us to break it out in vote zone by zone? Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 3: Actually, because there's zones one through eight. Speaker 8: Correct. And can we feasibly vote on the ones on the zones that aren't within that? Speaker 3: That is correct. You could recuse yourself simply with respect to zone six or whatever that particular zone is that your property's involved in. Speaker 8: Okay. No, I could buy zone eight. Speaker 3: Me too. Speaker 0: Okay. Just. So. And killed somebody. Speaker 7: I'm not impacted by any. But I know this has come up in the past and I thought we gave direction that when something like this is brought forward, that we check with different council members and make sure that it's set up in a way that, you know, we're not going to have mass recusals or we don't have three people to vote. Because I remember my colleague, Mr. Medeiros, that you would always have to take himself out of the the Marina Marina village. So if in the future we could do that, I think it'd be appreciated by the. Speaker 1: Council. Speaker 3: And I think we have done that with with council member de SA because we are aware of this property. I'm not sure that we necessarily had Ms. Vella's property in the in the mix, but we certainly will. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. So then do council member, did they need to leave the room or. Speaker 3: I think in those circumstances, you know. Speaker 8: You can recuse from the vote on. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. So let's do this. Do I or is there any more discussion? Because hearing then what I would suggest is that we approve zones one through seven. Speaker 8: Right. Speaker 5: And then moved. Speaker 0: And a second. Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 0: Okay. All in favor of zones approving the adopting the resolution to approve the annual report declaring the city's intention due to the levy and collection of assessments for zones one through seven. Signify by saying. I. Speaker 7: I. Speaker 0: Okay. That was unanimous, right? No news, no sense. Okay. And then I know we have two who are recusing themselves virtually here. Do I have a motion to approve the same resolution as it pertains to zone eight? Speaker 5: So moved. Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 0: It's been moved. It's been seconded. All in favor. I that would be through unanimous. That resolution is also adopted. And Councilman decide. Yes. Speaker 4: The recuse. Speaker 1: What for? Correct. Okay. Okay.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement with SCI Consulting Group for a Comprehensive Stormwater Fee Study, Community Survey, and Balloting, Extending the Agreement for Seven Months in an Amount not to Exceed $94,009 for a Total Expenditure Under the Agreement, as Awarded, of $166,513. (Public Works 351)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6522

Speaker 0: Sure. All in favor. I. There's no nos or abstentions. You bring them. Bring the sheet back way. Is it. Is this next one? Speaker 1: This is not. Yeah. This is an ordinance. Speaker 0: Is. Has been. Oh, okay. Got it. Speaker 2: So, introduction of ordinance, amending the Alameda missile code by amending various provisions, including section two, Dash 17 of Chapter two Administration. Section one, Dash seven of Chapter one, General Section two, Dash 24 two. Dash 44.1 of Chapter two, Section one, Dash five. Penalty provisions enforcement of Chapter one, Section 30, Dash 23, Certificate of Occupancy of Chapter 30 Development Regulations and other related amendments concerning code enforcement. Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. McFadden. I want to introduce. Speaker 3: Greg McFadden. Speaker 9: Said it all made a building official. So this amount this ordinance is amending seven, six different sections of the municipal code, primarily around code enforcement. The main change is reconstituting our appeals board. In the past we had an appeals board that fell in disuse and we were using a single hearing officer. Recent court case involving the city of Oakland made that not something we can no longer do. So we've tapped three members of our historic historic advisory board who meet the requirements in the building code to sit on the appeals board. And when appeals come up, we'll have a appeals hearing prior to an H-E-B meeting. So there'll be regularly schedule meetings they can meet into our appeals process. The other changes are fairly straightforward. Section one seven just some changes to how appeals are handled. Change two We have an outdated term chief building inspector, which is no longer used, hasn't been used in a long time. Changed that to that what's the building code uses which is building official some changes to section one five increasing fines for commercial properties, a administrative change to a current practice that we have regarding certificates of occupancy for commercial tenants where it's just a change in ownership and adding members of the Fire Prevention Bureau to the list of people who can issue administrative citations. Speaker 0: Okay. Is there any discussion with public speaker here on this? Speaker 2: We have no. Speaker 0: City Councilmember Day, so. Great. Speaker 4: Well, thank you. I was the one who pulled this. And I just have a quick question. So I have a hypothetical example when it comes to the certificate of occupancy. So suppose a coffee shop closes on Park Street and that the the the space is vacant for three months and that a new coffee shop opens if this is adopted. Are we saying that the new coffee shop is also going to have to get a certificate of occupancy similar to the way in which the old one. Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah. This is not a change in policy. It's, it's clarifying the municipal code. For the past 15 years or so, we have done just what you've outlined. A coffee shop goes out of business, new coffee shop comes in, we get a certificate of occupancy. A couple of reasons. One, we want to see the space. The old coffee shop may have been there for quite some time. So we ask for a simple floor plan. We don't do an inspection. It's a minor fee, I think $109 currently. And we have actually had a recent code enforcement case that got fairly messy because the property owner didn't understand that the new tenant needed to follow the same rules as the old tenant. And this was what led to this change to clarified in the municipal code, a current practice. Speaker 4: So currently we do, we do require a certificate of occupancy and we do collect whatever fees associated with a new tenant but the same use. It's just that the language isn't. Speaker 9: It wasn't clear the the reading of the building code says change in use. We've interpreted it I've interpreted that to mean, okay, this is a new owner. Speaker 4: Okay, my mike and I just want to say from the outset that my concern was that if the standard practice was all coffee shop closes spaces, vacant, all coffee shop with certificate of occupancy closes vacant and the new coffee shop comes in. And if the standard was that we did not require the new coffee shop to have a certificate of occupancy, in other words, have to shell out another however much it costs. Then I would have preferred that we not do that. But if you're saying that the standard is is that we actually do require when new uses that are consistent with zoning fill a place that we do require a certificate of occupancy. Again. Again, we have to pay the fees if that's what we've always done. But then I'm playing with that. So and the issue then is just clarifying the language and that it's correct. Yes. Oh, by the way. And I just want to make sure to say that, you know, I also submitted my questions to the staff earlier so they knew ahead of time. And to me, it's important, at least, you know, that for from the vantage point of the public that we understand, what are the issues that are concerning council members and others? Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. I'll move approval of staff recommendation with regard to final. Speaker 0: Okay. I have a motion. Is there a second? A second? Any discussion? All in favor. I opposed. Abstain. Okay. The ordinance is approved unanimously. Thank you. And then was that the last of our consent? If that is the last of the consent items. Okay, so then we move on to the regular agenda items.

Consent Calendar Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Provisions, Including: (1) Section 2-17 of Chapter II (Administration); (2) Section 1-7 of Chapter I (General); (3) Section 2-44.1 of Chapter II; (4) Section 1-5 (Penalty Provisions; Enforcement) of Chapter I (General); (5) Section 30-23 (Certificate of Occupancy) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations); and (6) Other Related Amendments Concerning Code Enforcement. (Community Development - Building 209)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6747

Speaker 0: Okay, so then we move on to the regular agenda items. Speaker 2: Six A's presentation by the Alameda Unified School District on Tuesdays. Mental Health Needs Assessment. Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi, I'm Eric Von Stein, development manager with the City of Almeida's Community Development Department. I will make some very brief introductory remarks before handing over the presentation to Kirsten Zaza to the school district's chief student support officer. Last September, the El Meter collaboration for children, youth and their families held a retreat to clarify their direction over the next five years. The Youth Collaborative is a coalition of the city of Alameda, Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan's office and the Alameda Unified School District and nonprofit organizations that work together to promote Positive Child and youth development is co-chaired by Mayor AC Ashcraft, Supervisor Chan and School Board President Mia Bonta. At the retreat, the Youth Collaborative identified the mental health of the city's youth youth as a major priority that needs attention as the first step in developing an action plan. The Youth Collaborative heard presentations by the AUC on its recently completed health and wellness needs assessment. Following the presentations, the Youth Collaborative discussed the need to destigmatize mental illness and find ways to promote mental health and wellness of students and their families through public awareness campaign that has a consistent message. Supervisor Chan offered to offer some resources to begin this effort by having her staff coordinate a work group meeting with a consulting firm to help develop a youth mental health awareness campaign. An initial meeting with the consultants was held on April 4th. A USD also made a presentation on its needs assessment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. At its January meeting, the Strub members recognized the importance of this issue and stated that a larger conversation needs to take place within the entire community. The startup recommended that AOC present its report to the City Council so that the city council members can determine the city's role in addressing the issue. The Youth Collaborative intends to pool its resources to develop and implement a public awareness campaign. Supervisor Will Merchant's Office and the Unified School District are fully on board and a mental health awareness campaign effort. And we are recommending that the city also support the campaign and for the city's continued participation through the Youth Collaborative on this effort. This may include using city resources such as the city's website and collaborating on outreach with other city departments, such as Recreation and Parks Department, to disseminate information through the community. And now I would like to turn over the presentation to Kirsten. Speaker 0: And and as mestizos coming up to the podium, I'd just like to say that she did this presentation for the Collaborative, the Alameda Collaborative and Children, Youth and Families a month or two ago. It's very compelling. And at the time I said, I really want this information to be brought to the greater community, because this is it's not just a school district issue, it is a community issue. So I so appreciate your coming to share this important information with us. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. I appreciate all of you guys taking the time to hear about this a little bit about me. I'm here since Oso. I've been in the school district for over 20 years. I've been a teacher, a principal, vice principal and many different roles. And I care very, very deeply around mental health and social emotional health in our schools. This led us to do this work of figuring out what our actual needs are. We saw a huge increase in students going out on what we call home instruction because of mental health needs. And we saw students being what's what commonly people will hear of would be a 5150. So being taken out of schools for our youth, it's 5185 because of suicide. SIDLE Ideation and actually having plans to commit suicide. So we've seen these things increasing and we really wanted to get a wider understanding of what was happening in the community. So in 2017, 18 school year, we did a full mental health needs assessment. And what this looked like is collecting data from a wide variety of places. So we did online surveys for parents, staff and students themselves. We did focus groups with staff, families, students at elementary, middle and high school. We also targeted a wide variety of different student groups. So not just saying, you know, we're just going to grab a group of students and work with them. But really targeting you know, we did an African-American group. We did a what we call a high achieving group. So these are students who were getting 4.0 or above. So to really sort of get a wide perspective of where our students are, we also looked at the data that we had available on California Healthy Kids surveys are done and we wanted to look at patterns over the past several years. If there were patterns and and see if this supported any of the current data we're receiving. So after this was done, I if you're interested, there is a 50 page document that documents all of the findings that we have. But what's important is there's an executive summary that I wrote, which is the first 12 pages, which gives you the gist of what is important to know about what we found. We were able to break it into seven different categories. So we called. Tears of support, meaning the different types of support students need. What our coordinated practices are. What the school wide responsibility to mental health is. Do we even know that we have these issues going on in school? What our capacity as a district is to support this work. Cultural responsiveness. Do we see that there are differences between race and ethnicity? And then we have school based health centers that we partner with Almeida Family Services here in the district that they exist on. Almeida High School's campus, on in Snell's campus, we have services on islands, campus and campus and some of our charter schools. And so how was our partnership working? I also presented on no cost recommendations. A lot of this work really has to do with coordinating our services and we can get a lot done with even without throwing money at it. There's a lot that we can do. So key findings from three tiers of support is that students, parents, staff and key stakeholders overwhelmingly reported that additional staff is needed. We need counselors. We need therapists. We need psychologists. We are inadequate to the types of services that we can provide for the needs of our students, students, staff and parents. All reported that the biggest behavioral health problem for students in their schools is depression or feeling sad, anxious and teasing in that order. So whenever I see something come out where it's consistent across the board. So parents report it, staff report it, and students report it. That's very interesting to me. And this feeling of depression was consistent across all of the reporters, different groups. Student groups overwhelmingly reported problems with dealing with stress and anxiety. They also reported higher uses of drug use, especially with cannabis, alcohol and vaping. For coordinated practices. What we found for the district is that our resources are woefully inadequate and at a crisis level we have more students than ever actually have our current data. As of January 2019, we had to do 44 risk assessments in high school for students who were showing suicidal ideation, 23 in middle school and 20 in elementary school for 5180 fives, meaning students who were actually taken from school. We have 20 students at our high schools that were taken out of school because of 51, 80 fives and then two students in elementary for hospitalizations for mental health. So far this year, this is what families report. So it's probably more than this. But we are at 31 high school. Five middle school and three elementary. Four hospitalizations due to mental health. So that's just this year's data. And then what we see is that and that's just as of January. So we see that this is continuing to be a big issue. We found that families were facing significant issues and are hesitant to seek help support through the school due to a variety of barriers, privacy concerns, stigma being a lack, a big one, lack of money or time to address the issues and not knowing what services are available. This was a big one that stuck out to me as this is really a no cost thing that we could fix together. In the school district, we are really working on what's called multi-tiered system of support. So being clear about what it looks like for everybody, what does everybody get when it comes to instruction and social emotional learning? What we found is that we've been building positive behaviors, intervention supports in our school staff, and it's different across sites and we need more consistency across the district around this work. Being clear about what our expectations are, being clear about how families can actually get help across the district. Cultural responsiveness. There is a disparity regarding suspension rates in many schools, especially as it relates to African-American students and students with special needs. And when working with our student focus groups, they had a lot to say about that and what they have identified as barriers for their learning. When it came to access to the school based health center. The communication and coordination is lacking, and part of that is because of rules and laws. So we have HIPA versus for but not being able to share information back and forth between the two agencies. We also know that our school based health centers have waitlists that are very, very significant. And because they're mostly funded through medical dollars, they can really only see medical students. And as we know, our demographics in Alameda are changing. Our medical numbers are going down, which means that we have still students who need the services, but they don't have the medical qualification and therefore they're not getting the services. Interesting. Just another key finding was that cell phones, students reported cell phones as being one of the biggest distractions to their learning and that as a community, we need to address it, that students actually want, you know, some boundaries around cell phones. So this is some of the student data that came out of the surveys. So bullying reported Alameda High School, 48.8% of students feel a lot or some students are affected. And so now, 44.5%. What I want to draw your attention to are the two bottom pieces. Drug and alcohol abuse, 86.8% of students surveyed feel a lot or some students are affected by drug and alcohol abuse. At Internet, it was 62.1%. Depression, 87.1% of the students surveyed feel a lot or some students are affected by feelings of depression. Add in Snell 64.60 4.4%. So when we're talking at Alameda High School, 87.1% of students. That is significant that the students are reporting this is a big issue, feeling worried, anxious or stressed. 92.8% of students reported that a lot or some students are affected by this, while it's now 71.6. The nice part is that when it comes to feeling unsafe, those numbers were a lot lower. Still not low enough for me, but lower. With the California Healthy Kids Survey. So remember I said we were looking over time for patterns of chronic sadness and hopeless feelings were alarmingly high at the gray levels, ranging from 21 to 35%. And this was reporting from students starting at fifth grade through 11th grade. 14% of ninth graders and 21% of students at the continuation school seriously considered attempting suicide. So. Those numbers are alarming. For the focus groups. I sort of put a little bit of narrative around what the focus groups talked a lot about. High school students talked a lot about cannabis on being, of course, a much bigger issue than alcohol, but also the use of Adderall. So a lot of, you know, prescribed drugs, but also over the counter drugs. They talked a lot about depression and anxiety and the stressors that are happening, you know, struggling with grades, balancing school and sports. What was interesting is that the consistency across the groups, around things that they were struggling with and this depression and anxiety was across all groups. And then the cannabis was across all groups with the highest sort of issues that they're struggling with. So after this was done in 1718, we formed a steering committee and we started what I hate this term, but it really is kind of a road show where getting out and getting as much information out as I possibly can to the greater community, because this is not just a school issue. This really is a mental health crisis. It's happening across California, but it really is now showing itself here in Alameda, especially with students in our schools. We came up with an action plan of the things that we need to do to start implementing as soon as possible this school year. And it really is a three year action plan. So we have a three year action plan of what we're doing inside the school district to address these issues. We have a budget. I'm sure some of you know about our school budget. Some of you don't. But we, you know, are struggling. We're struggling. We want to be able to give our teachers raises. We have a limited budget and we're trying to figure out how to balance it. Currently, we have a lot of the mental health pieces not funded. So at the tier one level, that's sort of what everybody has access to. We've funded more than the other tiers. But when it comes to funding things like muftis to support school for the first time we got four MFT is in place at $360,000. This was the first time ever in a school district that we've actually had marriage family therapist working inside our school district and we're working with Alameda Family Services to bring in that support to really meet the needs that came out in the mental health needs assessment. We need at least eight FTE. We have 17 schools in our district and, you know, thinking we're splitting them around, we could probably get away with having services of eight FTE. It would be lovely if we had more intervention leads that can help find these students and connect them with the right services and also give us services separately for Tier three, those wraparound services. So we really feel we need social workers in the district to do some of those wraparound services. You know, as you know, we are also seeing many of our youth that, you know, are losing homes that are having to leave the cities. And a lot of these pieces are, of course, all connected. And so having the help and the support of social workers to do some of that wraparound services is really important. Connect them that with the services that Alameda has in general. So I went where very, very quickly because I said 10 minutes. So I'm here for questions that you guys might have on the work that we're doing and then on the support that we would love to have from the city. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Council Questions. Comments. Speaker 7: Councilmember Ody, I just had a question. Thank you for this presentation, by the way. It was I appreciate that you guys brought it to the council because it's it's something that we need to hear about. When you did your focus groups, did you have any special focus groups with any LGBTQ students? Yes. Okay, good. Yes. I didn't see that. Speaker 6: As as you know, that with our LGBTQ youth, the chances or I don't know, but the the data shows that they are more at risk of suicide than other groups. Speaker 7: Okay, thanks. Speaker 0: Questions? Comments from anyone else. Vice Mayor in a tweet. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 5: Hi. Thank you. Great presentation. How is the district working with the county public health department? Speaker 6: So with the county mental health department, most of the support that we get is for special education. Right now, my special education budget, what I pay county mental health for the total of supporting 92 students. I pay $1.2 million to county and again 92 students that $1.2 million supports. That budget is going up and up and up because county mental health. The reason why we still use county mental health is because they can bill for Medi-Cal. The county mental health charges us 10% on top of regular billing. So right now we're getting a very small amount back and that's why our budget keeps going up and up and up. So as a district, I really am actually looking for how we can do this differently, because as our Medi-Cal numbers go down, county mental health is really not going to work because we won't be able to sustain this increase in budget that's continuing. So it's it's it's been difficult with them. Speaker 5: Do you think that there is a role? We're on a limb on this one. Is there a role for a conversation with the school district in the city to try to approach and to try to talk to the county about how we can work differently? But in that. Speaker 6: Yes, I do think that there is definitely a role with that. I think that there are other grants also that county mental health can get most of the grant money goes to states and unfortunately to cities that have more medical eligible students. And so there has to be this with the increase in mental illness. And I really say that there there's there's there's a mental health, but this is mental illness. So when we have students that are having suicidal ideation at this amount that we're saying we have to address it holistically and not just as Alameda, but what are we seeing across the county and how can we share services in a better way? Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Avila. Speaker 8: In terms of these are our numbers, how are we comparing when we're compared with other communities? Are other communities experiencing similar issues or have they seen similar trends? Mm hmm. Speaker 6: So I work with many other school districts. They haven't done many other school districts that have not done this intense level of needs assessment. If you look at the California Healthy Kids surveys, then yes, I would say that, you know, we're seeing the increase, but there hasn't been this in-depth work that has been done in some of the other districts. So there is we don't have the same comparison. But anecdotally, I would say, you know, what is being reported is that everyone is seeing an increase in suicidal ideation. I think that we had new legislation that came out that every school district has to have a a plan for suicide prevention. So that has made districts track things a little bit better. But, yes, we're seeing it across the board. Speaker 8: And then with the school based, based health centers. I know that. And we struggled. I used to be on the board for all media, family services. Things that we struggled with was meeting the needs of the students, because one of the things that we hated seeing was any student being turned away, right when students are coming to ask for help. I know that the the waitlists have kind of continued to grow over the years, and that was a trend that we noticed a while ago. How are we going about addressing the students that are coming, that are sitting on a waitlist is the right way for those school based health centers to make other referrals , to give the students other opportunities or access to aid I know for, but it makes it very difficult. Yeah. Speaker 6: So Kayla Jenks and I work very, very closely together and we actually just hired a new director for Alameda Family Services. And so I'm excited to work with Kathryn to sort of address some of these issues. Kayla and I, however, have that's part of the reason why I have used Cal through consulting. So I pay Alameda Family Services a good amount of money so that we can sort of cross our services together. So if there's a student who is non-medical, who is sitting on a waitlist, he at least can communicate to the person who's coming out of my funding to sort of take them. But it's it's just still not enough. You know, I'm supporting for MF TS and they're throughout the district. So that that was our first attempt of trying to to to blend services a little bit without crossing financial lines too badly. Speaker 8: And do we know how long the waitlist is? Speaker 6: So what we are seeing is that and this is sort of comes to the next piece around the need for stigma reduction. So we are saying that. If we know that a student is really at harm, I don't mean a Family Services is taking him. They're still seeing him if they're showing that they need, you know, support right then and there. If we find out that they have a they have insurance. We're trying to work with them in the family to get them seen. Many of our students have Kaiser. Speaker 8: On the time. Speaker 6: To the issue. Yes, Kaiser has a wait time, too. But the other issue is that families have this stigma attached to it and don't want the school knowing if something is happening because it's linked to, you know, college admission. They think that all of these things are linked and so they want to separate it. And so that's part of the stigma that we're running into about getting kids services. Speaker 8: And I also noted the the portion or the focus that has been placed also on cultural sensitivity. What are we doing to work with that in terms of the in the classroom atmosphere around that? Speaker 6: So we have started on a three year professional cycle, professional development cycle for our teachers. The first piece is around restorative practices, so implementing restorative practices across school sites. The second piece is anti-bias work, and then the third piece is called Universal Design for Learning, where it really is about helping all students access curriculum. And so that's sort of the foundational work that we've started across the next three years. And then offshoots of that work are trauma informed practices and then specific specific strategies within cultural relevant pedagogy. So that's that's the work that's happening right now. Speaker 8: Any of our staff taking the Harvard implicit bias test or anything like that? Speaker 6: Not that I know of. Okay. Not that I know of. Speaker 0: And I just want to say that we have said the the three chairs of the Alameda Collaborative, Young Children, Youth and Families, our county supervisor, Wilma Chan, said We are in contact with the county school board president Mia Bond and myself, and we just had our chairs planning meeting for our meeting next April. And what Supervisor Chan has done is she has within her office access to it's a public relations consulting firm and she has generally given us an hour of their time for a conference call to help plan a messaging strategy. And she just added another hour. And so there's a subcommittee working on that when they come back to us and we'll expect to report at the meeting later this month. I'm going blank on the day. I think we may have some better ideas for how the city might be able to help. But what we did talk about just on this Monday last year is that it is important to destigmatize, seeking help for mental health issues and things like, you know, recognizing warning signs. And I know this surprised me, I guess, because my kids are now 27. It's been a while. But you need to look for these signs even in preschoolers and you know that that young and but and then of course the cultural sensitivities and what a taboo subject seeking help for mental health is in some cultural ethnic, racial populations. And so to the extent possible, at the very least, I would like to suggest that the council directed staff to work with the collaborative on children, youth and families and also to help in ways we can with the public awareness campaign. The idea was to reach out not only to the young people. That's certainly important to the students, but also their parents and their caregivers and and places where you would find children. So the libraries, park and recreation and camp programs, there were preschools. And so, you know, social media is one way to get the word out. I know when it comes to young people, they communicate on, you know, Instagram or whatever, whatever platform they're on. But there are some ways that the city can can pitch in and help. So after this next conference call among the subcommittee who's working on strategizing the best, most effective means of messaging, we'll have a little better idea. I don't even think it necessarily costs a lot of money, but we just want to be, you know, targeted and effective. So that would be my recommendation. And I'm happy to hear from my colleagues about direction we might want to give to Staff Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I'm supportive of that. I also think that there's a lot of parents that participate in families that participate in our rec and park program, not to put more on our RICKENBACH program, but I think also integrating how we communicate with our rec and park staff that that work with these families or see how we can get the information out. I know one of the things that we get from the city that at least in my household we always save is the rec and park guide. And if we can, in the next version that we put out, include the kind of the advertising materials or the get the information. Speaker 0: Out, whatever comes out of this. Speaker 8: Um. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Any other thoughts? Councilmember de SA. Speaker 4: Well, thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. I was very struck how perhaps almost nine out of ten youth at Alameda High were reflecting a certain concern on two variables. Right. And and and and now it was almost two out of three, which is still also a really high threshold. And I think numbers, especially the nine out of ten numbers, really forces Alameda City Hall to kind of move outside of the of its usual things that it does. So I you know, I am very supportive of whatever we can do to help out because when I see numbers like nine out of ten reflecting a certain concern to me that they have rings, certain alarm bells and and the better that we can play a role in assisting the school district and the county in in lowering that number and even lowering the two thirds number. Right. And so now I think all of our community were well, will certainly appreciate what efforts that we can lend to that. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. And Councilman Brody. Speaker 7: You know, just a second of what everyone said. I mean it. There's ways the city can be helpful. Mm hmm. I mean, even if it means I. If there's some legal way we can, you know, help with funding, I'd be open to. To hearing what those opportunities are. Speaker 0: And Vice Mayor? Not quite. Speaker 5: So I was going to say the same thing that councilmember already said, but I also, whether it's to the youth collaborative or whatnot, I think that the more that we can engage the county in developing a messaging, the messages that are going to work in Alameda are going to work in San Leandro, etc. and the more that we can, that messaging can be very expensive to be done right. And we should not have 13 school districts all. Speaker 6: Developing to do it all. Speaker 5: Yeah, right. So the more that we can can do that as a collaborative and then use our various voices to amplify that, we'll be more successful. So anything we can do to help on that. Speaker 0: All right. So anything further to add. Okay. So thank you so much. As a for. Speaker 6: Giving, I have to give a shout out to the park and RECs program and we are also are joining forces. I'm going to be doing restorative practices, professional development for all of our parks and RECs, new staff in in June. So I'm excited to have that coordinated coordination as well. Speaker 0: Thank you for helping confirm what we know that we have an outstanding recreation Parks Department. Okay. So thank you all for your attention to that council. Do we want to quick? Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 0: Okay. We are going to take a five minute break. We are gonna give you until nine. Ten. That's 8 minutes. Don't squander it. It's never five. Because I see everyone back at 910. Speaker 1: I knew it before. Yeah, yeah. I love it, too. Speaker 0: Me jinxed it. Guess. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So we are on to item six B, is that correct? Correct.

Regular Agenda Item

Presentation by the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) on AUSD’s Mental Health Needs Assessment. (Base Reuse/Economic Development 256)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6593

Speaker 2: Thing to consider. Endorsing an annual report on the status of the general power and housing element in the annual report on the status of the Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities. Speaker 0: Evening. Speaker 11: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. Andrew Thomas, Planning Director. I am going to present tonight our annual report on the general plan and housing element, as well as your transportation choices and these these annual reports which were reviewed by your Transportation Commission and your planning board in February and their recommendations on the on on these two separate annual reports are included in your packet. These are annual reports. They're an opportunity they're important for our planning efforts, both in land use and transportation. It's an opportunity for the community and the council to sort of check on our progress, look at what we've done over the past year, but probably even more importantly, to talk about what we need to focus on in the future for the benefit for the public. I know the council knows this, but it's all about setting priorities. Your last couple items, you discussed this, you know, limited resources, limited, whether it's staffing or financial. Lots of needs, lots of desires. So it's all about really making sure that on all of these issues that we, the council and the staff and the community as much as possible, we're all sort of on the same page pushing on this, on the right projects, the right priorities. So this is really an opportunity to have those that kind of discussion on an annual basis. We don't need any sort of formal approval tonight. Tonight is not about like, okay, we're done. We're finished. It's really about an opportunity for the council to to to review our recommended priorities and and give us adjustments. Give us your thoughts, your ideas. This will then influence other documents and other projects. In a few months, you'll be looking at your two year budget. This is this is an opportunity for you to sort of adjust some of the priorities, which would then you might see adjusted in your two year budget. So it's a chance for us to get some feedback from you on at a very sort of a 30,000 foot level. It you might tonight indicate to us, hey, these are some there's a lot of information in these reports you might tonight direct us to to schedule a future meeting with the council, a workshop on a particular initiative or a particular project that you feel really needs a lot more discussion because there's a lot of material on these reports that we don't there's not enough time tonight to talk about every single project in depth. So if that's something that's interest, it's important to you. Please let us know. You know, obviously your thoughts and your comments will influence how we talk to the boards and commissions about these various issues. So it's very helpful to know really and make sure that we're on the same page with you as to what your priorities are. And then, of course, on a daily basis, we're working with other agencies, our transportation partners in the region, other jurisdictions, our neighbors in Oakland. So it's just it will influence how we how we do our jobs as staff at all sorts of levels. Let's start with the general planning report, as you know. But for the benefit of the public, we have a general plan. It's required by state law. It needs to be up to date. It needs to be internally consistent. The last comprehensive update of the general plan was in 1990. You have been busy, though, in the last few the last 20 years you've dealt you've created a number of new elements which were required by the departure of the Navy. You did your northern waterfront element. You've updated your transportation element, your housing element a few times. We have a brand new safety and noise element that you just finished a couple of years ago. But there are four elements that have not gotten a comprehensive update essentially in 20, 29 years. And it's time it's so really the priorities are we need to tackle a comprehensive update of our land use element. It is just there are portions of it this are badly out of date. The other thing that we need to keep checking and making sure that all these elements are internally consistent as part of the land use element, one of the big priorities is the climate change update. This is, you know, in 1989 when the last general plan. Was comprehensively updated. You know, the concept of climate change and sea level rise just did not enter the conversation. It has entered into your general plan through your safety and noise element two years ago. But now it's time to start integrating this in a much more comprehensive way and making sure, because you've got your climate action plan coming to you in the upcoming months and will be really a big part of the community discussion over the next couple of months. And of course, your most recent resolution declaring an emergency on this. This is it's very important that we have your general plans sinking up with your climate action plan. Obviously, our parks and open space elements need to be updated. This is something else that we think we can get done in the next two year cycle. And then, of course, just making sure we have an internal update of the entire document. This is a this is a big workload. But we think with the with with the help of the community and the planning board, we can get these elements moving through in a series for your final review and approval during the next two year period with the with the priority being the climate change update and the land use element followed by open space and parks. Let's move to the housing element. This is also an annual report required by state law. We do this every year with the council. It's an opportunity to check in on where we're at as a community, on our housing element. Our housing element, as you will remember, is we updated every eight years. We updated every eight years in response to a state requirement to show the state how we're going to accommodate what's called our regional housing needs allocation or arena, which is the term often referred to. We are right smack in the middle of our eight year period right now. So we're in the 2014 through 2023 period. We have done eight years. Our arena, just to remind everybody, is 1723 new housing units. What's interesting about the arena is that it has it, and this is not surprising if you think about it. Yes, there's a need for 1723 more housing units in Alameda, but a large proportion, over 50%, if you just look at need, is in the you know, the affordable categories, the very low, the low, the moderate categories. So there's a within that larger regional need, there's a a really large percentage of it is at the lower level affordability. So halfway through, we have issued building permits for over 600 units. That's about 35%. So it looks like we're lagging if you want. If we were going to spread this out over the eight year period, we would, you know, we want to be further along more like eight, 900 units. But there is a couple projects, one in particular, the Del Monte project that we approved four years ago, if that project had been built on a was had been under construction and built, as we anticipated four or five years ago, we would actually be ahead of schedule. So what's interesting about Alameda, because we tend to have fewer projects, but they are larger projects. One or two get delayed and it starts to really sort of throw off our numbers. In terms of 2018. Last year it was a very good year for housing in Alameda with the two big projects of animal terminals and Alameda Marina . We entitled 1500 housing units. We won't see those units necessarily. In fact, we definitely will not see them all built during this cycle. But that's going to make a big difference on the next cycle. So, you know, as the council knows, but I think we people in the community sort of forget when we have these hearings, the planning board do, oh, 600 units, people sort of think like we're going to approve them at the planning board, and then two days later, they're all going to be there. I mean, the units that we're building, the 600, most of those are at Alameda Landing. We approved that project originally in 2006, but they're finally getting built and occupied now. So there's a real lag on this. In 2018, we issued 181 building permits, so we're slowly chugging away. I think with the entitlements that we have approved over the last four years, it looks like we will hit our 1723 building permits over the eight years. I you know, we'll see. There's a lot of things that are out of our control that obviously the regional and local economy is a big part of whether we'll make that going. Well, we've certainly entitled enough units to get there, but the state tracks building permits. So we really need to think about building permits in terms of whether we're going to meet our goal, what we're probably not going to. In fact, we will most likely definitely not meet. It is with even though we may get 1723 new building permits, we're not going to have 56% of those in the low income categories, as you know. But for the benefit of the public, we require that every project provide 15% affordable housing. So at that rate, we're obviously not going to get to to 56%. We do have the benefit of a very active local housing authority, and their projects are 100% affordable. So that's going to help. But the real message here is we've got to keep approving these projects and we have to keep working on looking at ways that we can incentivize encourage more units in the affordable categories. So looking at this, your planning board priorities, which are reflective, of course, of staff's priorities as well, and very similar to the priorities that we discussed a year ago. Keep expediting the review, especially of affordable housing. Move those projects through our process as fast as possible and encourage them. Number two and the planning board spend a lot of time talking about this. We need to keep looking at our zoning codes. It's not and our fee structures. What can we do to. What little things can we do? Or big things to really encourage affordable housing, workforce housing, affordable by design housing, really sort of broadness. And there was the staff report that was in the packet wasn't as clear about this as it should have been. And the planning board sort of reminded me at the last meeting, no, it wasn't just the deed restricted, affordable they were talking about. It was these the workforce housing, the types of things that this council has talked about in the past. For example, right now, our impact fee structure in a multifamily project, you know, our fee structure is, is if you have a very small unit, a studio, and then another unit that's four bedroom, three bath, you know, the the impact fee is the same. You know, that was an example of one of the things they started thinking about. Maybe we should be think rethinking that, you know, if we really want small, affordable by design units, maybe we should try to incentivize that by adjusting the fee structure or the zoning requirements. Obviously, number three is a big one. Transportation Committee Planning Board and Transportation Commission keep pushing this. We got to keep working on transportation to support this, you know, future housing as well as improving transportation throughout the city. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. Zoning amendments to really support and our need for additional supportive housing. Homeless shelters and services. Senior assisted living projects. And one of the the we don't have good definitions of these in our zoning code we are not clear where we would like these services located or as clear as we could be. And one of the sort of concepts that have been we've been talking about at the planning board and among staff is, you know, these are always these are tough issues to talk about. It's very, very tough when you start dealing with a project in a particular neighborhood for these kinds of things. And we need to start setting the standards in our codes that every neighborhood needs to do its part. It's we shouldn't be getting into a conversation of, Oh, my neighborhood's not right for this. You should make this thing go to a different neighborhood. It's every neighborhood in. Alameda needs to do its share. The resolution you did earlier with the wellness center, with the church, perfect example. Every neighborhood, any church, anywhere in Alameda who wants to do that should have no question that they can do that. And then, of course, objective design standards. This is something that's come up through recent changes in state law, but it's also important and supports all this. We need to make very, very clear what our expectations are for design. We need to be able to write them down, set them as measurable, objective standards. What this does is it it has the benefit for the community. Let's be clear what our expectations are. And then for when the projects come through, we don't spend a lot of time just discussing what our expectations are. You either meet them or you don't. If you meet them, we should be able get you through this entitlement process fast. All right. Moving right along. Let's move to Transportation Choices plan annual report. This is your you adopted this plan. It's a comprehensive plan. Council member de SOG was the first council member many years ago to say, hey, it's time for a plan like this. And then it took us several years to get it done. But we're glad to have you back for the first annual report. Speaker 0: You wait long and. Speaker 1: At. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 11: We are. I won't I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about what we accomplished in the first year. But I'm going to just jump right. To sort of. From our perspective, what are the priorities for for next year? And this is when we talk about transportation. It's resources are the issue. There is so much work, so many transportation projects. There's 39 projects and in this plan. So it's all about setting our priorities. And because there's no way we don't have the resources, we don't have, whether it's staff or financial, to do all things all at once. So it's very important that we as a community kind of focus on what we need to get done and then get it done and then move to the next one. So our priorities as outlined in the annual report, and I'm focusing now very much on the next two years, this is once again important. And the reason we really started talking about two years in this annual report is because we were very conscious that in a couple months you'll be looking at a new two year budget. Big priorities, ferry services. We've done a great job. Our ferry ferry ridership just continues to grow. We are going to break ground on a new third ferry terminal this year at the Seaplane Lagoon. Obviously a priority. We've got to keep doing that. It's still a lot of work to be done and we've got to get it. We got to get it opened in 2020 when the first housing opens at Alameda City. We are also working with WETA, our partner in this and with the three money to make to. Then when that opens, we will be expanding our services to San Francisco as well to Oakland in the South Bay. So that's a huge win for Alameda. It's where we're almost at the finish line in 2020. We can't sort of get distracted. Got to keep going on that. There's a new initiative that we're working on. And let me just preface, I said at the beginning, this is not something that just, you know, the there's two transportation planners helping Rochelle Wheeler myself. And then we've got our public works staff who also Scott's here and Liam's here and there and their staff. You don't have a huge Transportation Department to do all this. So these guys are doing all the work. Speaker 0: I will just interject that we have quality, if not quantity. Speaker 1: Yes, that's. Speaker 11: Right. We're we're all worth three people. The we are just earlier this year, we started working public works and transportation planning on parking management. This is something we've talked a lot about. But, you know, charging for parking at ferry terminals, we've got of parking and we're we have our new residential moving in in Alameda Point. Our transportation strategy for only two point depends very strongly on parking management. We want to. So charging for parking at ferry terminals making sure that we don't just turn Alameda point into a giant parking lot. This is a major effort. We'll be back in July, late June, July with a comprehensive report on this, because when you start charging for parking, it means you start taking seriously enforcement of parking. And this is so you're not going to enforce your parking. The charging isn't going to work. So that's a big thing coming up. And a lot of work, bus services. We continue to work with our partnership with AC Transit and we think that that's been a very successful partnership. We need the big the big push. We've done a lot in the last couple of years with the opening of Site A at Alameda Point in early 2020. Not only do we well, we have if we do everything well, have the ferry services running. We will also, as required by the council in the development agreements for site, a 15 minute service connecting site to downtown Oakland. So this will be the beginning of the first time in a very, very, very long time, if ever, you know, really good transit. Services from the very western edge of the island into downtown Oakland. And then, of course, we are continuing to build slowly, but we're constantly trying to build our citywide E-Z Pass program. So where have all new developments are being entered into this easy pass program? The goal of that program, for the better, the benefit of the public is we would like to ultimately get to the point where most, if not all, of the city of Alameda is a member of our program, meaning you have a pass to get on transit. Right now, that pass program is just eligible for AC transit services. The ultimate goal, if we could, you know, and this is not something we're going to accomplish in two years, but to build tours is to be able to have everybody be able to have a pass. It gets them on ferry services, water shuttles and or busses so that, you know, we basically turn all of our residents and and employees into transit users. And then, of course, Transbay Services is something we are constantly working with AC Transit on. Alameda Residents use transit transbay services. As the council notices, those lines are often packed, people are left behind. So that argument that nobody rides busses does not hold true for Alameda. Let's just talk about the priority. So that was that was ferry service and bus services. Let's talk about estuary crossings. There we are. We continue to work on these. These are not efforts that get done in two years or one year. But they they are efforts that if we don't work on them every year, they will not happen. So it's something we try to keep our eye on the ball on this. A couple of things. This has been a priority in the transportation plan for four years. None of our crossings meet what's called the Lifeline Standard. So in the event of a major earthquake, we're not guaranteed that any of our busses and bridges and tubes would still be standing. We would like, as a city to get to the point where we would know with with a fair amount of certainty that at least one would be standing and usable for whether it's evacuation off the island or bringing of emergency services and facilities and personnel onto the island. We've been focusing on the Miller Sweeney Bridge, and that is a a listed project in the regional transportation plan. But we don't have the money yet and we don't have the plans yet, but that's the one we've been targeting. We have also been looking at how do we improve access from Alameda, specifically West Alameda, to a across the estuary to Oakland. There are several pieces to this project. One of the big piece that we've been frankly working on for too long, like 17 to 18 years, is what's called the Oakland Alameda Access Project. And it deals with the connections between the tubes and the I-80 freeway that lower that lower left slide. This is an effort that we are working on fairly with the county. This is not a city project. This is a county project with Oakland and Alameda to improve the freeway access. But what that and improve that basically automobile commute connection. But what that conversation is also really brought to the surface and is the lack of an adequate connection for bicycles and pedestrians from West Alameda to Oakland because that that that path in the tube is just completely inadequate. And that is generally the conversation about a future bridge, a pedestrian bicycle bridge. We this year we came up with a conceptual design for a lift bridge. It's shown on the top, right? This would be a bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing the estuary lift bridge from Alameda Landing to Jack London Square. We are working with the county and the region to to to get the money to do the next phase of that study, which would be a more detailed feasibility study. This is a concept plan. What we don't really understand is what it would cost to build. Obviously, this is not something the city of Alameda could ever afford on its own. This is something that we would have to convince the region and the state is a necessary regional facility connecting Alameda to Oakland. We other thing that's interesting about this is if we're going to build something like this, which is a major structure, we should probably build it to a lifeline standard because it may not be adequate for everybody to drive back and forth every day on their with their cars. But in the event of a major earthquake, we would sure want that thing standing up so that emergency vehicle could get across. You know, this thing is going to be about 18 feet wide. Bikes and pedestrians in an emergency, we could get an emergency vehicle across or an ambulance. This conversation is also discussed. You know, these are long that's a long term vision. That's something that takes another 15, 20 years to fund and build. So we got to keep thinking about shorter term solutions. The water shuttle connection is something that we as a city continue to work on. We have been requiring every project in Alameda to build a water shuttle landing. We require every project now, I mean, to provide money for transit. The vision here is once we get enough people living on the waterfront, both on the Alameda side as well as the Oakland side, we then start have the critical mass to start funding a water shuttle operation back and forth between oakland and alameda. We've also been talking to the oakland a's about this and the region. If they are if the region is going to start working on the freeway, which is going to affect the bike, pedestrian connections through the tubes, obviously, then maybe they need to help us fund this water shuttle. Likewise, we've been talking to the a's and the city about and the c of almeida's letter on the a's e.r. Indicated that this is something that they should also be thinking about funding as a connection between oakland and. At least during game days when the congestion from the new 35,000 person stadium would further impact that interchange right at the I-80 freeway, which is already in deficiency, it's been in deficiency for 17 years. Lastly, the conversation with the A's has generated a renewed effort to look at the possibility for a gondola connection between Oakland and Alameda . We met a week or two ago. The mayor was there with the president from the A's and they came over to talk to us a little bit more about this. And I thought it was interesting the way they describe it. They they are designing a gondola to go from BART to the new stadium at Jacqueline Square. And the way they described it is, you know, that they want to make it easy for their fans to get from BART to their new stadium. And they said told us, look, every time we show this to anybody in Oakland, whether it's the mayor of Oakland or the head of transportation in Oakland or the just folks on the street in Oakland, the very first question they ask is, well, can you extend that over to Alameda? And I thought that was interesting because if there is an opportunity to extend a gondola over to Alameda, if there's one already being built in Oakland to get to BART, that's a really intriguing opportunity for us. We have done some initial look at this and we are working with them on the next phase of this study of this gondola. What would it really take to extend it across the estuary in the same basic location? Connecting to Jack London. And one of the interesting things that really struck me is if we could extend it all the way to the intersection of Atlantic and Webster, which is our main sort of right to College of Alameda and all of our busses, sort of central west Alameda. The thing that's exciting about the gondola is if you get on there, you are at the entrance to BART in 6 minutes. I mean, it's the thing about these is they're just incredibly quick and you don't wait for a gondola. You just walk up and the next one shows up. There's no wait time. So we don't know if it's feasible, but we're studying it and we're going to be looking at it this year with the Oakland A's. Let me just quickly move to the last few. Last but not least, in fact, in fact, many in many ways, probably most important, the transportation choices plan talks a lot about if we really need we're really interested in trying to reduce traffic, reduce greenhouse gases in Alameda. We've got to make the walking experience, the bicycling experience more pleasant and safer. People need to feel like it's easy to walk, that it's easy to bike, that it's safe for their children to walk and bike. And that's how we're going to we can make a big difference in terms of on island congestion. So we're got a number of projects underway. I'm just going to name four of them. We've been the city of Alameda has been making great progress on the cross alameda trail. That's a dedicated bike pedestrian path across the entire length of the island from Alameda Point all the way to the Fruitvale Bridge and into Oakland. The section in Alameda Point is under construction right now. Um, your public works department started construction this year on the next phase, which is Main Street all the way to Constitution. Your Parks Department finished the Jean Sweeney segment last year. We've got plans in place and funding for the next segments behind Del Monte, although there are some holdups there that we're working on, and then we've got the construction money to do the next phase, which is grand to Broadway. Last year, the city acquired the necessary right of way from Union Pacific to get to the Tilden Bridge. We will be coming back later this year with final design concepts for the segment between Grand and Broadway. That's on Clement. So that project is making great progress. We still have a ways to go. Central Avenue that the design process on that is still underway. We will be back in June with a update report on that and the request for authorization for the next phase of that. We're also working to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and car safety, frankly, on central, which is is an issue. And then Otis Drive as well as the main street section going up to the Main Street Ferry terminal. I won't talk about all these. We've got a lot going on, but all with the same goal, making these streets safer. And so the people feel more. Comfortable using alternative modes of mobility. Okay, that's it. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Does the Council have any clarifying questions before we go to our public comments? Okay, hearing then. Do we have public comment? Speaker 2: We have four speakers. Okay. We have Denise Trapani, Ruth Abi's, Heather Little and Pat Potter. So Denise is up first. Speaker 1: Thank you. Honorable Mayor Ashcraft and. Speaker 8: Council members, thanks for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. 11 years. That's how long the scientific experts at the United Nations say we have to completely redesign our carbon emitting systems. 11 years to make the changes that we need to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change. In California, the majority of our carbon emissions are from transportation. Specifically, 40% come from light personal transportation. That's how we all get around. Speaker 1: To put that into. Speaker 8: Perspective, it took us over three years to get one stop sign installed at our most dangerous intersection at Santa Clara in Sherman. And yet we're not seeing a single policy proposal in any of our plans that would change either what we're doing or, more importantly, how we're doing it. I'm really frustrated that we're not seeing any policy change recommendations in either the team or in the scope of work for the active transportation plan that was recently approved. There's nothing in there that says we're actually going to do anything any differently. They have big lists of projects in there and they're great projects, but they'll be design funded and approved in exactly the same way that these projects have always been. Meaning it'll take another three years to get another stop sign installed. By contrast, as an example, Cambridge, Massachusetts recently passed a city ordinance stating that any road improvement project would have to include a physically protected cycle track. They made this bold policy change in order to get people out of cars and to give them a safe alternative to driving. Speaker 1: And that's the. Speaker 8: Type of leadership I would expect to see if we really think we're in a climate emergency, which we just declared. We cannot be spending years in the design and community outreach phases anymore. We have 11 years to make these massive changes and we've spent the last five years discussing whether the lives of people who are trying to make a difference on their own by not driving, we've been debating whether their lives are worth a few parking spaces on Central. Speaker 1: Where is the leadership. Speaker 8: In holding public works accountable for the fact that we have zero consistency in how pedestrian signals work in Alameda and that we almost universally time lights and signal phases to favor cars over pedestrians? Where is the leadership and telling leader that we're not going to allow free unlimited parking at our ferry terminals anymore? Or forget wieder. Why do we still have free unlimited parking everywhere here on Sundays? Where's the leadership in telling the planning department that we're not going to approve sidewalk encroachment permits anymore? When a parklet could fill an outdoor seating need, it would show that you value public space for pedestrians over personal car. Speaker 1: Storage in our business districts. Where's the leadership in changing the. Speaker 8: Policy so a private business owner can't dictate whether or not a bike rack gets installed on a public sidewalk near their business? Where's the leadership in telling the building department that we're not going to pass building inspections of retail? Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Panay. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Abby. Speaker 0: This is Abby, followed by Heather Little. Thank you. Good evening. Speaker 1: I have you. I'm on the sustain of. Speaker 8: Sustainable Development Planning Committee of CASA. So I wanted to clarify that. And we've had Mr. Thomas come to speak to our committee and we are very thrilled to see the movement forward on the general plan and the land use plan. You will have the draft climate action plan and resiliency plan before you in the next couple of months. That planning process has been a good process. It's been a public process, but it's been done without the direction and leadership of the entire council. And it is the land use plan and the general plan that actually provide the policies for the city. The Climate Action Plan will identify projects and they will be great. We consider it kind of a down payment on the future, but we need a really visionary general plan. Alameda is the most vulnerable city in the Bay Area to the impacts of sea level rise. And we need a visionary land use plan that takes us into consideration to the end of this century and beyond. So we very much encourage the next steps, whatever you need to do in terms of your budget process into getting those updates and and having a robust public process over and above the Climate Action Plan, which was great, but that was begun with the prior council. We need your direction and your leadership in this next phase of having a general plan that will reflect the vision of the city. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Next is heavy metal products. Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, City Council, thank you so much for having me speak tonight. I was talking about, you know, my time coming for council and I'll talk in just a second about how it's in my mind. It's been three years, three years, three years since I've been back in city and involved in all these conversations. But my God, I mean, losing to Andrew. Talk about how long it's taking to get some of these conversations and how long it will be taking to get some of these ideas to come through. It really humbles me in terms of what we are faced with and also makes me want to challenge all of you to kind of really think about the bureaucracy that's involved with some of the decision making that we're having to go through in order to get some of these actions to pass through. So with that, my comments tonight are three years ago, nearly three years ago, I came before city council. Many of you were sitting on city council when I first brought to you forward the accident that incurred with my husband, Mark, when he was run off the road on Main Street. That was absolutely horrifying to me. And that meeting was a real wake up call for me to the importance about ensuring that we have safe and reliable opportunities to move around this city. And from that day forward, it really became a priority of mine to engage with all of you and with other city leadership around ensuring that not only pedestrians, not only cyclists, and not only drivers in the city of which I am all three have safe and consistent and accessible modalities of transportation that I can choose from that also allow me to access are varied opportunities around the city. But three years later we have recognized the importance of ensuring that we have those safer streets and we did adapt and believe in Vision Zero as well as the slowdown in town campaign. Three years later, we declared a climate emergency for our city in recognition of the geographic constrictions that we do have and will be facing in the very near future and three years later. And I hear that the primary complaint throughout our city right now is issues with traffic, you know, traffic congestion. How are we going to get in and off this island? How are we going to deal with deal with it? And we know that we're building more housing and I am totally in support of that. But we've got to do something and we have to be able to provide people with predictable and accessible methods of transportation and result of that. So I'm here tonight to add my voice to those who have and continue to urge you to move forward with the Transportation Commission or the transportation plan, transportation aspects that were added to the general plan 11 years ago, 11 years ago. And yet we're still stagnant. In following through on many of those priorities, we have had enough, at least as far as I'm concerned. I've had enough with the planning, with the input, with the discussion. And to me, it's time to set forth those priorities and move forward with the goals that have been identified. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Little Pop Hunter. Speaker 2: And then we have one more speaker, Lucy Julie. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker 1: Good evening. Thanks very much. I would like to reiterate what everyone has been saying. We are now in a crisis. You've acknowledged it. You've done the work as far as passing unanimously the climate emergency. So that does mean that you have to change the way you do business. It doesn't make sense that these plans come up and they go through all of these. They go through the Transportation Commission and then they that meets every other month and then they get reviewed and then they come back and then they go through all of these iterations. When we're in an emergency, you really do need to step it up. And hats off to Cambridge. The city council said we need to get more people on bikes. The way you do it is you provide a safe way to get around town. That's something you could do. You could just say, we need to get people on bikes. Therefore, this is what we're going to do. And you don't let it end up being a discussion with a few business owners, whether or not they like the idea or not. It's your job to make it happen. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker, this daly. Speaker 1: Hi. I'm Lucy Lee with the bike walk Alameda. I'm here to implore you to keep us moving forward with meaningful, transformative changes to our transportation system. We have plans. We've been working on plans. I've personally been working on plans for 20 years. Right. And some of them are great. They really have good things in them. They're already there. We could implement great things with them. Dennis mentioned some of the bits and pieces of the unwritten policies that end up keeping us from making our streets safer and better. But let's just start from now implementing the policies and the plans that we already have to make our streets better. Speaker 0: Please think. Thank you. And that was our last public speaker. Okay. We will close public comment now and let's hear council comment. And so so we structure this in the well, I mean, I'm open to suggestions. Mr. Thomas presented the general plan and the transportation annual report. Do we want to jump in? Talk about housing first. Talk about transportation first. Jump all over the map. What would you like to do? Councilmember by councilmember. And would you like to start? All right. Speaker 8: In terms of the general plan. And housing. You know, one of the things that I think we we need to have more of a discussion on is when we talk about workforce housing and things like that, how much of the housing that we are entitling is really going to be to buy versus rental property? Because I think what's the missing middle is? Where is that first unit that that people can actually enter into property ownership with? And I you know, it's not lost on me that we're having a public hearing after this on our fees and our master fee schedule. But I really do think that part of how we incentivize and streamline the process is by by stop acting. We need to, as a city, I think, stop acting as this bigger way where we engage in kind of rigorous design review. We really need to give people kind of much like we have with our different business districts, kind of here, pick from this, choose from this. And then, you know, here's your menu. As long as it's within this menu, you're good to go. And I think that if we can do that, we can kind of streamline things so that it's a more affordable process to actually allow construction to occur with still giving feedback and everything else. I just think we need to spend time on the menu and then go from there. But I would like to have a conversation about how many of these units are going to be available for purchase by individuals and condo sized as opposed to, you know, this is all going to be rental property and we're basically just going to be a city that essentially, no, you can't buy here if you're in the middle class. I think that that's a problem in terms of the transportation choices plan, you know where to start. Okay. So we did declare Vision Zero. That was something that I was very passionate about. But I think we need to also focus on. We need to continue to focus on that. And part of that is the daylighting. We have, I think, just a major problem, especially on connectors, major thoroughfares and the connectors to those major thoroughfares and cut through. Sherman is one of those. There are a lot of feed in streets that go into Sherman and that and especially as we lead into Jane Sweeney and we're trying to get people to use the cross Alameda Trail, we're trying to get people to bike through. We need to daylight a lot of those corners. And I think that that's something that we should spend some time on and it will help. It makes driving safer. It makes our cyclists safer, and it makes our pedestrian safer. And I just there have been so many intersections where I've almost been run over. I've witnessed just up and down Sherman as somebody who used to live on on off of Sherman. The number of cars running through there and on to other, whether it's getting onto Buena Vista or getting on to Santa Clara or Central, it is a major kind of access point that connects all of that. And we we really need to focus on daylighting, I think, between those streets. Sherman's one example, there are others. I just think that it would be a good use of our resources to actually focus on the daylighting. You know, in terms of our roads. You know, our replacement costs are quite high in terms of what we have to do and our capital costs. But again, there's a lot of things that go on our roads. And, you know, it's not just single occupancy vehicles. It's our busses. It's our city fleet and the wear and tear, it's bikes. And I think that, you know, saying that we're going to focus on ten miles. That's nice. It's a nice start from the state. I really do think that as we think about transit and how busses and and bikes are using all of these, I really do again think that we need to think a little bigger on that and really, you know, not just do the patchwork. We really need to think about how we're going to make sure that all of our roads and our major connectors are where we need them to be so that it's just about maintenance. And that will, in the long term, cut our costs down significantly. So just like we've done with our budget, I think we really need to think about what's the cost savings long term, if we can actually kind of think a little bigger, implement a little faster on some of that stuff. Bike share line bike left. What next? And how do we how do we fill that need? It was a tremendously popular program and it really did help with that. First and last mile also helped it with engaging our youth and getting folks to use non single occupancy vehicles. And so how do we how do we fill that void? The gondola. You know, I'm always going to support as many crossings as we can get. And I think the future with Oakland is going to involve any crossing that doesn't involve single occupancy vehicles. But I would love to see the A's and Oakland really also embrace the bike ped crossing because that has to happen. And that's to me like the non-negotiable. We need that on on the West End. And it can't just be that that biking is for everybody that's, you know, on the east side of town. But if you're on the West End, sorry, you get subpar conditions. And I don't think that just having a gondolas actually is going to solve that need. It's going to be cumbersome to get your. But I mean, I don't even know how that works. I don't know if it's ADA compliant. There's a lot of questions that I have. I just think that we we need that lifeline on the West End. And so I'm glad that they're looking at Alameda for another crossing. I'm going to be supportive of that. But I would also like in exchange to get their buy in on. The bike ped crossing, which we've been working on for some time. And we really do need to get serious about figuring out what the cost is going to be and then start working towards that. On the shuttle bus expansion, I hope that will look at things like the new proposed proposed. At this point, measure has passed, but connecting those areas, if we if we do have the free shuttle bus expanding, I want it to connect with places like the McKay site and some of these others, because if we're going to have that free shuttle, it really does need to serve our community and go to sites like that. So as we look at that, I would like there to be a consideration of who are we, who are we moving, where are we moving them to, and who are the community members that are most in need where this is really going to make a difference for them? And I think that that's one of those sites that that we really should be looking at, as well as the new Alameda Point collaborative site. So those are those are my comments on this. I think we've come a long way. There's certainly a lot to celebrate in our plan. And, you know, I think we've made tremendous gains. But I also think we kind of need to continue to think about how we're going to, you know, and the reason I mentioned the road replacement plus the crossing plus the daylighting is to me that that hits at all the different elements of transit we're really trying to accomplish where we can get multiple that benefits. And we do have more housing coming online and we need to prepare for that. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Vela, let's just go to line, if you don't mind, Vice Mayor, next way simpler for me. Speaker 5: So thank you. And the housing element. You know, I would like to look at some policies. We're clearly we're clearly not reaching our affordable goals. And the reason we're not reaching an affordable goal is because we're not building enough actual market rate housing. And so the market rate housing that could be affordable is going to people who then fix it up and make it more expensive than it is. You know, we are going to have to and that's probably a bigger conversation for another day, have a discussion about whether we want to be in a city where we are paying , paying for people to be able to live in homes that are affordable, or if we're going to actually start building the community in the region, that that is affordable. But one way that we can use slightly more market rate ways of doing this is to increase the availability of accessory dwelling units. I remember when it was passed, there was this large fear that holy cow, thousands of people were going to come in and apply to put it in accessory dwelling units and now the number is 38 with 20 actually moving forward. Yeah, I know. There goes the neighborhood. I'd like to look at a way that we can use the accessory dwelling unit law to actually increase the number of accessory dwelling units, maybe by limiting the square footage so that, you know, you can currently build one unit up to 1200 square feet on certain lots. How about if you could build two units of 600 square feet? It may actually make it so that the rent that you collect from those units could actually better cost cover the cost. So I would be really interested in looking at that. You know, we heard at least three, if not four speakers earlier talk about climate in our climate emergency declaration. We know that one of the number one things we can do to impact climate, which has impacts on transportation and whatever else, is our land use and where we site housing. Our general plan and our housing element that comes out of this plan need to address that. And I will be looking for for, you know, explicitly how are we using our land use to to impact our climate, our climate impacts? On the transportation side, I want to say first, I appreciated that you pointed out we have two transportation planners and like three public works folks who, you know, I work in a transportation division that has more staff than the entire city staff of Alameda. And sometimes I have to remind myself, there's only a couple of people here working on this stuff. And they do they do huge amount of work. And I'm really very appreciative for the really good work and the mayor's comment about quality over quantity. It definitely holds. So so thank you for that. In terms of the transportation choices plan in the next two years, I want to I would like us to really look at the fact that our transit goals are very well made, a point oriented for the most part. They're not connecting to Fruitvale, they are not connecting to BART, and they are not connecting to downtown Oakland yet. We know that is where our transportation problem is. I fear that we are allowing our development. We need to work on the Army to point stuff, but we have a development plan for Alameda Point and it has all sorts of measures and whatever else we need our city planning to really be transportation planning to be focusing on how to get people so they're not driving over the bridges to BART and into downtown Oakland. That's our low hanging fruit because unfortunately, when you look at the transit use in Alameda, you capture all the people who take BART to work for their commute. But a lot of those people are driving to BART, so we're getting counted as yay, we're great at transit, but at the same time we're having the impact of, oh, those people are all driving and and impacting our traffic. So. On the active transportation plan. It was said a couple of different ways by speakers we had tonight, but I had written down that plan needs to have a robust protected bike lane network. It cannot just be here are two more streets we are going to work on. That will be unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. We need to start moving the needle on climate and in transportation mode and we are not going to do that until people who have eight year olds are comfortable saying, Hey, go right to Jimmie's house. It's two neighbors hoods over and there are there is a safe way for you to do that without me. Maybe it's 11. It's probably a little young. Speaker 7: I did it when I was ten. Speaker 5: 11? Sure. I would like to see a start effect. And Daylighting is a great example. I'd like to see how we can start doing some quick and effective things. We are doing a great job of moving very expensive, very long term projects forward. That is not a complaint. We need to keep doing that. I'd like to see more get in the in the queue so that we have a continuous program of that. But between daylighting using cones to test ideas, etc., kind of tactical urbanism, whatever, we need to start making changes now. I sent a tweet I saw online to city staff last night that was complaining about all the parents in town who have to lock their cargo bikes up outside the martial arts studio on I believe it was Park Street. But I know this happens on Webster's where there is no place for people to park their bikes when they get to the place they are going. That is a low, quick and effective thing. So when when I see something that our one of our two year goals is to put in 50 bike lane bike bike racks citywide . I'm like, we are not trying very hard. I know. I know where that comes from. I'm not complaining about the effort that people have put into that. We we need a goal. How do we put in a thousand bike racks in two years? Whatever. But it's got to be meaningful. We could put ten in front of the Alameda Theater and have them packed every single night of the summer. That would be 20% of our two year goal policy that came up as well. I would like to see that's something we can get done. We don't have to wait for an active transportation plan for some of that. Let's get these policies done. We need to, you know, whether it's the pedestrian push button policy where we have a consistent way to prioritize the active transportation modes that our general plan says are our priority or whether it's the vision zero goals of actually looking at Nadeau in our lane widths and having a safe streets design as opposed to a traffic throughput design, we need to do that. The Broadway Jackson Project, I would like to ask that that come back for discussion. I think that that project is not well understood. The voters were sold, that it was a multimodal project and we are spending a 75 to $90 million on what is eventually essentially a freeway rebuild with no true bike impacts there. So I would like to see that come back so that we can actually have a conversation about, you know, kind of where does our council even stand on that project? What are the benefits and what do we really think we're getting out of that? At the end of the day, that project has to become multi-modal or it's not something we should be pushing. In my mind. The Lifeline Bridge. I think that's really important. I don't think it has to be a six lane Fruitvale Bridge rebuild like is in the county plan. I think we could look at the $90 million for that bridge and whether or not we could use that on the bike bridge or something else. And I'd like to kind of keep that in mind. The ferries I'm all for looking at right sizing the parking and using. Pricing to to make it work better for people who need parking. But the Harbor Bay Ferry we've been were six months in since we cut like 120 parking spaces out of the availability for that ferry. And in that time, six months, we have had four months where ridership month over month was less than the month before it was. The ridership is continuing to grow. It is we do not have a parking problem. We have a people not not walking and biking to the ferry problem. So let's use let's not spend a lot of staff time trying to figure out how to build more parking at ferries that are having growing growth without with with the parking that we have. Lastly, in my last minute, I know we do have an existential climate problem. We need to prioritize that we are the city in the Bay Area that has this problem unlike any other. The budget is where our values live. I will be looking for how we have adjusted our budget in the for the coming two years to show that these new priorities that we have said the climate declaration, the transportation that we adopted two years ago, etc., are the places that we're putting our efforts, whether that is looking for how we can increase our staff from 2 to 3 to get the projects we are saying are our priorities done or whether that is how are we using our road, road paving program to highlight places that bike lanes and additional benefits there? You know, I really want to see this budget document as a as a as a statement of values for our city. But it's a great plan. Hopefully. That was helpful. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de SAG. Right. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Let me begin by restating something that resident Ruth Abby said, because I think it's it's important. Is she to summarize what she said, she said, we need a visionary general plan that takes us to the end of the century and even beyond, and one that involves a robust public process. I definitely want to second that. I do think that we need a visionary general plan update that is done comprehensively along to two axes axis. The first axis would be one where we are, in addition to updating the 1990 elements that we are also taking a look at the transportation even though was done in 2008. I think we also have to take a look at especially the circulation aspect to the transportation element. And I think we have to update our general plan in a comprehensive manner connecting the different chapters. And this would also apply to the housing element in terms of the type of housing that that we really want to begin to create policies around. So I think that's why we need to look at updating not just the 1990 chapters, but also current and up to date ones like the 2008 transportation. And also we're looking at the housing element. For me, what's driving a desire to update the general plan in a comprehensive manner are a variety of things. One, we take a look at what's happened at the Harbor Bay Business Park, where recently the development agreement is. If I read that letter right, the development agreement is now expired. And what that tells me then is, you know, do we really want 100 feet buildings as a right? And given the concern expressed by Harbor Bay residents about, you know, you know, a five story building, certainly that wasn't 100 feet but is still five stories. I think this is a rare opportunity for us to begin to take a look at not just land use is at the Harbor Bay Business Park but throughout Alameda. When we look at, for example, Sacramento, which is issuing a lot of rules that are almost superseding local control when it comes to building residential in neighborhoods, I think as a charter city, we can begin to work within the context that that that Sacramento says, you know, how much building that you should create, how many accessory dwellings you should do you know how much buildings should be done along transit corridors? Because we might one day have a part line. We can head that off the past by having a general plan that begins to address those issues. So and then the other thing that's kind of driving my desire to look at a general plan update in a comprehensive manner, looking at the linking up the different chapters is, frankly speaking, when I look at the major bike pedestrian projects that are coming down Otis Drive or it's in Central Avenue, I get where people are coming from with regard to that. But to me there seems to be an inconsistency between the circulation and the designations of some of these uses. And I think to the extent that we hammer out, you know, what it is that we really want on these routes or even on any other routes, then I think the specific projects like an Incidental Avenue, uh, or, or the Otis Drive projects, I think that they become more coherent. Now, the second axes by which I believe the general plan update process should be done comprehensively is one. Again, going back to Ruth Abbey's statement, one involving many residents in the process. Like a blue ribbon commission, we might reach out to the League of Women Voters. We might reach out to Alameda Citizens Task Force. We might reach out to to the realtor groups. We might reach out to the renter organizations in town to help us in putting together some kind of blue ribbon. Because for many counties and cities, when they update their general plan, it is done in a comprehensive manner. And frankly, it does cost a lot of money. I have no doubt about that. So I will argue that that we ought to have another workshop on this just on this matter. Now, finally, in terms of the Transportation Choices plan, I'm very excited about what was before us. I want to I want to second the priorities that that were were reviewed this evening as well as in the staff report. And I want to say, in terms of the transportation choices plan, the point of the transportation choices plan was actually implementation. So that's why we have projects in there. So the point is that as as we're as a city, as city officials were beginning work, beginning to tell staff where we want you to place your limited number of staff persons in terms of which projects should move forward. So for those residents here or on the air, on television, when they hear the transportation choices plan, it's not just another plan. It is actually an inflammation implementation document. So I really appreciate that moving along. I really appreciate the fact that we're doing this check in. I am excited about the the Oakland A's gondola idea. I would just, you know, make sure to I would caution us to be careful as we move along because it might not just be about a gondola, could be about something else. And we need to be very careful as as we move that. But I think if we if we do everything right, I think a lot of people could come out winners. But but but there are some issues that we definitely need to look at when it comes to the gondola. So I'm very hopeful about tonight. And I just want to add one more thing about going back to the general plan update process, why it should be done comprehensively. For example, one of the chapters that is out of date is the Parks and Open Space chapter. You know, as we do, as we link up the Parks and Open Space chapter and do that in connection with, say, our land use, one of the policies that could come out of, you know, the public process for the Parks and Open Space chapter could be that, you know, because every park basically has a side, a road right next to it. We could put potentially one of the policies that could potentially come out could be in encouraging, you know, electric for electric cars and prioritizing cars that make a commitment to multi, you know, multi occupancy ridership. So that's, you know, something to think about, especially in terms of dealing with the climate action issues. So so that's my $0.02 is comprehensively update the general plan along two axes involving most if not all the chapters and also involving a robust public engagement process. And to have further discussions on that obviously, and also to encourage us in moving forward in the transportation choices, priorities that were discussed tonight and also keeping an eye on the gondola. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Brody. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for your presentation. I mean, I do think in you we do have a visionary person. So I put a lot of faith in you and your ability to to get things done. I'm not going to use my whole 9 minutes because I think my colleagues have said a lot of things that are important to me. I do share the frustration of some of the public comments. You know, I think and you're not you and I met a couple of weeks ago when we plotted out, like I still have the piece of paper, you know, the 3000 or so units that we've entitled in the four and a half years I've been here and we have, what, 50, 60 built? So it's it's completely frustrating to me. You know, I don't mind taking the political hit for proving housing, but I'd like to see the benefit of it at the same time. Right. And, you know, just for me personally, I'm sure I mean, I'm sure everyone a lot of people are in the same boat. I'm starting to look in the market and there's just not a lot there. And then you look at a condo that's two bedrooms and a laundry, 550,000. And then you see that it it sells for 610 or six, 20, you know, ten, 12% over over list price. And, you know, there's just not enough supply. And if we're going to look at our general plan, which I'm perfectly fine, you know, looking at, I don't think it should be bogged down in a process that takes forever, because it's just frustrating to me that things just get bogged down and they take forever. I do think we have to start thinking we're running out of horizontal space. We need to think vertically. And I think that's where we're going to be going in the future. And, you know, I worked in Sacramento for a while, so I understand a little bit of what's going on there. But, you know, cities have abdicated their responsibility to provide housing. You know, we've had a chance. And instead of providing it, most cities try to find ways to stop it. So I understand why Sacramento is doing what they're doing, because nobody else wants to do that. So they have to step in and say, okay, we're giving you a chance to self regulate and you're failing. So now we have to tell you what to do. So, I mean, I think the way we can avoid that is to build more housing and we have to do that. You know, just seeing 15, 16, you know, housing units on the market, you know, it's incredibly frustrating if you're, you know, trying to buy a place to live. And as the vice mayor said, you know, a lot of these units, you know, we should be giving or we should have market rate. So our lower cost housing is not inflated in price. So I think that's something we have to do a better job of. And if we can find ways to streamline improvement or approval, streamline the issuance of permits, get get shovels in the ground and get things built and get our people housed. I'm more I'm in favor of all of those on transit. You know, I appreciate all the comments there, too, as well. You know, just a personal anecdote. I had this this whole issue with, you know, being able to see people intersections. I just got hit the other day at Franklin. I slowed down because I remember when I was walking precincts, I almost got hit in that crosswalk. So I slowed down in case somebody was in the crosswalk. But the guy coming out on through didn't see me and he almost barrel into me. So if I didn't slow down because I was afraid of hitting somebody, he would have hit me. So those are things I think that media, a customer constant, L.A. brought those up. I think that's something super critical. And again, the frustration. Of the public comments. This Central Avenue bike lanes should have been done months ago. I mean, we gave direction. It kept coming back. It kept coming back. We gave direction to staff to go do the safest way possible and get it implemented. And now it's still going round and round with people. I mean, we need to do a better job as a council. I totally agree with with the public comments. We need a better job as council setting policy and not letting things drag. And, you know, with all due respect to the vice mayor and Broadway. Jackson, 19 years and I'm not interested in bringing something back that's been debated for 19 years. Things just need to get done. And I share everyone's frustration with that. You know, I don't really talk too much about specific projects. I mean, the good news is the lawsuit on our M three got thrown out and they're not going to appeal it and challenge it so we can access that money for ferries. And I think it was a $300 million over the course of erm three, four ferries. I think that's exciting. That's the to me the way of the future, the cross Alameda shuttle that the business groups have been pushing. I was glad to see that on there. You know, we have to do we have to do this cross this, this extra crossing faster. You know, it's already languished. You know, I just frustrated that I share the frustration with people that, you know, these things just languish. And with all due respect to a robust community process, I mean, that's part of the reason why some of these things languish, is we try to make everyone happy and we're never going to do it. And we were elected, I think, to make these decisions. We have super competent staff. Again, I think you're very visionary, Andrew. If any more people to get these things done, ask us for more people. I think that's something we would be I just I would be open to I want to speak for my colleagues, but we need to start getting things done. And I share the frustration. And, you know, I hope that and I ask the public, tell us what you think we could do better. I mean, if we're not setting the right policy, if we needed to do something like they're doing in Cambridge, we need to do more of the things like we did with the climate action emergency. You know, tell us what what we could do better to help you, you know, accomplish what you what you, what you're frustrated with. So I'm excited. But I also share your frustration. And I just want to see things, you know, get moving. Del Monte first vote on council was to try to overturn that. Five years ago it didn't pass, but it's still stuck. Nothing's happened. So I wish we can get off the dime and get things done. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Otis. So these are exciting topics and I think we have a, um, energetic new council that's going to get some things done along with our outstanding staff. So it is my privilege to be one of two mayors who represents Alameda County on the Legislative Policy Committee of the CASA Compact. And we have a very aggressive meeting schedule of once a week in San Francisco. And yes, I get there by public transit. And the kinds of compact is 15 very robust mandates policies to achieve three goals to protect produce and preserve protect is to protect residents mainly tenants to produce more housing because we're seriously under housed as a state and preserve is to preserve the existing housing we have because much of our housing and certainly in Alameda our rental housing stock especially is very old. So what we're doing because there are more than 200 pieces of legislation involving housing that are going through the legislature, although that is being that number is being winnowed down . But each week we have a particular theme that we cover. I don't even know it, this week's theme as we usually get it the night before. And then I have to read through all these bill summaries. But last week we did protections. So tenant protections and there is some exciting legislation even looking at bringing back a form of Costa Hawkins or getting rid of Costa Hawkins, I'm not sure what that is, but we spent a large part of the session last time on Adus accessory dwelling units, so I know all of the ADU bills have moved out of their committees and on to Appropriations and I'm not sure what, you know, this week's, you know, horse trading yielded, but some of the things that are being proposed in these various pieces of legislation is not to require that the resident of the main House, if you will, because they need an accessory dwelling unit as a usually unit behind or in the basement or, you know, converted garage, not to require ownership. That did raise some concerns because people talked about it changing the character of neighborhoods you always have to be careful about. So what if people buy these? Yeah. Or rent them but then turn them into Airbnbs and so and I think we have a um. Well now I'm getting ahead of myself. Um, but I will a little spoiler alert. Our new city attorney who starts next month comes to us from the city of Santa monica, where they have implemented some, some ordinances to protect from just that sort of thing. Um, but as something that I think is exciting is, and I actually brought this up in the committee is that we're looking at, we're seeing more prefabricated housing being used for aid use and prefab housing has come a long way. It used to have sort of a a stigma attached to it. But you should see some of these units if you haven't already, they are easy to put up. There is much less impactful on a neighborhood where an aid was going in and the building trades have. They've pivoted and they understand that, yeah, there's a new way of building residential units and they have training facilities and they're learning how to do this. So this is a way that we and in Alameda, we were a little ahead of the curve because we did our ADU ordinance, but they're mostly the complies with all the new state law coming. And one of the things was brought up by some of my colleagues that there's so much bureaucracy and that adds to the cost of a project and therefore stifles housing production. There is pending legislation or proposed legislation that would limit how many hearings a project could go through. A city could have, you know, maybe three. And then that's it. It's either it moves forward or, you know, you're done with your housing, with your hearings. After that, the and I will just say that the county of San Mateo, um, one of their, their representative mentioned take a look at the county's website. They have a housing department and it is a very user friendly website. Take a look, Alameda, folks, and see if there's some things we could we could emulate. The and so what we're looking at when we look at this proposed legislation is the you know, how does it meet the three goals of protection, production and preservation? Also, how does the legislation impact the jobs housing balance? Because that's something communities are struggling with. We tend to be, um, I think we're a more housing rich community than we are jobs rich and we are trying to achieve that balance and certainly the financial impact. We don't need more unfunded mandates. We've also told our the representatives, the committee chairs and MTC in a bag that we want to see more carrots and fewer sticks. For those of us who are doing quite a bit, we want the to have best practices rewarded. There was a piece of legislation proposed, but it's been pulled that would have taken away transportation funding, SB one funding, if you didn't meet your production numbers. And, you know, we don't have a lot of control over what gets produced. But anyway, this is an ongoing process. We're working along with the budget process, to get our recommendations in and hopefully impact some of the legislation. Okay. Quickly, in my 3 minutes, I'm just going to go through. Okay, the housing element. Okay. I think that what can help Alameda and other cities is we are looking at some infusion of state funds and that's even beyond I think it was perhaps one and two that we passed last year. The governor has added 500 million and it doesn't sound like a lot, but he's added that toward affordable housing and I think more is on the way. Okay. I'm jumping over to transportation because I talked a lot about housing with the cost of compact. Yeah. Line bikes pulled out. I know. Dockless bike share seems to be a challenge. I would love for a staff to look for another replacement. I agree with Councilmember Vella. It is a great way to get people out of cars. And to close that first last mile gap. Bus passes we talked about or the report talks about the city wide easy pass program at a meeting. And I can't remember whether it's cost compact or maybe East Bay Economic Development Alliance. They talked about how there are no I think it was cost cutting back some county I can't tell you which one in the nine Bay Area counties is making sure that bus passes are made available to people like the homeless population, people who are, you know, very vulnerable populations. And so I know I'm sitting with two colleagues who are on the AC Transit Liaison Committee. If I don't know if that's something that AC Transit is doing or if you could bring it up. But I think that that's important just to give people that access to get to the services that they need. And the we do need to make our streets as pedestrian and bicycle friendly as possible. And I also agree we need to move forward on Central Avenue. I mean, there's there's a finite range of possibilities. Let's choose the best one and let's get going. We can't please everybody. All the merchants safety should always be our first priority. Safety of drivers and drivers last probably after pedestrians and bicyclists the Alameda shuttle exploration I'm I'm okay with that but are we duplicating AC transit. I feel like Alameda residents don't realize quite how extensive AC transit is. Maybe we need to do a little more public outreach on the apps that you can use to plan your route. I find them to be great. We do need more EV charging stations across the city. Let's do that. And the gondola to BART and the a's terminal, it's worth exploring. I mean, anything that gets people out of their cars, it's not mutually exclusive with the the bike bridge. But I don't think we take anything off the table at this point. And really quickly, because I have public works and city engineer in the room, the pedestrian signals that flashing cross light on Otis Drive by Lane School have been on constantly for weeks. They don't go off and it's going to just make people, you know, less aware of those things. Oh, it's flashy, but no one's in that and that could be dangerous in another situation. So if you could get that fixed on anyway, let's move forward. Let's get these things done. My time's up. You are. Thanks, everybody. So, staff, you've got your your direction. Speaker 11: We're all set. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 11: Very much. Thanks for spending this much time talking about this. It was very helpful. You'll be hearing back from us shortly and often. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And thanks for all the good work, all of you out there and staff and also the public for all your great input. Okay. We are moving on to six C.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Endorsing: 1) an Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan and Housing Element, and 2) an Annual Report on the Status of the Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities. [Consideration of an Annual Report is exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA only applies to actions that have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment.] (Planning Building & Transportation 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6738

Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And thanks for all the good work, all of you out there and staff and also the public for all your great input. Okay. We are moving on to six C. Speaker 2: Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending Master P resolution number 12191 to add new and revise existing planning, building and public works fees. Speaker 3: You're back. Speaker 11: I'm back. I'm just doing that. I'm just going to do the Vanna White portion here. This is. I'm going to Madam Chair Council. And for Thomas, what we have before you tonight is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution amending our master fee resolution to add new and revised planning, building and public works fees. This is a required exercise. We charge fees for services under state law. We have to check in on those fees every five years. We have to make sure in that study that we are not overcharging. This is a fee for service. It's not a fee to make money. It's a fee to cover the costs of providing a service to people who need permits under either local or state law to make improvements to their property. We also want to check to make sure we're not under charging under council. Council policy is to make sure that we are getting cost recovery. So if somebody needs a service, they need to come to city hall to get a permit or a service. We need to make sure that we are accurately charging them for the cost of that service so that the general fund or that other residents of the city through their general fund are not sort of subsidizing those costs for them. So that's what we're doing. We're checking to make sure that our fees are accurate. And once again, these are fees are not designed to make the city money. These are just to cover the cost of a service. We did this this we do this every five years this year. We did it in partnership with public works. So what you have is planning building, which is the planning building and Transportation Department. But we also did it joined forces with public works because they needed to update their fees as well. This was an important exercise because there's really probably no two departments in Alameda that work more closely together. I mean, most projects and any projects of any size require permits from both planning, building and public works. So we want to make that process as seamless as possible for the for the customer. And so we also tried to sort of make sure that our fee structure works well together. Something else that I know this is important to the council and something we were working on constantly and also causes the need for adjustments in fees . We're constantly working on efficiencies. How do we make our processes more streamlined? How do we make it more efficient? This reduces the cost of the fees. It also just makes us all much more productive and makes the experience for the customer just much better. And you know, it's good for both the city. We meant spend less staff time processing permits and it's good for the customer. They they get their permits faster and they spend less, less to get them. I'm going to now turn this over to Greg McFadden, our building official, who has been here even longer than I have and has been through this process, I think four times. He's going to talk a little bit about the planning and building changes. And then Scott Wickstrom, your capable city engineer, is going to come up and take us. There is take a couple of minutes to talk about the public works fees and what's changed there. We're all available to answer questions if you have any. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas again. Speaker 9: Gaming getting fancy building official quickly. The building fees were currently when we did the fee study and when we did the fee study, we look at all of our fees and we talk to staff and we look at how long it takes to do the process, processing the permanent, the counter inspections, the whole gamut. And so that's what we've been doing for the last few months, is looking at those, figuring out what it takes to do a permit and then figuring out based on that, what, what we need to charge based on, say, we've determined that the building department is currently recovering about 80% of their fees, their costs. We were charging an hourly rate of about $156. We're looking at charge of $200. There's not a lot of changes to the building fees that pretty say we made a few we added a couple, but not a lot of changes. The increases really for building are were to code cycles since the last fee study. One of the big changes that's come into play is the green building code, which has added quite a bit of new requirements on both residential commercial buildings. So there's more time involved in inspections and planning check and and staff cost increase over five years. So that's where you get the increase in the building code planning has gone from a 60% cost covering up 200%. Their hourly fee would change from $184 to $216. And our planning has done some more or more significant changes. One of the main ones is going from more deposits to more flat fees so that there's a surety of what you're being charged when you come in for a permit. So you get a deposit and it's sort of out there and you don't really know. There's a lot of staff time in tracking the time and then billing sort of flat fees. And we're able to do this by looking at what we've done over the past five years has been particularly busy the last five years. We have some good numbers, so we were able to determine what those flatfish could be. So planning just got a lot more flat fees. We've done some streamlining, looked at items that we don't need to do as significant a review on. We're instituting some online permitting from a building standpoint and from planning standpoint. We take a lot of plans in electronically any of the big projects we've done, all the side projects have been submitted electronically. We're not taking in the big rolls of plans until the end when we need a copy for inspectors in the staff. So we've cut down a lot on the planning. We wish we had done that with Domani because we have some enormous rolls in the vault waiting to go. But they've been there for, as you say, quite a while. That's the big changes in planning building. I'm going to turn it over to Scott. Speaker 3: Good evening, madam, and members of the Council. My name's Scott Wickstrom, City Engineer. I'll talk briefly about the changes to the Public Works Office. We do work closely with planning and building. However, we're quite a bit different in terms of the scope of projects that we look at. We very much are narrow to public right away and while building will issue well over 3000 permits per year, planning looks at over 500 some odd applications and various permit reviews. We have about 40 ongoing projects impact the public right away. So what we're trying to do with this fee studying the changes in here is actually go the opposite direction of planning department and from a fixed fee and doing more towards hourly based. These 40 projects are really the big projects are the site there are the new warehouses out on Harbor Bay for one of the challenge projects and aluminum arena. It's hard to really judge what the scope of that work is going to be. The best way to accurately collect our costs is to basically come up with a fee study and then bill hourly for our efforts. Our rate does increase from 182 to $192 per hour and following a similar methodology that the other departments were done. One thing that we are making a bit of a departure and we are looking to explicitly subsidize some permits are for encroachment permits for residential properties. If you have a broken flag, a concrete or a couple of broken flags concrete up front, most homeowners are find it to be very expensive to one hire the contractor. One of the things that we realize from our standpoint when we go through and also inspect that work and plan, check and go through all the reviews in the process because of the liability that we incur from the city, it takes a fair amount of time and effort for us to the point where that cost of our permit would be almost equal to the cost of the improvement, which means that the work gets done on Saturday or Sunday without benefit of a permit, without benefit of inspection, and not necessarily to city standards. So we are making a move to explicitly subsidize that. It's a relatively small proportion of the amount of work that we do in a relatively small amount of year, the total cost recovery that we do. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions of staff? And we have no public comments. So council discussion. Did you have a staff question? Speaker 5: I can ask it under discussion. Speaker 0: You can ask it now. You're on. Speaker 5: Site. And I spoke with the city manager about this. I well, since we're in discussion, I'll say first up, this is a great report, makes the case for how the fees that you're suggesting make sense from a cost recovery point of view. What I found missing in the report was who is being impacted by this and what is that impact? I appreciate our city engineers pointing out that the public works fees are really mostly very large projects for the most part, etc. So on the planning and building fees, can we do we have some idea of that? These are everybody, right? That was what you told me earlier. But what the impact of this increase is to a a norm, you know, a homeowner who is renovating your bathroom. Speaker 11: Absolutely. You can sort of decipher it from the tables. But what thank you for the heads up. Greg was able to come up with sort of some simple projects, and there's a handout here that. Speaker 5: You're better deciphering than I think. Speaker 9: So we we did we put together three fairly typical projects that we see come to the counter and looked at what the current planning fee planning building fees would be and what the proposed would be. So the first one is a residential addition, 450 square feet that a $75,000 valuation design reviews required. So the current design review fee is $3,000 going forward as a flat fee, it's a 2860 filing fee goes up from 208 to 264. You can see planned check goes up, inspection goes up a bit. So the total cost goes from about 5100 to almost 50 $600. So that's the impact on that type of project. Commercial tenant improvement. Nonstructural says no new structural walls 2500 square feet with a window change. So in this case we have design review exemption. It still gets looked at to make sure it's consistent with the guidelines. But there's there's no design review process, $150,000 valuation. You can see the design review fee went up a bit. Filing stays the same as the previous example. Planned check is pretty flat and building inspection goes up about $400. So we've got about a 600, 550, $600 increase in that permit. The last one is a bigger project, new multi-family residential construction, four story 5200 square feet, $1.4 million on two acres with design review. This would be consistent with one of the buildings at BLOCK nine. Inside a design review was a $500 fee with time and materials $184 an hour. We'd be looking to have a flat fee or a initial fee of 2868 within the time materials at $216 an hour. So the real change there is slightly larger flat fee, with an increase in the hourly cost building permit inspections go up again based on that and the total cost is up about $3,000. That's just an example of three that we came up with. Speaker 5: Thank you. I so first off, I mean, I asked just everybody in the business. I asked this question about 330 this year. Appreciate how quickly and how detailed you got the design review is that the from the from the looks of it it doesn't matter whether you are a residential or commercial or huge building a new thing . The design review is 2868 flat. Speaker 11: Yeah. It's let me just clarify on the big project when when when there's a there's a flat and plus time in materials that's essentially a deposit. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 11: So got it. Your big project comes in, we start tracking our hours that the first minute if we if your project actually only turn takes 6 hours, well we'll take it out of the initial deposit. Okay. Speaker 5: All right. If you're just redoing some windows, but they need some sort of approval, but they don't need design review because they look just the same as the ones that are there. Do we think that this kind of 8% increase in 8 to 9% increase in. Speaker 11: For the exemption? Speaker 5: I'm just wondering, this is a $75,000 project, but I'm sure you get a lot of just rewiring a couple of like light fixtures, kind of really small projects. Do we think that the the scale, which seems to be about 8%, is about the same for tiny project? Speaker 9: Yeah the the the hourly when we looked at the these projects are small project with changes of lights. The hourly time was the same the the hourly charge went up. So that's the difference you'd see is the difference between 156 and $200 an hour would be the difference you'd see in that type of project. Speaker 5: It was like a 25% increase for those tiny. For those small. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Anyone else? Yes. Councilmember Day, sir. Speaker 4: Well, thank you. I certainly had the same concerns about possible impacts to what I will call the smaller scale projects, particularly projects done by homeowners or property owners. In looking at the report, particularly the appendix. It seems to me a way to systematically get at that is to one. Ex for me accept the modifications with regard to the planning division. Because when you look at the tables in the appendix A1, when you look at, for example, the first table and A1, the third table and A1 and the fourth table in A1, the nature of the fees that are being referred to there are largely kind of larger projects, the type of fees that are being discussed. The second part, the second table identifies the type of fees that. Speaker 1: Could potentially be smaller. Speaker 4: Projects. But by and large, I look at the type of fees that are being discussed and they're Appendix A1 Planning Division. It seems to be the larger projects. When you go into the building division though, you look at the appendices and you look at a range that I think there's fees with regard to flagpoles, for example, fees with regard to fences. So a lot of the fees that are associated there do seem to be kind of a smaller scale projects, but not all, because there are some fees within the building division that refer to new construction. So new construction is by and large going to be a pretty big project. But but what's also distinguished there, though, is remodeling. So. And the second thing about the fees within the building division as indicated in the front end of the staff report, but also as indicated on the on a detailed basis in the appendices, is that , you know, the cost recovery is 80%. I mean, it's not 100%, but 80% ain't bad compared to, I say, the cost recovery of what's what's happening in public works or or in the planning division. So one thing that I would suggest is that within the building division that we might my druthers is to not just any fees that have a cost recovery of 78% or higher, but if there is a fee within the building division that has cost recovery of less than than 78%, you know, adjust that either to 100% or 78%, whatever. So that would be my druthers and also to to adjust anything having to do with new construction, whether new construction for single family homes or new construction for industrial or commercial, but for remodels of residential. I would keep at it. I would keep it a 78. I mean, because from my vantage point, an 80% cost recovery is pretty good. Speaker 11: I just I understand, you know, sort of where you're going. A couple of things. One, just the numbers that Scott talked about. Alamy we do a few big projects a year. The lion's share of the expense that you as a city spend to process permits and the money that we bring in to cover those costs is the small projects. It's those small I mean, if you think about our projects, it's it's like a pyramid. There's a few big ones that we all talk about and we argue about it in public hearings. And then there's the rest of the pyramid, which is all the little ones, and that's really the bread and butter. So when you say or when you think about the option of saying, well, let's not try to get full cost recovery on the small ones, you're talking about a huge portion of the pyramid. And so what does that mean? It means that one of the other things that the council has adopted in the past is their need, because the planning building department is completely fee based. So we're our plan and our our whole mission in life is to operate this service without having to use general fund money. It's but we also are preparing for cycles. And what happened in the recession was the cycle went down and immediately we just had to start essentially laying people off and stop doing the kinds of work that the council and the planning board still wanted us to do, like updating the general plan and doing the zoning changes and or doing things that would help us get out of the recession. And it got tricky. So one of the things that you've done, which is smart, is said we got to build in a rainy day fund because there are going to be cycles. So you need to build up a reserve. So the way when we go at 80%, what you're basically saying is just eat away the reserve. I mean, that's what's going to happen if we don't get 100% cost recovery as close as possible. It means that our ability to build a reserve is going to be severely hampered because we're essentially going to be digging into the reserve to cover that extra 21% for the lion's share of the projects. And once we eat away the entire reserve, then we're going to be coming back to you basically with our out saying, hey . We have no more reserve member reserve right now is 800, about 800,000. I mean, we'll burn through that and then it'll be like, okay, time to either raise the fees back up to get her percent or open up the general fund and start subsidizing through your general fund the services that we're providing at the counter. So that's the downside of not pushing to the to the, you know, up to the levels we're talking about now. Speaker 0: Just come in that I would not be able to support my colleague's proposal because I very much appreciate the work that all three of these departments did. And I do want to know that the policies we have in place, the fees were charging, have been streamlined, have been updated and modernized. And I, I think that it is entirely reasonable to have these charges. And, again, we look at all the things we want to do. In our last report, we told Andrew more than once, if you need new staff, you know, more staff, let us know. And at the same time, we would say 78% recovery is good enough. I, I think there's a lot of ways that homeowners can finance home improvements. Sometimes you take out a home equity loan, and we do know that property in this area has appreciated greatly in the last decade or so. But I think we do need to keep an eye on our city's budget. But we have a bit of housekeeping to do because it's 5 minutes to 11 and we need a motion and we need four votes to pass to to pass it to be able to consider new items. We have the item nine, which is Councilmember de Suggs Referral Council referral, and then we have ten, which is an update on the Emma Hood streams that are items. So do I have a motion to go past 11 from the tired is looking person up here or. Speaker 8: I'd make a motion I'd like the update on on my hood. I'm wondering if Councilmember Desai wouldn't mind if we could continue his item to another meeting. Speaker 4: Uh, the only thing is this. We continued from two meetings ago. Speaker 8: Okay, I'm just. I'm. My feet are swelling up. I've been sitting for a long time. I'm not feeling great, so I may leave. Speaker 4: Well, if we could do it the first part of the meeting, that would. I'd love that. I wouldn't mind. Speaker 0: Well, counselor, referrals have a place to go. But will. I mean, I don't know what our next agenda looks like yet, so I would certainly I want to hear your item, too, but I could. Speaker 5: Can I make a suggestion. Speaker 0: Please? Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: Could we continue to go to Monday night's meeting? Allow me to point. After we only have one conversation, which is kind of to say, because we then just quickly talk about it there. Speaker 0: Well, that's a public meeting. The problem is, I don't think you necessarily have the kind of public access that this has tonight. It's not going to be televised, for instance, for people who aren't there. But I mean, that's certainly a suggestion. Okay. Do I have a motion to go past 11 with two items with one item, someone make a motion or no motion? Speaker 9: Well. Speaker 4: I would move two items. Speaker 0: Is there a second? Speaker 7: Sure. Can we be quick, though? Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Do we can we can even set a stop stop time, can't we? That we can say we're not going past 1130. Speaker 7: 1120. Speaker 5: I just I just I just want to flag that this one actually has some discussion that is key and timely. Speaker 0: Do you think it's reasonable that we could go to 1130? Speaker 5: Depends how long the hotel takes longer. So it's a. Speaker 4: Relatively. Speaker 0: It's just a council referral or not? Yeah. Okay. So do I have a motion that we continue the meeting to 1130 to consider these two items? Okay. You're making the motion council member dated July 2nd and seconded. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second on favor, I. Okay. How many eyes was that when I did? Speaker 8: For medical reasons. Speaker 0: Okay. So I got four. Okay, so let's. Speaker 1: Let's. Speaker 0: Let's let's talk fast. Speaker 1: About the. Speaker 7: Approval of this item. Speaker 0: All right. This there's a motion to approve item 60. Do I have a second? Speaker 5: Second? Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. Hi. Oh, did Melissa just shoot? Okay. Oh. Do you want to ask what it would be? Speaker 5: As for. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Speaker 5: Can I. Can I. What? While we were waiting for. Councilmember, could we please hear the swim center so that if she wants to leave before the hotel. Speaker 0: Okay, so we had a motion in a second and we were voting on approving item six. See. Speaker 8: I'd like to have a discussion. Speaker 0: Discussion. Speaker 8: So, you know, I think my concern is that the we just talked about the cost of use. We just talked about the cost of trying to streamline and who this who these fees get passed to. I understand that, you know, we're trying to bring some of the fees in line, but there are some fees. My concern is if our fees are too high. We've already heard from renters who've said they're afraid to report certain things. And now we're adding to the cost of that. And I think that we do have to think about where that comes from. I'm all for trying to get to cost recovery, but I do have a concern where inflation is, you know, half of basically what are some of our fees are and frankly, a quarter or, you know, a fifth of what some of our other fee increases are. So I do have some concerns relative to that. And I think that we're missing the mark when it comes to I think, you know, I'm for trying to streamline it and get those increases, but I think we're trying to do a lot in one cycle. And I would like to know a little bit more about, you know, how we think we're going to actually go about enforcing or or getting people to comply and how we think it's going to impact things like our ADOS and stuff like that. I would like to note that on the historic preservation side, you know, if you need a certificate of approval by the Historic Advisory Board, I mean, those fees are going up substantially and we already have a lot of issues. You know, with with timeliness and getting that board together and things like that. Speaker 11: So can I just quickly. I think our recommendation is set your fees to cover your cost, however we do. And the last item with the hearing, people talk about the process to build things, the amount of time we need to discuss things. I guess what I'm asking the council to do is you should adopt full cost recovery, but then you should also make it very clear to staff. Keep working on streamlining these processes. Move more of these projects from the design review plus time and materials to the design review exemption category. Find ways so that you're getting full cost recovery. But the permit doesn't require a certificate of approval. With a public hearing at the Historic Advisory Board, it can be approved by staff, and that's just that. Speaker 8: What's the adjustment? What's the timeline for that? And where are we going to see those comparisons in terms of the timeline or those projects getting cut down or streamlined? Speaker 11: Well, we can I mean, we can be processing changes to these every single one of these changes is a change to the municipal code. So it's changing a process. It's cutting out a public hearing requirement. It's setting it's setting design review exemptions. And we've been doing this consistently over the last few years. We've been getting better. But if you need us to speed that up, we we. Speaker 0: Certainly I think I could agree that we do. And I would also add that even if we don't do it, Sacramento may in the near future. Speaker 8: And I would I mean, I would just like to say that in my opinion that that needs to come with and with this ask for an increase in fees. I think that saying that we're going to come back, I would like to know when that's going to come back and when we're going to at least review it , perhaps with staff coding some of the more major or more impactful ones. I guess that we have a lot of them. And my ask would be that we get a handful of them, you know, maybe what are the top two or three that we think could make the biggest impact? Speaker 11: And there's some things that we can we've already been talking about in terms of prioritizing, in terms of the climate action thing, like, you know, how do you streamline, you know, energy efficiency changes, Windows, things like that. Would homeowners want to do? So I think with the climate action, we'll start. Speaker 0: With both an eye to the timing, not wanting to keep my colleague out much later and also making sure we're staying within the parameters of the item that was was noticed before us. We do have a motion. We do have a second. All in favor. Yes, it was made and seconded. Yes, right. Yes. Okay. Okay. All in favor. I opposed. No. Okay. The motion passes 3 to 2. Thank you. Okay, now we will move on to the City Manager Communications. Speaker 3: In the interests of time, I could move mine to the end so that you can get to the other two items. Okay. You get done by 1130. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And do we have any oral communications? Not agenda? No. So then we move on to council referrals. Item nine, a couple more days.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add New and to Revise Existing Planning, Building and Public Works Fees. (Building 481001 and Public Works 4210310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6549

Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And do we have any oral communications? Not agenda? No. So then we move on to council referrals. Item nine, a couple more days. Speaker 4: Well, great. Well, thank you very much. Laura, do you, by any chance have this, um. Speaker 2: Oh, yes. Actually setting it up. Speaker 4: Just to get to the punchline. The punchline is, I think the city of Alameda should officially seek to increase the current hotel tax rate, which is basically 10%. The hotel tax rate is also referred to as a transient occupancy tax. And so that's basically the punchline and that's one recommendation. And the second recommendation, but these are separate is begin thinking about setting aside some of the increase in revenue generated by the increase in the rate for having an Alameda visiting serving campaign. It could be run, for example, money generated from the increased incremental revenues perhaps could be funded through an RFP process to an outfit like the Chamber of Commerce who might serve as as the visiting center. So what I put together, I don't do this well that I put together is just a bunch of data. And this is actually from this actually from 2015. So this is I know how we talked earlier this evening about the wheels of kind of moving slowly. But, you know, we're almost four years ago. So I so I think one of the points in putting this slide together, which is 2014 data, but I think the rates still hold is to show how low our hotel tax rate is relative to nearby areas like Emeryville, Berkeley and Oakland, which are really within our market area. The point of which is to say even if we increased the hotel tax rate, we wouldn't be putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. And while San Leandro is a neighbor to us at 10%, if you look at the gross revenues generated by a their what, clearly the $402,000 of San Leandro versus the $1.6 million generated by Alameda to me suggests that San Leandro is a different market. So that's why I believe in increasing the hotel tax rate. Somewhere north of 10% right now would not put our our motels and hotels at a competitive disadvantage. This is the hotel tax rate for the Union City. And the reason why I included this is because Union City created an interesting mechanism where when they when the voters adopted the increased hotel tax rate, they did it in a way that allows the city to kind of calibrated up or calibrated down depending on market conditions. So that's something to think about. This is the hotel tax rate for the city of Oakland. They're at 14% and they were previously at 13%. And you can see you can see how much they're generating. Clearly, we're not going to generate that much because we're at a different scale. So I just want to make sure to clearly see that. And one of the reasons why I think we should think about not only increasing our hotel tax rate, but doing it in a strategic manner is because I do believe that we have a variety of assets that nationally renowned entities are beginning to to recognize assets that we can market to new visitors within the region, as well as market to daytime visitors. People, for example, who are working, coming to our harbor Bay Isle on short contract jobs or whatever, so that they can come to Alameda. And here's an example, something that was in the Architectural Digest where Alameda is antiques by the Fair Bay was was noted in July 25. And then in in Sunset Magazine, again, Alameda, a spirits alley was given some recognition. So my hope is to increase the hotel tax rate. I don't think it will put us at a competitive disadvantage. It does require a vote of the people. And the second thing is to. Target some of that towards a visitor surfing campaign. So I would hope to have staff come back with some more thoughts on this and some recommendations and suggestions. If if the council so looks at this. Speaker 0: I think you remind me, colleagues, did did this come up at our priority setting? Okay. I guess we've discussed it somewhat in context of needing to do something about an a Airbnb ordinance and then making sure that our total is competitive with other cities. Those days are old. San Leandro is now past is there but what's the what's the the pleasure of the council and vice mayor? Speaker 5: So in general, I support the general idea of talking about this tax at some point in time. I think we just continue to talk to things. I am concerned that a lot of times when referrals come, the way to not address them is to say, hey, let's just put them on a list to get addressed earlier, and then they just become a part of a long list and is difficult to do. I think we have infrastructure bonds, we have a whole bunch of things that we're going to be talking about going to the voters of. And I am happy to have that commerce, this conversation as a part of what are the things we are going to ask the voters for. But quite honestly, I don't disagree with you that this is probably one that we should talk about, but I don't want to jump one to the top of the queue and then find out that we you know, there were other things we wish we were going in asking for funding. Funding. Speaker 0: Okay. So you're saying I'm for this into a discussion of of ballot measures for the general election. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: A future conversation with Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: So I actually think it's a bit premature. I would say let's wait until we actually have some of these hotels built that are coming in, are we? I know we have hotels currently, but in terms of the impact that something like a total increase is going to have, it's, uh, I would rather focus on the infrastructure. We've talked about the storm drain tonight. I just think we have a lot of other things that we're focused on. So I'm not saying no. I'm just saying no for right now. And if it's no for right now, I don't want to put it on the list for staff to to be focused on. And I would like our polling to be very specific and strategic to the few measures that have already been put forward by staff and discussed by council. Speaker 0: And I'll just throw in that. I think the authority is probably an easier measure to pass because residents are generally speaking not going to be paying it. But I, I do have some concerns about that money not going to the general fund because that's what pains me to know that we are getting less in our Toti than our neighboring communities and that's just money that's not going into our general fund. So but that's a that's a discussion that could be had at the same time. Councilman Brody. Speaker 7: Sure. I'll chime in. I mean, I think it's a good idea to think about this. Like you said, Mayor, this is not something that Alameda residents are going to pay. I'd like to I mean, I don't know whether it's put it on a list or, you know, at some point we're going to have a discussion on revenue measures. And this needs to we need to make sure this is their. Speaker 1: Good. Speaker 7: Time. I mean, instead of like just pushing it off and, you know, you know, this is something that was proposed four years ago. And I thought it was something that maybe should have been done already. Again, not to keep beating that horse, but I am concerned about one small thing and that's, you know, dedicating any of of it, because I think that changes the characterization. And, you know, what the what the threshold is to get it passed. But, you know, I think this is something this is kind of a no brainer to me. You know, it's a quick and easy way to increase revenue that doesn't really come out of the pockets of Alameda. Speaker 0: Well. Speaker 4: Let me if I quickly saying I'm I'm happy to have introduced this. I look forward to having further conversations on this. I do want to make sure to say that I project that if we increase it by one percentage point, that we would generate $160,000 in incremental revenues. And if we increased it by two percentage points to 12%, we could generate roughly $250,000. And I think that would be good money that that that could go towards a visitor surfing campaign. So but I look forward to including this as part of a more robust discussion with other measures. I'm fine with that. I can live with it. Okay. Well, I'll find a note if it does come to a vote. I don't think it will be competitive with another vote for the reasons that we said. Speaker 0: All right. Okay. And have staff discretion, direction. Okay. The next item is number ten Council Communications. I'm wondering if we could take item ten a first to make sure we get that covered hearing no objection. Go ahead, Vice Mayor.

Council Referral

Consider Raising the Rate of the Hotel Tax (Transient Occupancy Tax). (Councilmember Daysog) [Continued from March 19, 2019 to April 16, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6344

Speaker 5: Here, go. I would like for staff to work with a technical working group consisting of property, landlord and renters, particularly to deal with exhibit two b2 d one eye to eye for i5i9i 1516, 17. Exhibit three, one, two and five. And to get input from the different stakeholders and to relay the summary of those input on those items to council. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, now who was. I know. Yep. Right. But Councilmember Vela and Vice Mayor de san. Excuse me, Vice Mayor Knox White. It's not even that late. Had comments he wanted to make council. Who's going first? He made us thank you and vice mayor actually had. Speaker 10: I will I will. I want to make two points. I want to make a point about the data that Councilmember de SAC presented. He is right that, ah, a certain blog did present some information. They presented it completely, incorrectly and unfortunate it was reiterated again tonight. But the No Cause eviction data that was shown up on the screen here actually shows. And since we have passed our rent control rent stabilization. 3148 no cause evictions have gone up the the blog that was cited didn't understand setting an annual rate of no cause and therefore it just used the numbers. And I think it's really important that people leave here understanding that we have seen an increase in no cause evictions. The other point I just wanted to make, since I have the floor and then I'll let it go really quickly, was that I think we heard a lot of stories of people who cannot afford their rent when it goes up. And I think that we can look at as much data as we want that shows that most people are getting no rent increases. But the fact of the matter is that we're actually trying to protect the people who are getting kicked out of their homes, not just saying 42% didn't have a rent increase. So it's not a real big deal for those who are getting done. And I and I really I just I want to data says a lot of things, but at a certain point in time, the data point for this for me that I am looking at is how many people are getting rent increases that are on affordable and unsustainable and about forcing them to leave town. And so I just want to not let that go. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor Councilmember Avella. Speaker 8: And in fact, I think it's just our no cause evictions have gone up over 16% I think is what the the actual stats are. And I think that there's something to be said. We've talked about having staff with regards to a rent cap. Two of my colleagues mentioned having staff come back with recommendations. I would just add a little asterisks on that, which is those recommendations, at least in my opinion, should not be based off of a blog post. They should be based off of the data that we have and an actual analysis of what surrounding communities are doing, because I think we're part of a larger metropolitan area. I think it's worth looking at what's happening in the larger metropolitan area. That said, I think that, you know, there are clearly a number of big issues that that we are asking staff to look into. I think they're important ones, too. The vice mayor's point means 58% of people in Alameda have experienced a rent increase. And I would like to know out of that 58%, how many have been displaced as a result? I do think that there were unintended consequences, essentially, of kind of how our ordinance was put together and what it did and where different holes and loopholes existed. I think that, you know, if we're going to look at just cause I agree, it should come back sooner rather than later. And I think it needs to come back along with an Airbnb regulation because we don't have one. And we need to understand what's happening with the Airbnbs that are operating in Alameda because that's taking rental units off the market. And frankly, I don't think saying 90 days is enough because when you can rent those out at a very high rate per night. And frankly, I'm a little concerned based off of the issues that we've had this past week, where there was something that came to light, where somebody was kind of illegally posting Airbnbs potentially in other people's properties and things like that. So I just, I think we need to step in and we need to regulate that and it should come back when we look at just cause and if we're looking at an Ellis act that needs to be a part of the analysis that I would like to see. Certainly I'd be more inclined to support a 30 day or 45 day cap. I think the smaller the amount of nights or the fewer the amount of nights that people can put their unit out on Airbnb, the less of an incentive we have for people to pull market pull units off the market. I would also like us to look at, you know, and since we are coming up on budget time, what are the budget costs to this and include that in the report back from staff when we're looking at what's the cost of administering these new changes to the program? Because I don't want to be having to make changes to the budget right after we enacted. I think we should be considering it as part of it. I'm supportive of of having staff come back with a rent cap. I think finding a way to streamline the system. I think there's a lot of issues with Rack. I think it's a very cost effective way of doing things. And I think to my colleague's point, it creates a very, you know, adversarial process that I think pits people, pits tenants against landlords. And in it, it muddies the relationship. So I think that we're going to have a cap. Let's have a cap. But I would like to, in my opinion, do away with the rack. If we're going to have a hearing. Officer, that's fine. But let's figure out what those boundaries are. I think the the registry that needs to happen, but I think it's also a lot of work. And I think we need to get on the same page about what's included in that and how you're going to go about getting that data. I think ultimately a lot of the that I also like the change proposed by Councilmember Odie that for Costa Hawkins exempt units that where there's essentially a construction constructive eviction that we require an option of a relocation payment. Essentially what that amount is, again, I would want staff to come back with recommendations that are based off of data and analysis and not just pull a number out of thin air. You know, I think that. I think there's still a lot of conversation that needs to happen. I actually don't believe in having a subcommittee work on this because I think that that's a very selective and biased way of kind of doing the analysis. I'm happy to have staff speak with different people. I think that's part of the process. But I would like to continue to have this as a as an open and fluid conversation with the public. I think we owe it to people to do it that way. And I also think that when we make these decisions, we need to keep in mind that we don't have a housing policy as a country. We have a system that is based on property ownership and the principles that support property ownership. And so if you look at how we spend our money, including tax deductions and everything else, the vast amount of money goes towards protecting property owner rights. And there was a period in time where the only people that got a say in what happened in government and what our laws looked like and are how our system was constructed was based off of the principle of property ownership. And that was at a time that other human beings were considered property. And I just find that to be not the principle that I want to be guided by when we're making these decisions. I actually think we need to be guided by principles of compassion and community, and at least trying to empathize with people who have experienced housing insecurity. And a vast majority of those people are people who look like me. They're people that are or were not allowed to vote or have a voice in government for many, many years in this country. And I think that part of that conversation, we're not going to correct it all overnight. I'm not asking us to. But I do think we have to at least keep that lens in mind when we're making these decisions. And I also think that this goes hand in hand with, you know, we're going to have to build more units. I'm not saying that this is a system that we put in place forever. It's why it's an ordinance. Hopefully we'll see some change. We'll see some units come on the market. And together the combination of these things can help improve the stability of our community. And I think that that's what we need to be focused on. That's what I'm focused on. I'm supportive of the proposals put forward by Councilmember Ody and Vice Mayor Knox White. And I'd like to. See what we can put together on that and then make a decision. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay, so I'm going to start adding quote from some data that I think you'll find reliable unless Thursday, Councilmember Avella and I spent the day in Orange County, actually in a conference room that we were where members of a statewide policy committee of the League of California Cities and Housing Community and Economic Development. And so this is from some of the materials we reviewed, lots of legislation aimed at building more housing in California, addressing our homelessness crisis. So according to the state legislative analyst office, the average California rent is approximately 50% higher than the rest of the country. And even California's least expensive housing markets are more expensive than the national average. In California, there are almost 6 million renter households, and of those, more than 3 million of the renter households pay more than 30% of their income toward rent, and nearly 30% of those 6 million pay, 1.7 million households pay more than 50% of their income toward rent. So that and this is a finding there from the California Department of Housing, Community Housing and Community Development that an unexpected financial hardship can lead to homelessness for many residents. And in fact, California's homeless population rose 16% from 2015 to 2017, with many people becoming homeless for the first time. Once a tenant loses their home, the cycle of homelessness can be difficult and expensive to break, according to a 2019 study by the Economic Roundtable, providing services and emergency response to homeless individuals can cost taxpayers nearly $35,000 per person per year. So an upfront investment in keeping families housed could save the state billions of dollars. But we're not just doing this about economic dollars and cents. We we fit into the larger picture of what's going on at the state level. Every city has to do its part. I was reading the staff material and the rack was originated in 1971, in Alameda in 1970 or in the 1970s. It was a different time. That's when measure that limited density on our island to no more than a duplex went into effect and has been in effect ever since. I sometimes speculate about what this whole situation that we're dealing with would look like. How would it be different if we had more multifamily units, if we had smaller homes where people, empty nesters, could downsize and open their properties up to families moving in? If there were those smaller units that first time renters or buyers could get into. But we deal with the hand were dealt. So in no particular order, just kind of the way it came up in conversation. The rent cap. Yes, I was on the council when we enacted the 5% and it was a placeholder, if you will. Yeah, the landlords wanted 10%. And at the other end of the spectrum, I think the renters wanted no percent and we settled on 5%. But it always was meant to be a a placeholder that we would have more time to consider the impacts of the ordinance that we enacted. And of course, a referendum happened. And, you know, life happens in between. But I do think it's reasonable to look at the CPI. Someone said it can be manipulated. I, I, I kind of like my hard data and the CPI is something and it's been mentioned before, we do need to be fair to both landlords and tenants, Allen said. Yes, we need to do it. The five year I think is actually find that two year. It's not that, oh, if you do two years, you could do to you know, you could even get punitive damages from both the the renter and the city. So it's a deep incentive, but that's a discussion item. Relocation. Yes. Eventually we do need to follow the had model. It shouldn't be your relocation. Should it be based on what you're currently paying? Because you might be paying way under market and then you have to go and find another place on the rack. I'm with my colleague, Councilmember Vella. I think that our money towards rent programs would be better spent by getting hiring officers, more staff to deal with the tenants one on one. And I just throw in I'm really uncomfortable at the personal nature of information that tenants are asked to provide in the rack appeal that was pulled because the landlord withdrew the increase. These tenants had to say what they were earning in Social Security and in the course of their medical really in a public document. That's that's not right on just cause. Okay. I was the first one to come out and say we need to get rid of just cause. And I haven't changed my position. And if anything, I'm even firmer in my conviction to get rid of no cause. I mean, it's euphemistically called just cause. But when I was running for office and going door to door and talking to two renters, more than one told me, you know, I have a good landlord, but I'm not going to tell him about these repairs that are needed because I'm just afraid I could be evicted for no reason. And then I don't know where I would go because my rent's pretty reasonable in the rack up here that we didn't hear. The property manager said something like, Oh, well, you know, they never raised the needed repairs until they go to the rack, until they appear rent increase and the staff person and I appreciated that said that's because renters are concerned I mean it was one of the back panel said that's because renters are concerned that if they were to bring up a needed repair, they'll get a rent increase. And in this case, the property manager of a three story building with senior citizens said, I always take the stairs. I didn't know the elevator wasn't working and she was the property manager and her remedy for the cockroaches was to put them through sticks. Many anyway, just cause it has so many unintended consequences and buyouts. Constructive evictions. Yes. Good points, Miss Potter. Let's bring in that. I want to also talk about this idea of assistance for mom and pop landlords. Speaker 1: Yeah, let's go for it. Speaker 0: But I'd turn that equation around. Why don't we let the landlords go ahead and put together a fund? They can contribute to it. And then if there's someone who says, I'm a small time landlord and I can't afford this relocation expense, they can go to the landlords who put this together and make their case. They can do a promissory note. It can be a lean against the property when it's sold. So I think that's a way of achieving some balance if indeed mom and pop landlords, whatever that means, because it's really hard to determine with trust and everything who owns how much and what. And then, yes, we do need to also be building more housing and more affordable housing. It's easier said than done. There's lovely 20 affordable units available to people making between 20 and 60% of the area median income. Those 20 beautiful, sustainable units cost $18 million to build. So we're building where this is the housing authority. We're cobbling together income sources. We need to do all this and more, but definitely let's keep people in our house, in their housing. And I think I've covered it. I'm the I'm splitting the fee, the program fee. I would be okay with that, except that it shouldn't be that 50%. It could be borne by the tenant should it be counted toward the cost of the rent, because then that's with the 5% or five of the rent increases based on the original cost of the rent. Okay, that's me. So, Councilmember Daza. Speaker 5: 20 seconds left. I this is. I just want to say this. I believe that there the hard data shows that the rent ordinance 3148 is working and that we should work within that regime, modify it in conjunction with tenants working with small mom and pop landlords. Yes, but not to replace it altogether with a Berkeley style rent control that has hard caps on rents. And just cause the data is does not show that we need to go that route. The data shows that we need to keep with 3148 and modify it if necessary. Speaker 0: Okay, so we have given out and Rotella. Speaker 6: Since I still. Speaker 2: You quickly before. Speaker 6: Seven. I appreciate your comments, Madam Mayor, especially recalling the process that we went through and if I was there until the bitter, bitter cold in the middle of the night and. Speaker 2: It was, you know. Speaker 6: Our intention on on two of those one was our intention was that the 5% would be a cap and now it's turned out to be the floor. So it didn't turn out the way that we intended. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. And on the eviction side, you know, we thought we had put in a formula that would prevent buildings from being mass evicted. And that didn't turn out to be right either, because we all saw what happened to 470 Central. So I think what we've talked about today and I appreciate the comment or complimentary, but I think Debbie came up with the idea about the constructive eviction rent increase. So I just want to give credit where credit's due. I think this is Alameda style rent control. I mean, I think this is uniquely Alameda. You know, it's been crafted by our history. It's been crafted by our experience with it. And what changes we make are crafted by the needs that we heard from our citizens. So I'm going to call it Alameda style rent control because I mean nothing against Berkeley, but I think it's something that we came up with and it's better yet Berkeley. Speaker 0: We don't get into any rivalry. Okay. So any further comments before we send Ms.. Potter away with all of our input? Do you have any questions, Miss Potter? Speaker 4: I thought it might be helpful for staff if we could recap some of what we heard from council this evening so that we are working on the kind of focused on the right issues. It sounded like there was a priority to come back with a just cause of action ordinance in the staff report. Staff recommended that it be a stand alone ordinance and so agreed. I would want to confirm that what we would work on would be a standalone ordinance for the just cause of action. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Referenda approve it. Speaker 4: Yes or no. And then it's per me and and quickly we do it. Is there a consensus from the council that at now that we've received direction that it would be useful for staff to reach out to the to the community to get feedback on council direction that may inform some of what staff recommends and perhaps it's less relevant on the just cause, but it may be more relevant on the maximum allowable rent increase. There are more options. Speaker 0: So I'll chime in and say I'm fine with reaching out to the community. I agree with Council member Vella that I don't think you need to convene a subcommittee, but I think you know how to make your rounds of the different constituencies. Do you have a hint? It kills me. Speaker 6: I would kind of concur with the mayor. I mean, I'm always happy to hear from the public, but I don't think we should let that drag down the process or slow it down at all. So, I mean, there doesn't need to be a consensus and like we tried three or four years ago that drag the whole thing out another year. Speaker 4: Right. The intent. I think that the goal on the just cause eviction ordinance and perhaps the maximum bailout, maximum allowable rent increase would be that the second meeting in May to be back for the second meeting in May. That's probably much more doable depending on once we began that kind of analysis and researching the options. Just given the lead time that we need for council reports, the maximum allowable rent increase may come back for council consideration in June, but the goal would be to bring the just cause eviction ordinance back the second meeting in May for council action. Speaker 6: Yeah. Just notice it properly, please. Speaker 10: I think if we're going to do our outreach on the on the cap, trying to be a little broader, I think we tend to go to the same well over and over again. And I think we had landlords here earlier who felt they didn't even know anything was happening, despite the fact that there were meetings. And so if we can find a way to to try to ensure that if we're asking renters for input, that renters have a real chance to get that input of asking landlords to give input, that landlords that not just in certain specific organizations and groups have that opportunity somehow. Speaker 4: And then relative to the Airbnb issue, staff will regroup and take a look at what we think would be our time frame to come back on the Airbnb issue and will endeavor to have a track. It may not be as quick, so I guess partly it would be useful to know for us, is there a desire to see the Airbnb and the just cars come back together that could potentially delay the the just cause? Speaker 0: QUESTION Councilmember Villa. Speaker 8: When are you planning to come back to us with the Ellis Act portion of it? Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 4: A staff was going to recommend that the Council Act this evening on the Ellis Act policy, which is before you there's been a publicly notice public hearing and the hearing has been conducted. So there could be I'm happy to answer any questions regarding, you know, the council, if the council has the ability to amend the policy that is presented as a draft policy. Okay. Speaker 8: So regarding the Airbnb, I'm I mean, I'm the one that that has kind of raised it. I know Councilmember Odie raised it as well. I, I would be fine with it coming back this summer afterwards. But I do think it's been lingering out there for some time and I think having it come back in like July or something like that gives our new city attorney time to look at it. And that would be when I would want it to come back. I don't want to wait too long, but I understand you can set limits on staff time. Speaker 4: That's helpful direction. Speaker 1: Thank you. No, no argument. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Speaker 2: No argument. Speaker 0: With that. No argument. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. I do think that the just cause should take priority. Speaker 4: Yes. That that is the direction that I heard. And so we will be looking at the second meeting in May for the just cause ordinance that we will also move forward. We would recommend that the maximum allowable rent increase, whatever the council we will come with recommendations about, you know, that rent increase banking the role of the rack versus hearing officer what the maximum. Perhaps should be what that might do in terms of impacts on the budget for the rent program. All of those things would be addressed in the report that would come back to council. We would also recommend for that issue that it be a standalone ordinance and so we would handle that is the way it would come back to council. Um. Speaker 0: That, that sounds, that sounds reasonable to me. Is that good with the rest of you? I see. Nodding heads. I'll take that as a yes. Okay. So as far as the Ellis act, you want to say if you think it was. Speaker 4: Before, maybe before the discussion on the other side, because we are requesting action this evening for the two other, we had two other kinds of rounds of amendments that we are still recommending that the Council act on. I would because we have direction on the exhibit three amendments, sort of the new amendments that were before you this evening. And the issue of that, the constructive evictions really came from rent program staff as they saw what's been happening on the ground, but that we would combine both sets of amendments and bring them back in one ordinance for the council's consideration. And I noted all of Councilmember de Suggs points or proposed amendments that he would like more discussion on. Happy to take those back out to the community and have that discussion with the community. We will also evaluate all of the proposed amendments and see whether they are still needed given that we, the Council, has given direction. Speaker 8: In the interest. Speaker 0: Of Councilmember Gillis. Speaker 8: Sorry, in the interest of transparency, I understand that he rattled off a number of different items that are there. I would like to know what items he specifically said he would like direction on, but I'm also a little concerned that there's direction being given by one member of the council as opposed to I mean, I thought we were supposed to give direction as a body. Speaker 0: Yeah, I think if you could list the the concerns because I don't think I caught them all either. And then let's see if we have at least a majority of the council mind to pursue. And you and Councilmember Vice Mayor Rex White. Speaker 10: Well, I just I know that Councilmember Odie mentioned that he was comfortable with essentially that what became the 3180. Right. So I want to be really clear that are we saying that we're comfortable with everything and now we're going to discuss certain ones that Councilmember de SAG has that let's have some more discussion around that because I guess I seconded my informally. Mr. Otis thoughts I'm 3180 I want to make sure that that my feelings about that we should just move forward with these right now I. Speaker 5: Particular. Speaker 0: Councilmember day so. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 0: Should like to. Speaker 5: Speak is to make sure to get stakeholder input on those items. That's my goal is to get so that people clearly understand from stakeholder particularly landlords perspective on the range of items that I had laid out. And because there were so many, I couldn't go into detail except give their gave their a number. Speaker 4: Two and all all of these amendments, proposed amendments were vetted when the process was underway in the spring of 2017 because the ordinance was actually adopted. So what's reflected in exhibit two is what was adopted by the Council prior to the repeal. My suggestion, but clearly it's dependent on council direction, was that if the council desired a a review of these because it's been a couple of years in the community, staff is happy to facilitate that discussion. But that's clearly what the council, you know, what the council desires is what staff will execute. Speaker 0: So I will note that, first of all, all of the items that Councilmember de SAC listed were on exhibit two. So not the 3180, because I circled them in red. As you're reading them, my inclination is to leave them and move forward. I mean, I do feel that I said my part about what I feel about publicly making public this personal information from tenants and proceedings. I would like that considered, but I feel that the program staff, you and your staff have had now that much more time. It's been three years since we enacted the ordinance and it's had that much time to be tested. So I don't know that we I don't see a pressing need to go back and open these up because again, we just held them. We just set them aside because we had to go through the whole measure k election and you know, the public spoke resoundingly about the outcome. So I but but what does the rest of you think? That's my thought. Speaker 6: Brody Trotter. I mean I mean, I kind of agree with the mayor. I do think the particular issue I asked about the passing of the 50% of the rental fee, that's something I wanted changed. If we were going to change, at a minimum, the requirement that there's proof of payment before you're allowed to pass it on. I think the my colleague Ms.. Vela talked about not including that in the rent increase. And I think what the vice mayor agreed with my comment. Speaker 4: So I believe the way was well, I believe what was what's been recommended is that the the portion of the rent fee that's passed on to the tenant would not be part of that. The rent cap is the way the ordinance in exhibit two, that's what 3180 had included, was that it's not part of the rent the rent cap. It's in addition to. Speaker 6: I don't think that it should be passed on the tents at all, but I don't know if there's three votes for that. Speaker 4: Okay. So it's. Is there possibly interest in revisiting the the amendments that are contained in Exhibit two? One of the things that we could do is that that list and go through that list and determine which of these amendments might be moot based on the direction we receive tonight and come back with a scaled back, you know , a scaled back list of amendments. And we would combined exhibit two and exhibit three, and perhaps there's an opportunity for the council to revisit if they desire. Speaker 0: So you're saying you would do them at staff level? Correct. Yeah. Because if, for instance, I did note on page to paragraph D excuse me, C when is revised the formula for the percentage of rental units for which a no cause termination of tenancy could be utilized? Well, if we're possibly getting rid of no cause terminations, then we don't need to revisit formulas. But that's housekeeping, I think. Right. Staff can do. Okay. Councilmember Vela, then vice mayor. Speaker 8: And that's why I think the direction from the majority of the council is essentially to have that staff analysis done and then come back to us. My position would be I don't want that to hold up or get in the way of the just cause or the the rent cap conversation that that these things should be ongoing and standalone. Speaker 4: But I think that what makes the most sense from staff's perspective would be to have the council take action on the just cause eviction protections and on the maximum allowable rent increase. Then we know what those ordinances require and we will go back and then tackle the essentially the amendments that are currently in exhibit three and Exhibit two based on the feedback we heard. And we'll, we'll that that list and we'll eliminate things that no longer required based on a future ordinance that has not yet been adopted. So it'll probably lag the just cause and the maximum allowable rent increase by a month or two as we do that staff work. Speaker 0: That's great. Are you saying you want us to take action just cause tonight? Speaker 4: No, no, no, no. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. We can't even. It's okay. Okay. And even counts. Speaker 10: I'm you to clear because you know 3180. I spoke to a lot of landlord groups because I got to run for office last year and over and over and over again, what they said was just cause that's why we put M.K. Measure K on the ballot. They didn't actually they liked a lot of the changes that were in 3180 besides the just cause which they felt right there wrongly came out of in their minds nowhere. And you know, yeah. So I don't want to spend too much time. That's I guess my point is, is they seem to be aware of what was in here. And I never once heard somebody say I didn't like that stuff. I'm sure there are people who don't, but they just don't want to drag it too long. And let's let's put this on so we can do Airbnb and get other things right. Speaker 4: From staff's perspective, these were primarily housekeeping, but it probably makes sense if there are new ordinances that we check the amendments against the new policy and make sure we're we're consistent and we're taking care of changes that are relevant. So that I believe that takes. Speaker 6: I'm sorry, one more Councilmember Ody. I mean, I'm not going to support changes to those sections, but given that one of our colleagues is actually asked about sections, it would be good if staff is prepared to answer any questions on them and when when the time comes for that presentation. Speaker 0: Yes, sure. And go ahead and finish, Miss Potter. Speaker 4: And then I what I perhaps there was less clear direction about what how the council wanted to proceed relative to relocation, anything, any kind of changes to the to the the way that the relocation benefit formula is. So I some I'm fine tuning of that could be helpful. Speaker 0: So I'll jump in that you and I have discussed this and I know that in September we will get our next annual report on the rent program. And I think it might be the right time to, to consider that then um, I think it sounds like we're biting off quite a bit right now and okay, fine. Speaker 4: So, well, yeah, so will incorporate that into the discussion come September. And then lastly, what we are asking for relative to action by the council tonight is to adopt the Ellis Act policy that is included as Exhibit One of the staff report, and I am happy to answer any questions relative to the draft policy. Speaker 0: Any questions, Council? This. Mary, I. Speaker 10: Have a quick, quick question. There was a concern that was raised about who is going to track. So when somebody pulls something off the off the market and says up off the market. Who's tracking? I mean, how how how do we know? So my problem with the all the data that we talk about is we're only getting self-reported people. We don't know who is actually doing no cause evictions. We just know people who are telling us they're doing no cause evictions, etc.. How do we know that? Because I think I could be comfortable with the two year if I had confidence that we were going to track and that there were going there was going to be real strong prosecution of the fines by the city. But if we're kind of like, well, we're going to do our best, then I'd rather go with the five years and the longer that other cities have. Speaker 4: So the one of the biggest changes by adopting a policy is that there will be a requirement that you record against the title of the property that you have done in Ellis Act termination, and you will provide the contact information for the in place tenant. And right now we are essentially complaint based or we track it and we try to phone and calls so we will know with an exact policy. We are recorded against the property and it doesn't get more sort of official or with certitude than to record against title. Speaker 7: And we've also have drafted a number of forms that we can that we're going to provide to both landlords and tenants that will track what is in the policy so that both landlords and tenants have documents so that landlords know what to provide to tenants. Tenants know what they need to provide back to the landlords so they can be tracked if they, the unit should come back on the market. So we're thinking that while it's obviously not bulletproof, we think we do have procedures and forms in place that will help. But where right now we really don't have anything to. Speaker 4: It's an improvement in terms of data. Speaker 10: Yeah, I'd like to hear what my other colleagues think. Speaker 0: About any other thoughts. Council members Okay. Carlson, Brody, thank you. Speaker 6: It's just that I still prefer the five and ten and you'll have to come back and amend 3.8.1, right. If we change the course, that one talks about the 5% increase. So you'd have to come back and change that if we do other changes. Speaker 4: I, I don't know that we would have to change that. I believe that that penalty is independent of the maximum allowable rent increase. We're saying that if the unit is re rented within five years, they can only charge a rent that's 5% higher than the employer. Okay. Speaker 6: All right. Speaker 0: Councilmember Avila. Speaker 8: I would propose that we adopt it tonight if there are changes that need to happen to it afterwards, after we adopt the just cause and some of the other things I think that we can do the closer look, perhaps if we can agenda is that with the just cause because right now we don't have that aspect of it. That's so I would, I would say the motion. Yeah. So I'll make a motion that we, we go ahead and approve it right now as written so that we aren't delaying it, but that we asked the direct staff to have it agendas when just cause comes back. Speaker 4: So because this is a resolution that will be effective this evening I understand then so. Speaker 8: But we can agenda is it when we agenda. Speaker 4: Is just an opportunity to talk about it that. Speaker 8: We can talk about it in that way. If there is a proposal from Councilmember o.T or others to make amendments to it, we can do it at that time. Sure. Speaker 0: I understand. Like a plan does that a second? Speaker 6: Sure. Speaker 0: All right. I have a motion in a second. Arm twisting, whatever you want to call it. All in favor. Speaker 1: I i. Speaker 0: Any opposed abstain. That was unanimous. Speaker 4: Thank you very. Speaker 0: Much. You and I just want to say a big thank you to Miss Potter for staff, housing authority and staff. You've been doing really heroic work pulling all this together and you are helping protect our tenants. We can do more. I think we will, but we're off to a good start. So thank you so much for your hard work, okay? Yeah. Fuck up. Okay. Now we are going to really quickly do this. I'm six eight. This is introduction of ordinance amending the amended municipal code by eliminating the sunset clause, which would take effect December 31.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Various Amendments to the City’s Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance (No. 3148) Which May Include Amending Various Sections of Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning Review of Rent Increases, Limitations on Evictions, Eliminating the Sunset Clause, and Making Clarifying Amendments; and Public Hearing to Consider an “Ellis Act” Policy and Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Policy Concerning the Requirements, Procedures, Restrictions and Mitigations Concerning the Withdrawal of Residential Rental Units From Rent or Lease (Ellis Act Policy). (Housing 265)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6703

Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Next is a proclamation declaring April eight through 12 as National Boys and Girls Club Week. Speaker 0: All right. This is always a big observation. So do we have. I thought I saw some young people out in the hall. Anybody from Boys and Girls Club here. Come on up here where there's shirts. Come on up and then. Yeah, we like to see. Yeah. The more the merrier. Speaker 2: Hi, everybody. Speaker 0: Hi. You want to go to the mic and tell us your name and introduce these lovely young people? Speaker 2: My name's Nathan. Yeah, I'm athletic director. Speaker 0: All right, come on up and tell us your names, everybody. Speaker 1: My name's Eric. Hi. Speaker 2: My name's Davis. Speaker 9: Hello. Speaker 2: My name's Isaiah. Speaker 0: Hi there. Speaker 1: My name is the. Hi, my name is Salem. Speaker 0: Nice to meet. Speaker 1: You. My name's Issa, and I'm the arts and crafts coordinator. Speaker 0: Very nice. Well, here's a proclamation that I'm going to present to you. So for more than a century, they don't look that old, do they? For more than a century, boys and Girls clubs have helped put young people on the path to great futures. Over 4000 clubs served some 4.1 million young people through membership and outreach. And over 4200 of these youth are Alameda residents. Both the Alameda Boys Club, Boys and Girls Club offers programs and services to promote and enhance the development of boys and girls by instilling instilling a sense of competence, usefulness, belonging and influence. And. Whereas, the Alameda Boys and Girls Clubs doors are open to all youth from all schools and backgrounds every day and evening after school, on weekends and during school vacations, being the only facility in Alameda that provides this service. And. Whereas, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club mission is to enable all young people to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens which they facilitate. Speaker 1: With their high. Speaker 0: Tech computer labs, world class, commercial kitchen, edible garden and State of the Art Youth Development Center. In addition to afterschool homework help and tutoring, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club offers free dental vision and medical screenings from local medical professionals and assists with access to follow up care. The Alameda Boys and Girls Club is at the forefront of efforts to provide education and career development. Vocational skills, character and leadership skills. Health and life skills. STEM and technology skills. Fine and performing arts and sports. Fitness and sports. Fitness and recreation programs. And. Whereas, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club ensures that youth are offered a safe and supportive home away from home, providing quality support services and recreational programs. Now, therefore, it be resolved that I Maryland as he Ashcraft, mayor of Alameda, do hereby proclaim April eight through April 12, 2019, as National Boys and Girls Club Week in the city of Alameda and proudly call upon the residents of Alameda to join me in recognizing and commending the Alameda Boys and Girls Club for such beneficial and important services for the youth in our community. So with that, would one of you like to say a few words about what you are doing at the Boys and Girls Club? Speaker 1: Come on up. Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of different projects that are going on right now that I'm I'm involved with the athletic program. So we have a lot of teams, basketball program after school. My offer for leagues to grades three through fifth grade and does numerous things. And then I could probably tell you more about the arts and crafts and things like that. Speaker 0: So my mother used to tell us a little bit about you. Do I appreciate? Just a minute. Speaker 1: I just recently moved up to the arts room, so I'm just kind of trying to learn what the. Speaker 4: Kids like to do. Have them, like explore. Speaker 1: Be able to work with all the things that we give them and see what they can make with them. Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you very much. And here is your proclamation. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: For. Speaker 1: Love. Wait a minute. I can't hear what you. Speaker 0: No. You can't go in the back. Speaker 1: I'll be back. How we are, we should hold the proclamation. Oh. Okay. Speaker 2: All right. Coming back. Speaker 5: It can be a little bit like eating all of. Speaker 0: Your weight. Very, very nice to meet you. Thanks, face. Speaker 3: We have three speakers under all communications. Okay.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring April 8 through April 12, 2019 at National Boys and Girls Club Week. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6614

Speaker 0: Owe you an I. Okay. All right. It is unanimous as items continued to move to me. Seven. Let's give me a yes. Okay. We then move to item. Thank you, everybody. Okay, we're then going to move to item five G. Speaker 3: And that this is the resolution that's coming back from the continued public hearing. That was item five on the March 19th meeting. So basically staff just prepared the resolution to bring back for council to take action. Speaker 8: There's no speaker's correct. Speaker 3: No. You close the public hearing at that meeting. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 8: Okay. So I'm going to move approval of item five G. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: I can do I have their promotion a second on favor, question and discussion, Mr. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 5: So I voted to deny the appeal vote again. That's still my concern. So you vote against the case and I would vote against this, correct? Speaker 7: Correct. That's correct. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. It's been moved in, seconded. All in favor. I opposed. Speaker 10: Nay. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: Okay. So it's a 3 to 2. Okay. Is this a motion approved passes 3 to 2. But the the project goes forward with the instructions back to the planning board to improve the design. And speaking of improved design, I did attend the grand opening this week of an affordable housing complex, and that's just off of Park Street in a lovely example of design that fits well with the neighborhood. Okay. So now we are on to the let's see. We're going to continue. Madam Clerk, help me out. What are we going to do here? Speaker 3: So I think you're reconvening to a on that you need to finish deliberation on a decision about taking action on that policy. And then you also want to consider the ordinance, enacting the process. And we do have a speaker on 68. Now. Speaker 0: I'm 60, but we're not on six right now. We're this is a continuation of to a. Right. Okay. And in fairness to Councilmember De Saag, I think he had maybe one minute left, 35, 35 seconds. Okay. But he's counting and he. Speaker 1: Good. Speaker 2: Okay. Actually, yeah. Speaker 0: Some every day. Speaker 5: Here, go. I would like for staff to work with a technical working group consisting of property, landlord and renters, particularly to deal with exhibit two b2 d one eye to eye for i5i9i 1516, 17. Exhibit three, one, two and five.

Consent Calendar Item

Continued Public Hearing (of Item 6-E on the March 19, 2019 City Council Agenda) to Consider Adoption of Resolution Denying the Appeal and Remanding the Design Review for a 96-Room Hotel with 62 Parking Spaces at 1825 Park Street (PLN17-0538) for Further Consideration by the Planning Board (for Reasons Independently Considered by the City Council that Were Not Raised in the Appeal). (Planning, Building & Transportation 481005) [Please note: Public Comment was closed on March 19, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6691

Speaker 0: I think we will, but we're off to a good start. So thank you so much for your hard work, okay? Yeah. Fuck up. Okay. Now we are going to really quickly do this. I'm six eight. This is introduction of ordinance amending the amended municipal code by eliminating the sunset clause, which would take effect December 31. Ms.. Weisinger, do you want to do this? You do this better than I do you. Speaker 3: Introduction Ordinance Amending Hourly Dismissal Code by eliminating Sunset Clause December 31st, 2019 from Ordinance 3148 City of Alameda Review Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance. And we do have a speaker now on this item. Speaker 0: She's good, isn't she? Okay, so, um, is there a presentation with me and our speaker? Speaker 4: I'm prepared to give a brief staff report if council would like one. Speaker 0: I think council might want to just hear the speaker and decide, okay, our speaker then please. Speaker 3: Lester. Carol. Speaker 0: Okay. Yes, she did. Did you do? Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor. City Council Leicester Commercial property owner Almeida not in favor of eliminating the sunset clause in 3148. They say, well, why, why? Why shouldn't we eliminate it? You know? Well, reason is 31, 48 is not done. You know, we've still got a long way to go. You've been in a meeting here for about 3 hours tonight, at least going over all the all the things that haven't been done. What I believe is you need to extend 31, 48. There should be a sunset clause. That way it makes things happen. Otherwise it won't. It'll just drag on and get pushed aside. So like I said, I believe council here should vote this down, come up with a more reasonable type of sunset, say with reviews in a little more stipulation in there. Let's look at it and then. That would definitely help both the landlord and tenant. This thing is a very costly program, as you well know, and it's not getting cheaper by the day. And you wonder why rents go up. Well, here it is. You know, so like I say, we need to we need to work a lot harder on this to get this straight. I heard a lot of talk here tonight about rent caps and all these other little goodies on there. And unless you own rental property, you really don't know those numbers. Housing authority doesn't know those numbers. You know, and but they're seeing these numbers because RAC is coming out with these numbers on a on a monthly basis. Now, you can see some people are renting high. Some people are renting low. You know, so you got to be fair all the way across the board. And that's something that hasn't been done. And I believe it should be. Landlord needs a better shake, otherwise we're not going to invest in Alameda. You know it's going to happen. And you wouldn't do that. You wonder why we don't have additional railing units in Alameda because of all of this. So it's something we all need to look at and address. Thank you. Speaker 3: We you know. Speaker 0: We have a guest speaker. Speaker 3: Katherine Pauline. Speaker 0: Ms.. Pauline. Speaker 4: I'd like to speak in favor of eliminating the sunset. The housing crisis, as the statistics of have been presented both at the earlier meeting and today. Housing crisis has actually worsened. It looks to be impossible to actually build. Speaker 1: Out of it within some of our lifetimes. I would. Speaker 4: Also say that in terms of landlords talking about. Speaker 1: The what has been happening in the housing market, their equity has doubled in the last. Speaker 4: Six years, according to a Zillow economist. This is the best time in 30 years for the mom and pop, mom and pop landlord operations to own property. And even with in the Bay Area, when there have been different drops and rises, there's no question that to own. Speaker 1: Property. Speaker 8: In the Bay. Speaker 4: Area, however it was acquired, the trajectory continues to go up. This is a very sound investment. Renting homes to US renters is a business. Speaker 1: And I hope they do well. I would say they've made a very good investment. Speaker 4: And they are doing well. But the housing crisis, for most of us who are trying to stay, has simply gotten worse, as represented by the continuing increase, the dramatic increase, the amount of mayor I indicated from an increase of homelessness of 16% in just two years time. So I strongly urge that you remove this sunset. It's the only ordinance in the city that has one, and we are half the population of the city. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And that was our last public speaker. Okay. Is there any discussion or do we have a motion? Speaker 4: Mayor. Speaker 8: I'd like to move. A move to remove the sunset. Speaker 0: Okay, so. So you move approval of this ordinance. Second, I have a second and motion second to have discussion. Council member decide. Speaker 5: I'm going to vote for the removal of the sunset, largely because I support 3148 as it is now. And but I think what's coming down the pike is 31, 48 will be altogether changed dramatically. So this is my way of supporting the 3148 from 2016. But you know what happens later this year? I will say one thing. I don't like to make predictions, but, you know, with the passage of the impending passage of the classic in Alameda, one of my predictions is I really wonder about single family rentals and duplexes. I think you're going to see there are 24 or 25% of the rental stock. And I think people are going to do the you know, do their calculations and think that, you know, it's better just to to get out of it if you're a single family rentals or duplexes. And I think, you know, what you're putting down the path is for people to really you're incentivizing them to get out of there. So I think the regime that's being put in place is too harsh. And I prefer the 3148 end of 2016, but I will vote for the sunset. Speaker 0: All right. We've had him. Thank you. We've had emotions taken all in favor, I. All in favor. So that's unanimous. All right. Thanks, everybody. Right now we are going on to where we going, Madam Clerk. Speaker 3: And it's a long one, so. Speaker 1: I'll. Speaker 3: Be reading for a moment. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 3: So this is considering four cannabis related ordinances and providing direction on phasing of cannabis per unit permits. Two of the ordinance repealed existing regulations and then following a public hearing, council will consider adopting the same regulations. I'll just start. Introduction of ordinance to repeal in its entirety. Ordinance 3227 concerning cannabis regulations and Aluminum in full code. Article 16 Cannabis Businesses of Chapter six, businesses, occupations and Industries that, among other things, establishes the number of retail cannabis dispensaries to be open to the public, including delivery, disperses their operations, creates a buffer zone from sensitive uses and permits the sale of non medicinal cannabis. Introduction of an ordinance to repeal in its entirety. Ordinance number 30 to 28 concerning land use requirements in the Zoning Ordinance of Aluminum Municipal Code Section three Dash ten cannabis that, among other things, permits retail cannabis dispensaries in certain zoning districts subject to a conditional use permit and permits the sale of numerous full cannabis and certain zoning districts. Then a public hearing to consider introduction of an ordinance concerning Kansas regulations an element of permissible code. Article 16 Cannabis Businesses of Chapter six Business Occupations Industries that, among other things, establishes the number of retail cannabis dispensaries to be open to the public, including delivery, disperses their operations, creates a buffer zone from sensitive uses and permits the sale of non medicinal cannabis and introduction of ordinance concerning land use requirements in the Zoning Ordinance of Aluminum Possible Code Section 30, Dash ten cannabis that, among other things, permits retail, cannabis dispensaries and certain zoning districts subject to a conditional use permit and permits the sale of non medicinal cannabis in certain zoning districts and consider phasing the number of dispensary delivery permits through the request for proposal process.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Eliminating the Sunset Clause (December 31, 2019) from Ordinance No. 3148 (City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance). (Rent Stabilization 265)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6641

Speaker 8: . And I would I would I would like to put out there that I think that that we made a marked difference in the overall outcome of that committee in support of making sure that that there's more equitable housing available and that the league takes a stance that supports, you know, reasonable policies coming through to allow for everybody to help us out address the housing crisis. So. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brody. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just referencing item ten scene that I put on the agenda is informational only that was our topic brief from February's Stop Waste meeting. I thought it was timely, given that our Climate Action Plan will soon be coming in front of us. And it talks about the support of stop waste for localities drafting climate action plans and also talking about the focus on embodied emissions, which basically is the emissions of an entire product from the time it's created to the time it's used in focusing on the whole life cycle. So I thought it's interesting topic brief. I wanted to make sure I shared it with people. Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Speaker 10: So. Let's see. I attended the alternate, the Alameda CTC meeting last week. There were a number of things that came up there that I wanted to share. We had a presentation on the Valley Link Project, which is the replacement for Bart Livermore.

Council Communication

February 2019 Topic Brief on Climate Action and Embodied Emissions. [Informational Only] (Councilmember Oddie) [Continued from March 19, 2019 to April 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6627

Speaker 10: As I as I said, there's one or two things on here that Tony was interested in. This includes things that I will say I have heard from the community or Tony and I have heard from the community. But again, most that most of this is mine or from other council members during the election, etc. This is a proposed potential list of things we could say yes or no to. So it isn't we are not necessarily proposing we run forward with all of this. But Tony and I really wanted to come back to this body and say, hey, before we spend any time working on this stuff, what do we want to work on it? So I thought it would be helpful because I think there's only one or maybe two things on here that are my own personal like things that I threw on here of going through and kind of talking about where where these things came from so that there's a little bit more understanding that it's not. John just going completely wild districts and ranked choice voting have come up districts came up at a community meeting that Tony and I attended in I believe it was December the Alameda Citizens Task Force meeting ranked choice voting is something that has come from a variety of Alameda progressives, the element, Green Party, etc. The different groups there have talked about that direct elect the mayor is something I've been talking about for about a year and a half or so, which is the idea that we changed at one point in time from what what some cities have, which is we elect city council and then the city council, like the school board, adopts or appoints a mayor. And oftentimes that mayor rotates once a once a year. So I think that there are some benefits to that, especially with the way we do boards and commissions, etc.. So if there was interest, we could look at that. Term limits, definitely. Something has come up both in the community and I've heard members of this body talk about that with everything that's been going on lately, whether it's Measure K or Measures B or yeah, the Sun Cow Initiative and whatever else, this idea of charter charter ballot initiatives and paid signature gatherers and looking at what we know. First question, is the charter the right place for any of this? But is there something we could do in the charter that might require not just spending a lot of money to tell people something they want to hear, even though they don't understand what they're being asked to sign necessarily. Campaign finance reform is definitely something that came up in it through the campaign for me, but has been coming up for at least ten years in conversations I've had. Removing housing restrictions, measure a and moving that language to the municipal code. That was both a staff recommendation and things. I've heard members of this body say that they were interested in discussing and looking at board and commission appointments. There was discussion at one point in time, actually at the city council about four years ago about possibly changing it. It didn't get three votes to move forward, but I figured I would throw that out there. And then the question is, are all the right boards and commissions in this? Tony is proposed finance commission and whatever else the Open Government Commission is, that's something that should be in the charter. Are these the right ones? I just wanted to, since we're having this conversation, say now would be a great time to consider this. And then lastly, and this is I'm going to say we have we heard slightly two different takes on what this could mean. And that's why it was written the way it was clarifying county council interference. And Tony, I think has some interest in this item, so I'll let you talk about that one. But we also the city received an independent report that suggested that we look at changing the charter language to clarify what interference is as well, looking at the removal of the auditor and treasurer. So we made changes in 2008. We've made some changes through the years of what the auditor and the Treasurer is. You know, I've definitely heard many multiple people suggest that and I have also been one of those people suggest that they don't need to be elected officials. They do very, very little work actually. They spend a lot of time. But the actual their actual jobs are just a few hours a year for the most part. It's not clear why. It's clear why they used to exist, because they used to actually have a whole workload. But we now have a professional staff that does most of the work and they basically just sign off on most of it. So the question is, why are we electing these two positions and what are they bringing? Council pay has definitely been something that's not just me, definitely something that that former council people have talked about for many years. If we want to have a broad breadth of people who run for and tried to be on the city council, we can't assume that everybody can afford to give up 20 hours a week for $100 every two weeks. No, sorry. A month. Sorry. I just almost doubled our hour. And this is in the charter. We have to talk about it. So I think that's one. And then right now the council rules are suggest that if one were to give birth and live in their home in Alameda, they couldn't call into a meeting. And that just beyond that just seems beyond discriminatory. And I think we should ignore that one and let somebody sue us if we have to. But I also think we should change it so that we acknowledge that we live in a modern world where not just men sit on city councils. So that's my list where they came from. No harm, no foul. I'll let Tony the one and. Speaker 0: Then let's hear from Councilmember Desai. Speaker 5: Oh, great. Well, thank you. I came into this with the opinion that we should, you know, cast the net widely in an effort to get as much input as to what people think they want to have the public further discuss. It didn't necessarily mean that agree with everything, but but I think we should at least have a conversation. And I also, in addition to what I would call cases in that widely in an effort to get, you know, as much ideas to to mull over, I, I also kind of imposed on myself what I think are reasons why certain issues might rise higher than other issues. And it was in an effort to, at least for myself, provide some kind of internal control as to, you know, what constitutes an issue worthy of consideration. For myself, recognizing again, that I said, you know, let's throw out everything that we can. So one of the things I was definitely interested in is there had to be a sense of political legitimacy to to the matter that there was that we are responding to or anticipating a problem that that we all commonly understand to be the case how we approach the problem from what angles. And you know what we come out of it, you know, it, it will be what it is. But we do understand that it is a problem. So one of the areas where I do believe that falls within my kind of the way that I filtered issues is certainly has to do with clarifying the council interference language. I think that's a discussion that we would have with that we should have largely because of the issues that had happened in 2018 and also because of we had the follow up report. Doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the recommendations from the. From the report. But it is a conversation that we have to have, because my take away was that from the report and from what happened in 2018 was that nothing happened, even though there there there is pretty stark language in terms of council members interference in matters regarding employment that's stipulated in the in the charter. So we have to have that conversation on how to tighten that. Or not. I would I would ere on the side of tightening in the same vein when I talk about clarifying council interference. I'm certainly interested in a porous part of. A part of the charter that has to do with last time I call it to dash for it was actually to dash 11 and two. Dash 11 said that kind of separates the involvement of federal, state and county officials and why they can't participate in legislative bodies within the city council or or appointed by the city council . I would expand that and again, I would expand that in light of what happened in 2000, 2018. Now, another area that I do think falls within what I call, you know, a common problem. But instead of looking back, it's looking forward. I think clearly many cities across California are being forced to go into districts. So rather than being forced through a lawsuit, perhaps we are the city might take this opportunity to to come up with a way to to, you know, place the districts and in the charter as to how we go about, you know, what are the elements as to what's a good district or what's not a good district. So something that we I think we should address proactively because I think it will be a common problem because so many cities are being forced illegally to to go into the districts. There are some issues where I believe that that to me, in my opinion, I don't see it. It doesn't easily go through the filter with which I observe matters. Honestly, I don't look at the removal of the auditor or the Treasurer as something that people suddenly, you know, I don't see that community suddenly clamoring for that. I think there is a role for an independent auditor, independent treasurer or to a voted by the people of Alameda to review the work of of City Hall. I think there are other items also that I don't think they might be issues or interesting issues, but they don't necessarily rise to the level of of significance. For me, that is so I don't want to go into every of the details. But my main thing is certainly very narrow based upon the way in which I filter the issues. And it has to do, for example, with clarifying the council pay. I mean, I cannot council interference language. A district voting and excluding certain items that I believe don't necessarily have. There isn't necessarily a common agreement that this is a problem. On a final note, one of the things that I would encourage is if we are truly interested in changing the charter, and I think we will need to be strategic in how we go about doing it. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't approach undoing Measure eight from the city charter that was put in by the people of Alameda. And if people want to remove Measure eight from the charter, then the people, I believe, have to generate the signatures and remove it. Because I don't think that's a common problem that that that, you know, suddenly a lot of people are clamoring for. But that's my take on it. So I think this was very helpful. And I do think that we do need to improve to modify our charter. But I think we need to be very selective and strategic in how we go about doing it. I mean. For example, if you move forward on something that everyone agrees with, but then you also move forward on something that, you know, there's deep community division over, then I think you risk both of them not going forward because you won't get the votes for it. So. Thank you. And it's been very helpful. I appreciate it. John's assistance through this. It was a very good process. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela So can I just ask a clarifying question, though? So this item is titled Review and Discuss Charter Amendment, Timeline and issues proposed by the Council Subcommittee. I have heard you both describe the issues. What's the timeline? Speaker 10: I think we can talk about the timeline separately or we. Speaker 2: Can talk about it. Speaker 0: You want me to. So that's this the meeting plan? Is that okay? Speaker 10: And I think that. Speaker 0: Yeah, let's just because everything's on the agenda and then we'll take council communication through the session. Speaker 10: There was a little confusion, so we were proposing. But there was. Councilmember de SAC made the very wise and compassionate identification that every two years some of us are running for election. And it would be unfair to put ballot changes on that could that people could feel we're going to impact their race. So I guess the question we would have is I thought that because there was a primary election, we would actually already have covered the cost of having something on the ballot. So there's only about like $20,000 costs, but it turns out we have nothing on the primary ballot at this point in time. So we would have to actually. Speaker 0: Make two or. Speaker 10: $300,000 to put it on. So that would be a cost question. But we so this is a very tight timeline. If we were going to try to get something to March 2020 and basically ignoring the actual dates, the idea was like this meeting, come to the council, talk to people, what do we want to work on? Go out and have a community meeting, come back to the council and talk about what we got from that community meeting and how to move that forward. And so it'd just be kind of bouncing back and forth with the council basically checking in long before anything is written or direction is given. Speaker 0: And have you had any communications with the League of Women Voters because had heard from. Speaker 10: Yes, they are very interested in working on some of these issues. If we were to decide to move. Speaker 0: Forward, that's what I'd heard. Okay. All right. Did you want to add anything to that timeline process so you could pace? Speaker 3: And just to piggyback just on what Vice Mayor Mike was saying is there's also prohibitions that are not allowed as part of the March 2020 and council pay happens to be one of those that would have to go to November and the auditor and treasurer issue. Speaker 4: So those. Speaker 3: Offices that would be those offices that would be. Speaker 1: Up would be going in March. Speaker 0: And that makes sense. Speaker 3: So yeah, they'd have to go November. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, so you but you're working with the city clerk to to I take it to. Yes, yes, yes. Speaker 10: And the city attorney. Speaker 0: Okay, perfect. So Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: So. I guess I'll respond to kind of substantively and then the the timeline. So section two, Dash nine is the one that says that if if a council member is absent from the city for 30 days or more consecutively without the permission of city council, your office is considered vacant. Speaker 0: We can give you permission. Speaker 8: So I think this this comes up in two different ways. One is I've known several people who were actually do right around my due date who were put into the hospital on bed rest. We are alameda hospital does not have the capacity. We don't have and have. Speaker 0: Labor and. Speaker 1: Delivery. Speaker 8: We don't have labor and delivery anymore. And so if you are a member of council who happens to be pregnant and you do have an issue relative to your pregnancy, you will be removed from the city of Alameda and that will not be a choice of yours. And it would you know, I think that the process of getting council approval, to be honest with you, is a little bit demeaning in that instance. And so I think that that that language doesn't really contemplate that. It also doesn't subject the the the auditor or treasurer to the exact same standards that we as a councilor are held to. I think that's a little bit concerning. Additionally, if I were to say take maternity leave and not be in the city of Alameda for for 30 consecutive days, I would have to come here and get permission as well, which is currently what I'm going to have to do this summer. So I, I especially where we have an audit in August, break from council where we there's a period of time it's actually closer to six weeks from our second meeting in July until we reconvene in September. I think that that language is a little bit outdated. Again, Section two, Dash 14, why does this not apply to the auditor and treasurer? Again, it concerns me that we're holding the city council as elected officials to one standard and not the auditor and treasurer to the same standard. And again, that has to do with if you missed so many meetings or if you are vacant from the city again for 30 days, it's it doesn't apply to them. There was the mention of of Section seven, Dash three, which was mentioned in the Jenkins report. I certainly think that that's something that we we should be having a community conversation on articles four and five, which deal with the auditor and treasurer. I think whether or not those positions continue to exist is, is certainly one conversation. Also, the benefits that they receive and again, the, the standards that apply to them that that or that apply to the Council rather and don't apply to them are concerning because technically under the Jenkins language, they can have a conversation with the city manager that would be considered interference so they could bribe, let's say, the city manager , or they could do something like that relative to that. But the council is held to a different standard. I think that that's just maybe it was overlooked, but I think that it's bizarre. Section eight, dash one. We recently went through a recruitment for the city attorney. One of the things that I found when I was looking through the charter was that our city attorney, in order for them to get the appointment, must have must have admittance to the California Bar for at least five years preceding their appointment. And that was something that didn't really come up while we were having that conversation. But it's concerning to me because it means that essentially the person must be bar licensed with an active bar license in California for five years preceding what if we had wanted somebody that had been practicing outside of California but had previously been practicing in California, but hadn't practiced here for five consecutive years? It kind of limits the search. I just would want to have a conversation about that. I thought that was kind of interesting and I caught that when we were doing that recruitment. More out of just going through and seeing. Is there something that we're missing? As for the timeline, I don't have a pricing. There has been kind of public conversation. It's been a while since we've done a real charter review, and I think there are a lot of issues that people have been asking questions about. I don't mind having those conversations. I would just ask that we kind of bifurcate things. So there are the kind of substantive things that we've we've been tasked with that deal with specific issues in the charter. And then there seem to be kind of good governance questions about district elections, ranked choice voting, those sorts of questions, campaign finance that seem to be a separate track. It's not that they're not part of the charter conversation, but I think that it's a more robust conversation that's needed where we need to kind of think about the big picture and what we want Alameda elections to look like and what we want the elected body to look like. So I would just ask, because it seems like a lot to tackle in one meeting that we may be bifurcate those two things. And I think the interest is going to be different. The different community groups that are going to want to be involved or have a say might be different. And so perhaps if we bifurcate that with some guidance from the city clerk's office about different campaign requirements, about having it on certain elections, that sort of thing, and what the deadlines are, when when would the charter language have to be put in or when would the proposals have to be submitted? What's the process for notification and transparency on all of those things? And so that we can actually work from that timeline and people can understand is part of the conversation, you know, what that looks like and then what the whole package looks like. Because I think when we talk about district elections or ranked choice voting or the role of different positions, that's really a conversation where I want to have a conversation about what what's the overall package and rather than kind of picking them off one by one. So that's, that's my feedback. And I, I think the subcommittee for their work, I think our charter is a lot there's a lot to it. And, and it is an organic document. It's not a dead document. It's something that has been amended multiple times over the years. We continue to look at it. It's a living document. And I think part of this is it's pretty apt that we're having this conversation and I think timely. So thank you. Speaker 0: Councilman Brody. Speaker 6: Sure. I don't have too much more to add. That hasn't been said. I mean, I appreciate that the committee is looking at everything in addition to some of the stuff that I thought we were mandated to do. I do agree with customary values comments. Some of these can be compared compartmentalized into like buckets. And, you know, those buckets should kind of be looked at together. But, you know, I'm interested to hear the conversation on all of the ideas that are coming forward. Speaker 0: And I'll just wrap up and say thank you very much for your your work on this. And I really do want to encourage you to live up to the League of Women Voters in because we don't need to reinvent the wheel. And they've done a lot of work and their organization, not just, you know, the Almeida League, which is phenomenal, but statewide, Des has done the deep dove into some of these. So, you know, again, no need to reinvent the wheel. I and I would like to know, can we do something about paid signature gatherers? Because I always get a little nervous when you're treading near First Amendment and other. So do you want. Speaker 3: To I mean, I think we'd have to look into the specifics of what is requested. But the way that the since we are a charter city, we if we have things in the in our charter that trump the elections code, we follow our charter. Speaker 10: Okay. I don't believe. Speaker 0: That we council member I mean, first, Mayor Knox. Speaker 10: I don't believe we can say that. For me, what I would say is the first question is, is this something that should be in the charter or is that just something we should do by ordinance? I think there are restrictions that we can do, but it we can't stop it. Speaker 0: Yeah. So that might even be a step. Okay. That and some cities have gotten into trouble, I believe, too. Yeah. But I think maybe the threshold question is what belongs in a charter revision and what belongs in, you know, the separate, the buckets or whatever we're calling them these days. I think this is good timing on a number of fronts. We are getting a new city manager and a new city attorney, and we're still a relatively new city council. So it's kind of a good time to to tackle all this. And I think we can always learn from other communities and, you know, maybe other experiences they've had, by the way, and the five years of bar membership by membership in California. I could probably argue that one both ways, because I don't really want your experience with Nebraska law, but, you know, it's I think it's something to be something to be looked at. I, I think Councilmember De Sugg raised an interesting point about measure a the density limiting measure A that it was placed on it got into the charter through a citizens petition signature gathering initiative. And that's the way if it's to be amended or removed, it should happen again. But I just might anticipate that there might be organizations who have gotten pretty good at going out and pounding pavement who might be willing to do that. So maybe those are some other side conversations. I think it's a fair point, though, that you raise, because we never want to look like we're usurping the the the actions of the people by a vote of a five person body. So good point. I mean, you're raising good points. The I think that it is worth looking at the removal of the auditor and treasurer, probably not the most significant issue we face. But as we go through our budget and there's never enough money to do what we want to do these I'm not sure the return on the investment is there because I'm not entirely sure what they do that isn't redundant. Does something that an outside professional already does for us. But I, you know, I will contemplate that. But the very at the very. Speaker 8: End, they don't have term limits. Speaker 0: Councilmember vote. Yes, I was about to say that. I was going to say that at the very least, if if council in it has term limits, shouldn't they as well? But I don't know enough about the history of how those positions even came to be. I had no idea about them being away and remote meeting rules and to accommodate New Parenthood, clearly we need to update the charter there. The only problem is can't do it in time for this baby. But. Well. Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 0: There you go. I granted it. And then I would just say, I think you probably need to revisit your scheduling because, you know, doing anything by April is just about here. So but yeah, please come back to us with more refinement. But and I do think the point that that was councilmember so well all three of you have read you have made about our accountability to the public. We do need to do something about the issue that was raised in Mr. Jenkins report and at least make sure that the language is unambiguous and in. Some thought and discussion got to do it, but that's part of a public process. So with that, think. Speaker 6: More of us agreeing with that. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you all for for your hard work on this. And we look forward to your next report. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 10: Sorry, I just I heard a few things. Are you here to public comment on this? Speaker 0: Do we have a speaker slip? Speaker 2: I'm actually I didn't know how to get in line until tonight. Speaker 0: All right. Well, tell you what. Speaker 2: And I just want to do one or two sentences. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Well, why don't you see the assistant clerk here, and she will help you with the process? Speaker 10: Is that about this, what we're talking about right now? Speaker 2: Okay, no comment. Great. Speaker 0: All right. Mrs. Ms.. Is going to get you a speaker slip that you just fill out, so I just bring it to you. Oh, ouch. Okay, so face to face, Mayor, there's. Speaker 3: There's no opportunity left tonight. Speaker 0: For no apology. You know, I think we might reopen oral communications because this gentleman has been sitting here and it seems a bit cruel, unusual. And so. Yeah, but he's got it. Speaker 3: I just want him to understand something. Okay. Speaker 10: If I can just summarize some, because there are a couple of places that I'm not clear on. So it sounds like working with the League of Women Voters, elections districts, ranked choice, voting, direct conversation. See what comes up. Come back with. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 10: Something, even if it's nobody's interested. Right, but. But not you. I guess what I'm saying is nobody's saying don't talk about that. Speaker 0: So I would just say, no, I wouldn't tell you not to talk about anything. I will say on the issue of district elections, it's certainly come up at the League of California Cities because that's happened to some cities. Usually it's been in areas where they were a larger cities. There were more distinct neighborhoods like a particular ethnic group, lived in one area and definitely didn't have representation in the councilors. I mean, I, I mean, we certainly can look at it, but doing it to preempt the legal challenge might not be my idea of the best reason to bring it forward. But I think anything's on the table. It's just where in the table you put it. Um. Speaker 10: So I guess what I know nobody wants to limit things that people can talk about, but at the end of the hand, it's a big there's a big lift. Speaker 0: I did tell you to triage it, remember? Speaker 10: Well, yeah, but I guess I'm looking for help. On if there are things where people are like, Yeah, let's not go there right now. We can do that. We can put that in our second bucket. Speaker 5: Yeah, I really like the way Councilmember decide. I like the way Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Odie framed it by calling it either bifurcating and or bucket lists. And because that's a framework and how to deal with issues without picking and choosing which issues. So I think as we go to the League of Women Voters or whomever, that we can at least say that that's one of the directions coming out of here. Help us choose what goes into what bucket. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 5: So serious bucket in minor league bucket. Speaker 10: Okay. The major issue, because I've actually heard some people say one thing one time and another thing tonight. Are we going to move forward with that? Are we saying that some groups should deal with that and. Speaker 0: I would put that at the top of a discussion to be determined, because I think I mean, how can we talk about all the issues we grapple with homelessness, affordable housing availability, the cost of housing? Without looking at this one instrument that has kept us from building anything more dense than a duplex since 1973. It's not to say we haven't done multifamily with, you know, multifamily overlay, zoning districts and density bonus and all that. But, you know, maybe it's time to come in the front door. But who brings that forward? I think that's a fair question. But I I would put that I mean, I just think that housing is so important to us that that should be up near the top. My idea. Speaker 10: Of things for us to discuss, we might come back and say we think somebody else should move. Speaker 0: Forward. That's my that's my thought, I hear. Speaker 10: Okay. Okay. Speaker 6: Sorry. We couldn't overrule that. Yeah, we. If we decided to tackle it, it would be putting it on the ballot, letting the voters decide. Speaker 0: Correct. Matter of how it gets to just make. Speaker 6: Sure people don't understand. Don't misconstrue that. You know, we're plotting to do all this stuff. Speaker 10: About boards and commission appointments. I didn't hear one person mention that. I'm going to just strike that on the list of. I didn't hear anybody say that. It could be interesting. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 6: I'm going to strike anything from, you know, just to be clear. Speaker 2: But I'm asking for you to. Speaker 10: I'm asking for some for some clarity there. Council pay. I saw a lot of nodding heads. I didn't necessarily. But I think I think that stays there. Speaker 0: I think it stays. Speaker 10: Everything else seemed to well, I think move paid signature gatherers to somewhere else, not the charter. And I didn't hear anybody talk about charter initiatives and, you know, to to your point and to just disagree. Speaker 1: Councilmember Thank you. Speaker 10: Shaking his head, I'm like, Yeah, I think I can get away. Let's get rid of that one as well. Because, you know, it is the it is the document of the people. So try and just suggest that the people should say and the people can't change that. The charters. Speaker 2: A little. I don't think we can. Okay. Okay. Speaker 10: Okay. I think. I think, therefore, we got that where we. Speaker 2: Go. Speaker 10: In terms of the timeline, I guess ignoring the dates, is everybody okay with the general flow whereby we're coming back and checking in and not writing anything? With that, you guys seemed bullet pointed in either direction. Speaker 0: And can can we direct you, though, to check in with the League of Women Voters and maybe set up some time between now and next time you report? Speaker 10: I already have. I mean, I've already met with them specifically on this. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 10: Councilmember Disorganized. In our first meeting, we were like the League of Women Voters. They already had that meeting. Speaker 0: But maybe a framework of what you're going to do with them. Okay. Councilmember has got her hand up and then we'll go to Councilmember Ody. And I would just talk all you want, but it's almost 11:00. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 8: So regarding the the timeline and the process, one thing that I would I would like is if we could schedule or if there is a joint meeting with the League of Women Voters, perhaps that we agenda set as a work session, a public work session so that the entire council can attend. I think that that would be helpful. In terms of the paid signature gather issue, perhaps we can have a staff presentation at a later meeting about what other cities have done relative to regulating that. It's similar to kind of time, place and manner restrictions because it's a First Amendment right. You essentially can't you can't say no, you can't spend money in elections, but you can regulate how it's sunshine to the public and what the requirements might be. Then the names of the the names of the organizations, what's required, and then in the name of the of the pack or whatever that's behind it, whether or not we have additional disclosures that are required that have to be included in like a petition that they circulate at the bottom of it said that says, you know, paid for by with their top donors or something like that. So I know that there's things like that. And if we could maybe get a staff report back on that, I'm not saying anytime soon I would want to give staff time to put that together. That might be helpful. And then we could report back to the League of Women Voters or to the public who've raised these concerns to say we're at least looking at it Speaker 6: . Councilmember Odie thinks that was pretty much what I was going to say. If we do have a meeting with the League of Women Voters, it would be good to be noticed in a way that all of us could participate, not just attend. Speaker 0: You okay? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, that's what the vice mayor. Are you okay? Physically okay? Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 4: Sorry. Speaker 0: We can. We can be. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 6: And then so, you know, because like the subcommittee, we, we wouldn't come to them. We couldn't speak at a meeting of the subcommittee, apparently. And then to your other point, would it be I think that's a good thing for our new city attorney to kind of bring back, you know, what we're allowed to do, what we're not allowed to do. And, you know, if we can regulate how someone is paid, whether it's piecemeal or or hourly, you know, what our options are. Speaker 8: In our city. Speaker 6: Clerk Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Is that enough on this graph there on this? Okay. So we've got we have ten C, are we doing that today or should we hear a public speaker. Speaker 6: Just kind of oh. Speaker 0: You sort of said that. Okay. So then we do have a public speaker. You can come on up if and one minute is exactly what I'm offering you. Okay? Yes, I'm okay.

Council Communication

Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by the Council Subcommittee. [Continued from March 19, 2019 to April 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6595

Speaker 0: And who pulled that? That was council member de sa, Mr. de sa. Speaker 7: Well, thank you, Madam Mayor. The reason why I pulled item five C is really just to make sure to clarify for purposes of the public that what's before us is not to hone in on any one particular option, but to have four options. And the public will take a take a review of the different four options. And if we could have staff. Speaker 9: Good evening. Andrew Thomas Planning Director That's absolutely correct. Councilmember Desai We're talking about four different options for the segment of Central right around the Webster Street intersection. Speaker 0: And by the way, would you be Andrew Thomas, planning director? Speaker 3: I thank you. Have what I said. Speaker 0: Did you not did you. So my time is that. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 9: And we're going to be studying all four in equal levels of detail so detailed traffic analysis, parking analysis so that the public and the experts and everybody can see how they compare at that point. Once we have that information, it'll be time to start making decisions about the preferred. Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. And the second point that I just wanted to get across is I you know, I kind of feel that we're moving ahead with these projects along Central Avenue and potentially in Central Avenue. I kind of believe that we're moving ahead of these projects in a way that is not aligned with what's in our transportation or circulation element. And I feel that what we really need to do is, is modify, update different aspects of our general plan and do so in a comprehensive manner, and then see how particular projects like these bike projects, whether they're the issues crossing Webster Street or the bike project as a whole, how these fit in to the to the larger general plan as updated. And I would really encourage staff to think about that. I know that we're talking about updating our land use element, but but I do think we have to look at our transportation circulation aspects because of all these new projects and all these new plans that that we will talk about actually later. So I think this is an opportunity to begin to think about that comprehensively and also finally in a manner that really involves the public in a robust manner. Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. And that's why. Speaker 2: I just wanted to say that I appreciate staff bringing this forward. I think that the way in which the staff has brought has engaged the community and engaged our boards and commissions as well as the Council on moving this forward is really great. It's my hope that when we come back, when this comes back through the process, that staff will bring in it maybe a couple of options, but definitely one of the options that's going to come back is going to be the one that is determined to be the most safe and the one that identifies the best opportunity for mode shift and greenhouse gas reductions, which we identified as some of our highest, as earlier speaker said, identified as some of our highest goals for the city and looking at transportation and the environment for for the coming year though anyway. But I think is doing a great job. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 3: Was it's going to be okay? Speaker 0: Did you have a comment? Councilman Brody, just. Speaker 5: Quickly, I want to echo the vice mayor's comments, but Mr. Thomas, so what I didn't see in here is a timeframe on when we would get this back because this has kind of taken a while. Speaker 9: Yeah. To be kind. It's a very kind of you to use those words. It is a. Speaker 3: Very Rome. Speaker 0: Wasn't. Speaker 3: Built in a. Speaker 9: Day. One of the reasons why Central has taken so much longer and has been so much more expensive than a normal corridor project would be, is that we're dealing with a state highway as well. So we're coordinating with Caltrans. We're using state money to make the improvements. So we have to jump through a whole number of state hoops. We will be back shortly. It probably won't be the April 16th meeting. It'll be April 16th or the first meeting in May with a comprehensive report on this project, which will have much more detail about the steps and the process. The short answer to your question is we want to be at it by the end of this year in the position to start making recommendations and final decisions. Speaker 5: Perfect. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: And Councilmember de Desai. Speaker 7: I'd like to move a recommendation of a staff report recommending approval of. Speaker 0: Okay to have a second second all in favor by OC. That recommendation is approved unanimously. Okay. Our next. And do we have speaker slips on any of these pulled items? Speaker 1: We do have five EMG. Speaker 0: Okay. So five is adoption of thank you resolution amending the concession agreement with Deli Meat Inc known as Jim's on the course to provide an extension for completion of the event center at the Korea Park Golf Complex. Do we want to hear from staff?

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Endorse the Central Avenue Webster Street Options for Further Analysis and the Two-Way Bikeway Extension Between Paden School and McKay Avenue. (Transportation 310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6586

Speaker 0: Okay. So five is adoption of thank you resolution amending the concession agreement with Deli Meat Inc known as Jim's on the course to provide an extension for completion of the event center at the Korea Park Golf Complex. Do we want to hear from staff? Do we have whoever? Oh, it's pulled because we had speakers clips. Right. Okay. Do we want to brief staff overview of. Can you give us the 30,000 foot level as well? Then go ahead and introduce yourself. Thanks. Speaker 6: Sure. Absolutely. So, Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager. So let's see, the brief overview is that the concessionaire Jim's on the course is is moving toward is in an agreement with the long term concession agreement with the city of Alameda to provide food and beverage at the golf course at Creek Park. He is building an event center as part of that agreement. That event center, he's expended about 8% of his budget toward completion of that event center. He's received his building permit and his his he has exceeded his original timelines and one as well as one administratively provided extension. And so this this amendment, before you provide additional months to the end of December 31st, 2019, which in which is where full completion and certificate of occupancy would be required. This amendment also adds the event, the enclosed patio and some version of that of design that would be determined later as a requirement as part of this amendment . Those are the key components of this amendment. Speaker 0: Okay. Are there any council questions or clarifications and separate work? Speaker 7: Councilmember Desai Thank you very much. Mr. Woolridge The question that I have is we received a letter via email from a stakeholder involved with Greenway. I believe the CEO name escapes me. Here was George Kelly, who was concerned about having perhaps a 30 day timeline within which certain plans could be. Is that something that that, you know, is that something that you you were able to review and then come to some activations on that you can share? Speaker 6: Absolutely. Thank you, Councilmember De. So, yes, I'm happy to report that I've I've I had previously spoken to another principal with with Greenway Golf last week and also had already spoken with Tom Jacobs, the owner of gyms in the course and and what we can do and council that your purview can certainly add to this amendment is . Well let me back up the goal really here is to ensure ensure a quality that the final product of the event center is a quality product and that really is in line with with the facility as a whole. What we can amend is a few things that I would recommend 45 days that the city has approval of all furniture, furnishings, fixtures and equipment for any. Some examples would be light fixtures, the restroom, counter flooring, walls, fixtures, chairs, tables, the patio furniture and pavers. That's an outdoor patio area adjacent to the event center. The carpeting, any interior exterior wall, finish paint window shades. So I have that detailed out. The other things I would recommend and has been agreed to is a landscape plan that again is approved by the city and that would be required to have approval by also 45 days within signing of the contract amendment. And then also there's been questions about the age vac and whether it is or isn't included. So I think we just put it in writing that there will be a fact included in this in this project. Speaker 7: Great. Speaker 0: Thank you for clarification, Miss Voltage. When you say you would recommend that in 45 days City has approval of the have ebony fixtures, furnitures and. Speaker 6: Equipment. Speaker 0: Equipment approval at what level? By you by. Greenway by. Speaker 6: Well contractually they're not gyms on the course is in a contractual agreement with the city, not with Greenway. So I would recommend approval by me as the representative of the city. The way I generally operate is, is the reality is I would be working with Greenway staff and I would talk to them and, and make sure that all parties are on the same page. But there's really not a contractual agreement between Greenway and Jim's on the course. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay, I've got that. Any other clarifying questions from staff, from counsel, if not will go to you have me. Sorry. Yes, Councilmember. Speaker 5: This fall. Where do we see this 45 day? Speaker 6: It's not currently in there. This would mean in addition to what what is in the packet. Speaker 5: Okay, so my question is, are we allowed to, on the dias make an amendment? Speaker 0: Well, what I would mean. Speaker 5: If that's what the desire of the council is. Speaker 0: So this is what I might suggest. These are clarifying questions, and I'm not sure we've had a discussion yet because I think we'd like to hear. I'll hold. Speaker 5: That up. Speaker 0: Hold that hold that thought. Okay. Any other clarifying questions at this time? Okay. If not, I'm going to. I'm sorry. Councilmember Vella. Speaker 8: So, Amy, if Greenway doesn't like something that you know and they tell you that they don't like it, essentially, is that going to hold this up or what would happen? I know that you're you're kind of offering to mediate between the parties, but if there's some sort of issue or discrepancy or something like that, what happens? Speaker 6: Ultimately, it's still city discretion and city approval. So it would be in my discretion of whether I think that's valid or not. My goal with this approval would be that we have a good quality product at the end of the day that benefits the golf course as a whole and benefits the city because any revenue comes back to us. And also my goal would be to make sure it matches. You know, we don't want to have one type of paper over here and another type of paper over here so that it matches the look of the facility as a whole. But ultimately, it's city discretion. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 0: Any further clarifying questions? Okay. With that, thank you as well. With that, we will go to our speakers. We just have two speakers, 3 minutes each. Gentleman, it's George Kelly, followed by Ed Downing. Mr.. Mr.. Kelly. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And Council. My name is George Kelly. I'm the CEO of Greenway Golf. I'm the one that wrote that email yesterday. And basically, to express my concern over the, you know, the division and the quality of the improvement that is proposed to take place with the event center. One of the things that, you know, I'd like to point out, and I think it's very obvious to all of you, is that Greenway has made a tremendous investment in this golf course over the last six years. I got to say that we're one of the only companies in America investing as heavily as we are in golf at a municipal level. I'm proud of that. And I think at the end of the day, it's going to be a good investment for us, but that remains to be seen at this point in time. Everything that we've done to date is with the highest of quality in in our intent. And I just want to make sure that that the event center has this consistent level of quality. We don't want to have a situation where, on the one hand, you see the golf side and you go, wow, this is pretty cool. And then you go over to the event center and there's something missing. So with that being said, one of the things I wanted to point out is that currently most of the patrons at gyms are non golfers with the event center going in. Most of the patrons are going to be golfers. So it's very this is a critical time for us. And but having said that, and in speaking with Amy and understanding the vision and and her commitment to seeing this through, I support the extension until the end of the year with the condition that within the next 45 days , we have some level of specificity in terms of the quality of the improvements that are going into place. Obviously, we're not going to be the ones that can approve or disapprove of it. But I think working with Amy, we have a good relationship with her that will get the result that we want and need. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Downing. Speaker 4: Mayor Council City staff. My name is Ed Downing. I'm chairman of the Alameda Golf Commission. A week ago tonight, the Alameda Golf Commission met and took a unanimous vote in support of the city staff recommendation to modify gym's concession agreement. So I'm here tonight just to inform you that and express my strongest support for moving ahead with that. My belief is that Jim, as a longtime Alameda business, he deserves the opportunity to finish this project. And having talked at length to the folks at gyms, I believe that that will happen. I'm also encouraged tonight to hear the discussion about Greenway and the folks at gyms getting together to resolve these issues. I think that would be very beneficial. So I'm just here to express my strongest support. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's my last speaker's. I'm going to close public comment and open council discussion. I'm going to just lead and say that I do have concerns and I've spoken with Ms. Wooldridge about this, that this. Speaker 3: And the. Speaker 0: Contract was given to gyms on the course back in December of 2017 and there were a number of completion dates that have been missed. I think the first one was probably unrealistic because it was six months to complete an event center. But I am concerned that we are now, when we come to the end of this year, going to be two years from when this project was first supposed to have started. But I you know, I, too, am encouraged by the communication from Mr. Aldridge and from Mr. Kelly. But colleagues, what do you think? Who wants to start? I'll go with Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: And Madam Chair, I think you noted this. I think some of the there's a bit of idealism involved in the original plan in terms of seeing things through and getting things permitted. I don't you know, one question that I had asked Ms. Wooldridge, when when we met, was specifically what's the typical permitting time for some of these things and would it have even been possible for somebody else to have gotten it done? And I think, you know, when we look at it from that angle, I think that, you know, it would have been a lofty goal to get all of that done in the in the time specified. But I also think that the the language proposed and some of the concepts discussed about trying to make sure, you know, first of all, the city still has the ability to make sure that everything's synthesized and works out there. And and the extension, the extensions, not asking for an unreasonable amount of time. So I'm I'm inclined to support it. Speaker 0: I saw Councilmember Desai stand up. Speaker 7: Thank you. I just want to make three points. First is I had the pleasure several weeks ago of of going through the golf course, the south. BARTLETT Yeah. And, you know, obviously everyone knows I'm not a golfer, but I got to say, that is an incredibly beautiful course. I mean, the the semi athlete in me and the urban planner in me just has to just be amazed by that course. And I hope maybe if residents can, I don't know, walk through there, they will just be startled at how beautiful it is. But in addition to it is functionality in terms of dealing with water and all that kind of stuff, it's just amazing. I mean, I went there after there are some rains and there are people still golfing out there. The rain had occurred the day before, but the golf course was dry and so I was just amazed at the quality of work that's been done there. So I do. So I'm very glad to see that, you know. LAPD Director Woodridge and soon to be assistant. Soon to be interim city manager. Woodridge is, you know, taking will be incorporating, you know, ways in which we can make sure that the project that that's really at hand is aligned with is consistent with the the incredible beauty of the golf course that you have out there. If if residents have a chance, you should go tour it because it's so it's amazing. So I'm very happy that about the 45 day period over which, you know, hopefully landscaping plans will be submitted as well as, you know, city getting approvals with regard to Finney's. I guess the third point I want to say is, you know, yes, for some it's been, you know, maybe two years. But, you know, I remember voting on this, I believe, in 2015. So for me, it's been four years. So. So we do have to get moving in terms of having not only a beautiful golf course, but an event center that that that complements the beautiful golf course. Because, I mean, the extent to which how beautiful it is, as we were people even talking about it in terms of possibly having a PGA event there. So so I'm just talking about, by the way, the South course. I expect that the north course, I think it's called, will be just as beautiful. Speaker 0: Anyone else. Okay. And I will just just segway on to that that yes, I believe that completed. Well, this course in the event center has the ability to attract pro golf tournaments and, you know, the banquets and all that follow. It's also been a great opportunity for young golfers, the youth golfers, to learn the sport. And it's a great form of recreation. And also the event center in the beautiful location should be a possible venue, say, for weddings and banquets and such. I will and I very much would approve this adopting this resolution with the amendment that recreation parks director, interim assistant city manager Aldridge made about the 45 days to approve the Fannie's if come December of 2019, this project isn't completed, I will not be inclined to entertain another extension, but I hope it doesn't come to that. So with that, Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: I think the two of us didn't talk. Speaker 3: But okay. Speaker 5: I mean, I'm going to support this as well. I just want to point out, if you look at the staff report on page two, it wasn't until December 17th, just a mere three months ago that they actually received the building permit and that there's still mechanical electrical permits that that they're waiting for review. So I why some people may be concerned about the the time length and the delay. I mean, a lot of that is probably on the city for not issuing permits. So I don't feel necessary to hold that against the concessionaire. I am concerned about this 45 day thing, which, you know, the public doesn't had notice about. I didn't have notice about. And I mean, I'm just curious whether that's something we're even allowed to do on the fly here. Speaker 0: So with that, I'm going to turn to our inner city attorney, Michael Roush. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, mayor and council. I would agree that I would not recommend that we add that to the Second Amendment at this time. I think Council has given direction with respect to what it wants to see with respect to the 45 day review period. Let that run its course. If there's an issue with that in some respect, we can bring back a Third Amendment. But I would be more comfortable with just dealing with the Second Amendment, with the provisions that are in the agenda report, rather than adding this on, because perhaps some member of the community might not have understood that this was going to be part of what the council was going to discuss. Speaker 0: So, Mr. Marsh, to your point, what if we were to come out with a language, Madam City Clerk, continue this item to the next meeting in order to get that 45 day period in? Because I do happen to think when we look at the delays and I am I am not aware of any evidence that it was our city's building department that has caused the delay. And so I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that. The fact that they just got the building permit in December, a year after their contract was granted. So is it possible to come back? And before you answer that question, I think I've got comments from, like I said, the vice mayor and then Councilmember Vella. Speaker 2: Well, I do think we have the ability I would just say to to add this, I think it's actually adequately noticed. It doesn't specifically tie us into something, but I will not be supporting a Second Amendment without the this this language. I wanted to thank. I'm going to go with Amy. I don't know what to call you anymore. So any. Speaker 0: Title must always. Speaker 4: Work. Speaker 2: She spent a lot of time. We talked a lot about the need for these types of concerns. I know that there is a lot of just concern between the parties out there. And I think this gives us a little bit of control to make sure that we can help everybody reach the goals that we wanted to. I really appreciated Chair Downey coming in speaking. I too agree that this is an operator that's a local business that we should be supporting. We should be going out of our way to support our local businesses that every at every turn. On the other hand, like the mayor, I will not be entertaining future amendments. It's time. It's time to get this thing done. So I however, we decided to go forward related to the noticing. I am not inclined to sign a Second Amendment and then hope that we have a signed Third Amendment at some other future point. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I had a couple more questions for this, Will Rich. So that with regarding the permit issues, can you kind of talk a little bit about that in terms of what the timing of the permits were and when or if there was a permit that was delayed longer than others? Speaker 6: I can't speak to other permits. Every permit is unique in terms of the level of complexity. It depends on what submitted it. And so there's that. But I will say I don't think this was held up by the permits. I think I worked very closely with staff and public works and in building. And actually I think they worked very hard on this. It took about it was submitted plans were submitted July, beginning in July, the first week of July. So it did take a number of months. And that and I'll say also when you have a complex project, I've been through a number of complex permits myself with the park projects and oftentimes they we had two, three, four rounds of hold comments that you have to respond to and get back. So he had either three or four rounds of hold comments and so it was also our city staff doing their due diligence. Speaker 0: You're saying hold the comments. Speaker 6: I'm sorry, hold comments. Is is when through in the review process, there's questions from the reviewer and they write down they hold the permit, the issuance of the permit until those questions are answered. You know, and we have an operator who that he then had to go and get the information because he's not an architect from his consultants. And so that takes time. So that permitting process did take however many months. That is off the top of my head to five months. But I think everybody did their best. Speaker 8: Okay. And then with regards to some of the items that, you know, that that are of concern in terms of this 45 day period, you know, to what degree are you going to be reviewing them? I mean, to what degree are we going to are you proposing that we kind of get involved? Speaker 6: I would be reviewing to the degree, for example, that, you know, the paving matches, as I mentioned, the existing paving the landscape plan is certainly something I would work with on with Greenway because I also want them landscape to match the existing landscape out there. You know, Mr. Daneyko and I have already talked about, for example, treatments in the restrooms and he's confirmed with me, he's already planning on concrete counters and tile. And so I'm looking for for quality and also just for the the overall look of it, I'm certainly not an architect or designer, so I'm really just looking to make sure we have a generally good product. Okay. Speaker 8: And my final question is, what happens if this isn't like if the extension isn't approved. Speaker 6: If the amendment is not approved, he is in breach of contract. And we have to look at terminate. We have to terminate that contract subsequently. Greenway Golf is it has in their contract that they have the first right of refusal for food and beverage service at the golf course. Speaker 8: So essentially Greenway would take it over. Speaker 6: If they if they chose to. Yes. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: And I have Councilmember Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you so quickly as well, which it sounds like there was really nobody at fault. These things just take time. Yes. Okay. So I'm comfortable with that. But I think we should understand that as we're asked to do a Second Amendment, that these things take time. So it's completely reasonable that the concessionaire would ask for an extension. So through the chair, I I'm curious to hear the vice mayor's logic, if he cares to share on why he thinks it's okay to do this. Because, you know, I'm fine with adding an amendment with this 45 day if if the council believes it's something that we're allowed to do. Speaker 0: So I'm actually going to take the first crack at that, if I may. I appreciate the abundance of caution when it comes to noticing items and making sure that we're clearly informing the public. I really do believe in this case we would still be adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the Open Government Commission of the Sunshine Ordinance, because we are being asked to adopt a resolution amending the concession agreement with Daly MI gyms and the course to provide an extension for the completion of the event center. We are presumably about to vote undoing that extension. The fact that within 45 days the recreation parks director, acting city assistant city manager wants to see the the provide the offerings for the the furniture's fixtures and equipment. I don't see has any material impact on the extension that we're being asked to grant, essentially a one year extension. I just I don't see it. It's not I mean, I would imagine we didn't ask her, but that if that 45 days went by, she would probably come back to the council and. Ask for our direction, but I. I just think we might be getting a little too cautious here. I mean, maybe there's no such thing as too cautious, but maybe there is. And then Vice Mayor, did you want to add to that? Speaker 2: No, I think based on the way that this is noticed, it's noticed that somebody knows that we're talking about amending the agreement. This is an amendment to the agreement. Anybody who wanted to come and speak to or had concerns about how we might amendment this agreement would be very clear that they knew that this I think this is a great example of how we should title an agenda is are our agendas. Speaker 0: So so with that, do I have a motion as I see it? I see. Speaker 3: Yeah, go ahead. So, okay. Speaker 5: I'm of approval of the item with the additional 45 day provisions outlined by Ms. Wooldridge. Speaker 0: And do I have a second and do I have any comments? Discussion. Speaker 3: Or shall we. Speaker 8: Vote? Well, I mean, I. Speaker 0: Have a councilmember village, so I. Speaker 8: Do think that that part of the staff report is what was presented to the parties involved. So we're amending it. So if we're amending it, you know, if staff could comment on whether or not this this proposed amendment has been discussed with the parties involved and if they think that they can. Speaker 3: Work with that. Speaker 8: Actually work with it and comply. Speaker 6: Yes. I've discussed with you in the last couple of business days. The amendment with both parties involved in all have agreed both parties being gyms on the course in Greenway. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms. Wooldridge. Councilmember decided you want to say something. Okay. Did I get a second? Okay. We did so. Okay. We've had a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor. I that was unanimous. Okay. This. This resolution amending the concession agreement is adopted unanimously as amended. Very little. Thank you. Okay, so our next. Speaker 3: That's right. Speaker 0: Our next item that was pulled from consent is it's 8:00 and we're still in consent. Who?

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Amending the Concession Agreement with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim’s on the Course), to Provide an Extension for Completion of the Event Center at the Corica Park Golf Complex. (Recreation 5301)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6622

Speaker 0: Our next item that was pulled from consent is it's 8:00 and we're still in consent. Who? Speaker 3: Hello. Speaker 0: This is item five G and this is the adoption of a resolution to endorse declaration of a climate emergency and request regional collaboration on an immediate and an immediate just transition, an emergency mobilization effort to restore a safe climate. So hi there. I'm just going to let it be known that when we come to public speakers, we have a whole bunch. So you're probably getting 2 minutes or less, but just start consolidating your arguments and. Hello, are you presenting this item? Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Patrick Pellegrino de. I'm the city's climate action coordinator, and I work in the Public Works Department. Speaker 3: All right. Nice to see you. Also dressed up. Yeah. Speaker 4: So the latest science and recent wildfires have shown us that climate change is real. It's happening now. Speaker 0: Closer, friends, we can hear you. Speaker 4: And its impacts are likely to be severe. And some commentators have called our current moment a climate crisis. So the resolution, before you responds to that crisis by declaring a climate emergency, this resolution shows Almeida's leadership in climate action and also demonstrates the community's resolve in addressing climate change head on. And while our federal government has shied away from the bold action that is necessary to surmount this challenge, cities and local governments are stepping up to fill the gap. And Alameda is an example. We are stepping up and developing a ambitious climate action resiliency plan, which will put forth strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resiliency to climate change. And that plan should be concluded in the next several months. So with the declaration before you, alameda would join its peer cities, some of which have adopted a similar resolution in addressing climate change with the gravity and urgency that it merits. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any and clarifying questions at this time? So we go to our many speakers. Any clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Yeah, we start our audience. Speaker 0: So this is clearly a worthy item and I'm all for it. I am going to ask you to hold your applause. Just virtually applaud. The reason is when we have so many speakers, it just takes more time. It's also a little bit intimidating to some people for whom public speaking is not their favorite thing to do. Speaker 3: We have four, five, six, seven, six. Could be your job after this. Speaker 1: 11. Speaker 3: Sorry, 12. Speaker 0: We have 12 speakers. So when we have 12 speakers, we add 2 minutes each unless. Speaker 1: You vote by four to lower. Speaker 0: In a session. Speaker 1: Unless you vote by four of you vote. Speaker 0: It is a council. Okay. With 2 minutes. Speaker 3: Each? Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So 2 minutes each. I'll try to call several speakers at once. Don't feel like you have to take your whole 2 minutes, but that's just try to keep it moving because we've got a full agenda. But this is, as I said, very important. All right. In this order, we've got Christy Cannon, followed by Joseph Cohen, followed by Lauren Isley. I hope I'm pronouncing your names correctly. Correct me if I didn't. So, Ms.. Cannon, hi. Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Christy Canning. Speaker 6: Mayor Council Member. Staff I'm very skeptical of declarations which can often end up being pieces of paper that nobody pays any attention to. But I think Patrick stated it well. We have a sense of crisis and emergency. I've spent a lot of time talking to my neighbors and people on the West End in front of Tony's house at the farmer's market. And people are concerned. I would say there's a sense, a strong sense of unease. And to see leadership like this from the council. Speaker 3: I think would really be. Speaker 6: A strong statement that Alameda will support. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Joseph Cohen is next, followed by Lauren Eisley. Hello. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor, this is. This is Pauline's antiques. Does everybody know Pauline's antiques in Alameda? Speaker 3: Used to be. Speaker 4: Is there anybody that doesn't know Pauline's antiques in Alameda? Pauline's antiques no longer exists. However, Pauline's property exists in Pauline's property, in my observation, would make a phenomenal Alameda Climate Action Center. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. And so it's 7000 square feet that can be used for the following purposes. It could be used as for retail products to cover costs. Could be used for education for children. Could be used for environmental groups. And there are many environmental groups fighting for this cause. It could be used for environmental movies. Right around the corner from the Alameda Movie House. It could be used for new technology to sequester CO2, which is possible to pull down from the air and stop our planet from raising that two degrees that we've all heard about. And it could be used for. Your city goals of the the essence of the seas rising and doing great disaster to our island. So I see this center as being something that could be critical for all of us to act within as a context for where action could take place of physical action across from the children store , where the kids go in, they can point and say, Look, mommy, a climate action center like that. So I'm trying. What I'm trying to do is get people stoked up in the 30 seconds that I have left. Speaker 0: 22. Speaker 3: So you're doing that. Speaker 4: So I didn't know what I was going to say. I still don't know what I'm going to say, but I said it anyway. This is something that's really required, I think. And this could be and this could be a prototype for Climate Action Centers anywhere else and all other places within our world. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Our next two speakers are Lauren Isley, followed by Amos White. Speaker 3: Hello. Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft. Council members and staff are Laura and I, Zell, for the record. And I was I wanted to get up here in particular and to say that I really applaud all of you for your vision and your leadership and your compassion for all of the members of your community here in considering this emergency declaration. I've been working in the Climate Resiliency Field for over 15 years now in the Bay Area, and I'm so glad to see Alameda coming to the table and also for seeing Alameda coming into the regional conversation about resilience. And that being said, I just want to be sure to encourage you to really consider the ethos and the the the vision behind this declaration when you're looking at approving or considering development projects in the future, and in particular, how those development projects impact our infrastructure, our transportation systems, our emergency services, and the vulnerabilities of particular developments relative to sea level rise, which is our biggest concern. In addition, I encourage you in the future, as you're looking at the different versions of the Climate Adaptation and Action Plan, to really scrutinize that plan for its comprehensiveness, for its effectiveness, and for its ability to be implemented and funded. Because the eye can see that your determination and your consideration is here. But words in a paper only mean so much unless they can actually be act upon with actions and policies and procedures and plans. So thank you very much for your support and your leadership. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have Amos White, followed by Kathy. Dana, followed by Carolyn. Carolyn Choi, Mr. White. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and Council. Thank you. My name's David. So I'm a resident of Alameda and steering committee member with CASA, A Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. I speak on behalf of Costa's Climate Emergency Subcommittee, which worked with Councilmembers Knox White or Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Brody to put this resolution before you. And we're really excited to have this before the city of Alameda. As an island city, we applaud your leadership to put forth this resolution. Alameda is climate emergency declaration. It comes at a time when we most need to focus our positive energies and policies on local climate solutions. And from the from the audience tonight, if everybody can stand up, I know you're not speaking tonight. Anybody here on the issue of climate emergency declaration, please stand up and represent alameda. Ty students. Thank you. Those wearing green. I do want to recognize them and thank you all for your support on behalf of CASA. As I said, we gather here tonight to urge you to pass this resolution that will declare a climate emergency and launch a citywide push to end greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The resolution follows an alarming warning from scientists who say that the world must rapidly transform its economy in order to avoid even worse consequences from climate change. Incidents of extreme heat damage, damaging storms, floods, smoke emergencies that we've all experienced. These are just some of the facts and things that we really hope that this emergency can put us all on a footing to begin to address and have a further conversation. So we ask your support on this resolution tonight and we're watching with enthusiasm and really encourage you to vote yes on the resolution. Thank you. And for the earth. Speaker 0: Thank you. Kathy Dana, followed by Carolyn Chow. Is Dana, are you here? Okay, we put her slip at the bottom. I'm Caroline Choi. Choi Troy. Right. Sorry. And Caroline. Troy is followed by Zoe Moore. Followed by Jessica Robinson. Speaker 6: Um, I'll make this quick. My name is Caroline Troy, and I'm a junior at Almeida High School, and I've been a part of Casa, and I run an environmental club. I was really distraught to hear that by the year 2050, before I or my peers even turned 50 years old, El Nino will experience so much sea level rise. That Bay Farm Island where I currently live will be nearly underwater. The small window of time that we were given by climate scientists to reverse that sea level rise is closing on us very quickly. According to the IPCC, we are less than 12 years away from being unable to reverse our mistakes. But Almeida is proposing to do something the climate emergency resolution. And I believe that is really powerful. I believe that the climate emergency declaration is a perfect response to the climate crisis that threatens all of us because we should be panicking over the state of the earth right now. And so I want to inform City Council that I'm excited that we're looking at passing our city's climate emergency declaration. And I speak for the high schoolers of Alameda when I say that, I'm excited that our city council is making steps, however small they may be, towards protecting my and my generation's future. So thank you on behalf of the students and the planet. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I remember about applause. Just virtual. Don't Dems don't do it for real. Okay. Zoe Moore, are you here? There's Zoe and Jessica Robinson. I see you said be ready to come up and you will be followed by Isabella McCracken. Speaker 3: Hello. Hi. Speaker 0: You can raise the mic, Kenny. Yeah. Speaker 6: My name is Zoe Moore and I'm also a junior at Alameda High. I'll also make this quick. I support the state of climate emergency declaration declaration. Climate change is very real and potentially more harmful in Alameda as we are an island. Projections have shown parts of Alameda to be under water very soon, very sooner than I had expected. And this shocking information is frightening to many students at our school. Our community needs our city government to take action to deal with this scary reality. And as an island city, rising sea levels are an issue very close to home. I'm excited to see policy implemented, to try to make Alameda as sustainable as possible, as a step in the right direction. And I hope that we will lead other cities to do the same. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Jessica Robinson, followed by Isabella McCracken, followed by. Speaker 3: K. Speaker 0: Yang Lee. Or maybe nice. Something like that. Hello. Speaker 3: Hello. Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and City City Council members. My name is just. Robinson, also known as Miss Alameda Recycle Woman and now Resilience and I have dedicated ten years of my life as a community action for Sustainable Alameda Volunteer CASA helping the city of Alameda and the community move toward zero waste and sustainability with the intention to help address climate change. I have held a vision for many years that Alameda will lead as a as an example in ways of innovative, sustainable, innovative innovation, addressing climate change through our programs and community engagement. My vision is we will continue to lead as a collective, working with grass roots efforts and collaboration and full. Speaker 3: Support from. Speaker 8: Our local government to show the rest of California. Speaker 1: And the nation what a special island Alameda is and what we can do when the will is there. To be resilient as we draw down our carbon footprint. I do believe we can stand among leaders in addressing climate change, and I'm proud to have had the opportunity to be a part of this community and to make this vision a reality. Thank you for your time and your service. Speaker 0: Thank you. Isabelle McCracken, are you here? She is. And. Kay Lee is after that. Speaker 10: Hello. Speaker 6: My name is Isabella and I'm a junior at Almeida High School, and I support the climate emergency declaration. We can't change the poor decisions made decades ago without regard for the impact on the planet. Speaker 10: No one can. What we all can do. Speaker 6: Though, is everything possible to correct those mistakes. It is owed to the future generations that we leave them with a thriving planet. So if we are going to live in a society that does not harm the environment. Speaker 10: We are going to. Speaker 6: Have to make some massive systemic changes. Speaker 10: We will have to invest money and time into. Speaker 6: Renewable energy and reducing our energy dependency. But we, the students here today, we are the ones whose everyday lives will be affected by this. But if we don't make these changes within our lifetime. Speaker 10: A significant. Speaker 6: Amount of Alameda will be underwater. So me and all the students here today are proof that our generation, the leaders of tomorrow, the ones whose lives will be affected the most by these decisions, want this declaration to be enacted. Now, all we need is confirmation by our city that they will. Speaker 10: Support the needs of the. Speaker 6: Future generations and see climate change not as something that will one day affect us, but as something that is already impacting our everyday lives. This is an important investment for the future of Alameda because I am confident that it will be more cost effective for us to move towards a city with zero emissions now than to deal with the consequences of the entirety of Bay from Island being underwater within decades. The students here today and all over Alameda are the ones who will be reaping the consequences of your actions. Speaker 10: And we are telling you right now what. Speaker 6: Actions we want to see done not only for our future, but the future of Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. So don't be shy about moving up toward the front when you hear your name called. Just keep things moving along. Hello. By the way, high school students, I'm a little biased because they went down me too high. But I know a lot of HS students too. You're really good speakers, so. Yes. Speaker 3: Hello. Speaker 6: Hi. So my name is Chi Hoang and I'm a student at Alameda High. It's okay. First of all, I want to thank you all for working to help Alameda move towards a sustainable and zero waste environment and in favor of the climate emergency resolution. I thought I would suggest some solutions to help Alameda to become an environmentally friendly community. I am so encouraged to see Alameda starting to implement waste bins with all recycling landfill and compost bins. Although it might seem like a minor issue, it is crucial that we start to implement trash cans on the streets and in schools that have all the following recycling, landfill and compost bins. Sorting trash correctly is a first that we can take to help reduce landfill up, which can help slowly reduce greenhouse emissions. To get more specific, if the climate emergency declaration passes, a smart way we can utilize the federal funding is to subsidize businesses, more specifically restaurants with biodegradable to-go boxes, since most of this waste comes from restaurants uses of plastic. Hopefully these are some ways that we can help, you know, to become an environmentally active community. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Charles Addams, followed by well, Cathy, Dana is my last speaker, but I think she may not be here. So Charles Addams. Speaker 4: Thank you. Students have filled this room before and alamy. The government has passed environmental resolutions before. The actions taken over the last decade have not been in line with any of the rhetoric. Alameda Municipal Power is known throughout California as a leader in fighting against rooftop solar. Rooftop solar provides a consumer with the cheapest power per kilowatt hour available and provides the greatest environmental benefit because it doesn't destroy undeveloped land, doesn't require new transmission in an age of increased wildfire, threat like even wind farms do, and is the only clean technology that creates on island jobs. Now, while carbon tax is needed, federally, net metering is a local method of counting for the environment and economics. PGE continues to credit rooftop solar at retail. The surrounding counties. Marin San Francisco Sonoma take bold steps to credit customers above retail and credit. Tell Americans that just 27% of the top rate and is spreading misinformation. Campaign Against Solar Technology. Most homes in Alameda could produce 100% of their annual kilowatt hours through rooftop solar. A policy would be to reinstate aggressive net metering. Additionally, formula change developments at Alameda Landing and the upcoming Alameda waterfront are antithetical to environmental protection. These formula developments notoriously contribute to a plastic throwaway culture destroy small businesses, destroy community self-reliance. But they provide business models designed to maximize traffic. This there is no bike path or token small business that you're going to put next to these malls that are going to alleviate this business model. You have to know these guys. Their model is Emeryville. Speaker 9: The same people. Speaker 4: Passed anti-Chinese door legislation. San Francisco, Berkeley have done this. Tax single use plastics. These are real policies. And reversing the mistakes seems to require different policies than I've ever heard considered in in this council. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's my last public speaker. So we're going to close our public comment. And we have a resolution to endorse declaration of a climate emergency. Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 2: Thank you very much for speaking. I just want to recognize the youth leadership that that showed up tonight. I'm constantly tonight it was Alameda High last weekend. It was sorry. Can we turn this up just a little bit? Speaker 1: It's up at the max. Okay. Sorry. Usually pretty really close yet anyway. Speaker 2: Last year. Last week, it wasn't at all high. You guys all continue to not only represent, but represent your generation exceedingly well. And I'm really impressed. And I just want to thank you for coming. It's very moving to have you here and very meaningful. I want to thank Councilmember Odie, who joined me in helping to work with Costa to bring this resolution forward. I also want to thank very much our staff at the Public Works Department, Liam, Patrick and Aaron, who worked very closely with us to make sure that what we brought forward actually worked with within the 18 months of climate action planning that the city has already been undertaking and will be coming forward later this year. You know, I have mentioned this before. This is really the first time that the council is actually providing any input on that climate action plan and our goals. And I think that in in the hopes that we do pass this tonight, I wanted to highlight that the most meaningful thing here for me is we need to move as quickly as possible to zero net emissions no later than 2030. This is the council's declaration that this is an emergency and we are setting for the city our goal of net greenhouse gas emissions at 2030. Some of that might come from the state, from state changes, etc.. And we're going to, you know, as we go through this process, we're going to identify what we think that is so that we can identify at some point in time how we're going to get to that. But it's my hope that we will pass this with that language and that expectation. I also want to understand that the expectation, the Climate Action Plan, may come out with us with a different goal, but we that is not the beginning. All right. Sorry. It's not the end. It is the beginning. Once we once we pass that plan, which I have heard a little bit about and I'm very excited about, and I think our staff has really done, from what I've heard, a crack job getting to where they are. We will then start the conversation about, okay, what next? Climate for Alameda is an existential crisis. We are the only island city in the bay. Sea level rise puts it puts all of our existence at risk. And, you know, we should be climate leaders. It has taken a number of speakers and it's taken us a number of years to get to here. When I was campaigning last fall, I talked a lot about how 44 or so years ago when we got a new public works director, the city's official position was this is a regional issue. Sea level rise is a regional issue. The state will save us. We don't do anything. So through leadership. I wanted to recognize that as well. I really want to also just quickly recognize Damian, Herb, Ruth, Amos, Sylvia and David Teeters and many others who met with me and talked with Jim about it. To really put this together, to really come together. I think our goal and it seems that we're reaching it tonight if we pass this is for the community, our staff and our elected officials ought to be on the same page in saying that, hey, Alameda is taking this seriously. We're going to be on the same page. We're all here to to show up and work towards it. And my hope would be four years from now, Mr. Adams will show up and say, you know what, I've heard a lot of words in the past, but you guys really actually started putting the pedal to the metal and making some change. Lastly, I'm going to just wanted to reflect a quick comment. Ms.. Cannon, our first speaker, talked about words versus actions. And I think one of the places that this this resolution does something different than the other ones does is it starts to require that all staff reports that come forward from this day forth need to identify what the climate impact of the staff recommendation is. Right. So we're not. So we need to start thinking about that in every single recommendation that we have. Back to Mr. Adams point. You know, it's going to be a little bit of a learning, right? It's always easy to shoehorn things into a climate and make the case and whatever else in our community and our electeds and our staff will work really hard to keep each other honest on that as we go forward. So anyway, I just wanted to thank you, thank you for the speakers. I will look forward to asking my colleagues to join us in voting for this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Who's next? Speaker 3: I'm going to. Councilman Brody. Speaker 5: So I'll be brief because the vice mayor said a lot what I had to say, not to mention what the the speakers, Mr. White in the audience had to say, as well as the students. So I appreciate the opportunity to work with you. You're really easy to work with. So thank you for that. I just think this is something we need to do. Some people might say, Well, why do you declare an emergency? Well, for exactly the same reasons why the vice mayor mentioned so. Our staff, our city identifies that this is one of the overarching goals that we will consider every time something is brought to the to this body and that it's kept in the forefront of our community. Because I don't have to really go into the the why? Because I think everyone gets it right. You know, we wait around and we say, well, the federal government will take care of us. Well, okay, they don't even believe this exists. The state the state is working. But, you know, they they take a while to get things done. So we have to do this on our own. And I think one of the students, speaker, said, I mean, they feel we can be a leader in other cities will follow and we don't have the luxury of waiting, you know, like another city, say, a Stockton or Pleasanton or Dublin may have, because we are here on the front lines of sea level rise and we will be impacted. Well, I think we're being impacted now, but we will see significant impacts before anyone else does. So I think it's super critical that we set these goals because if we don't have something to shoot for, we don't have a goal, then we're not going to get anything done. So in you know, in one sense, there's a bit of a dread because it's happening. But in the one sense, I'm really excited that we're actually being being one of the first communities to be out there and make this bold statement and make this declaration and tell everyone, this is an emergency. It's an emergency for us. And not only are we going to say it's an emergency, but we're going to start doing something about it. So and I think we owe it. I mean, my generation, our generation, I think we owe it to the students that came up and spoke to make sure that we leave them an element of that they can live with. And whether it's being able to find affordable housing, whether it's being able to have an education. I think it's also critical to make sure that we actually give them a physical Alameda that's still here. So I'm glad that we're doing this and I think CASA for all their their work. I got the memo. I wore the green and the blue. Speaker 4: So I did get that memo. Speaker 5: And I hope that my colleagues and I have a lot of faith in them because I know that they value our environment and value protecting Alameda. So I hope that they can support this as well. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. de Councilmember de SAG. Speaker 7: I just want to briefly say that, you know, for many people, year 2050, everyone is looking at it with great trepidation. But the thing to think about is that, you know, 2050 when the water supposed to rise at some level that. You know, it's very difficult would be very difficult for Alameda. 2050 is 31 years from now. 31 years ago for me was all for everyone. It was 1988. And as I look back 31 years ago, I kind of feel like it happened at a snap of a finger. So what that tells me is even though 2050 seems like a big number 31 years away, you know, I'm still going to be alive this year. And it's going to happen when like with a snap of a finger. So I think it is right and fitting that we declare this climate action emergency. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: So I look forward to supporting this. But I also think that we have a lot of regulations and ordinances on the books. And while I appreciate that we're going to be identifying the impacts on staff reports moving forward, I think we have a lot of work to do looking at ordinances that are on the books that I think absolutely contradict what we're saying we need to do here. And I think that part of that is, you know, yes, we should be looking forward, but we also need to look at what we're currently doing and implementing because some of the stuff that we have isn't actually helping people in in an affordable manner do the upgrades that they need to do and things like that. And I think we can start with our permitting office and our design review process where we're we seemingly value kind of the process and weigh it down looking at these things as opposed to helping people reduce emissions by reducing consumption. And so I think that's something we can do as a city and we should be doing. And I think, you know, we should start at city hall and I think we'll see a lot of that in our climate action plan. And I think that there's been a very robust conversation from the community, from staff, from council in terms of how we go about doing that. So I think that this is a nice way to introduce the Climate Action Plan that's going to be coming forward and to keep us on track. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And before I call for a motion, I just want to comment a couple of things. All the high school students who spoke. Speaker 3: Wow. Just wow. Speaker 0: You are not only are you good speakers, but the content of what you said. I mean, adults in the room. Were you where they were when you were high school juniors? I certainly wasn't. But it gives me such hope that you get it. You get what we have to do. We've got to sort our trash. We have to consume less. We have to use products that aren't harming the earth. And so I guess, I don't know, did you learn it in preschool or something? But you're growing up with that and these are our future leaders. Just last Friday was honored to be invited to speak to the students. They did the climate strike. Actually, students around the world walked out and I addressed the group at Crown Cove. That march was organized by a couple of and canal freshman. And I, I know I was in that together as a freshman, but it really it gives me hope. It should give all of you hope. And I also want to thank our concert group in Alameda. I see a lot of you here in the audience. And I say all the time, you you really are kind of the sheepdogs nipping at our heels and getting us to go in the right direction. I went to Davos. I know how sheepdogs work and that, and I know I see with Abby. And I see I'm going. Speaker 3: Blank here and. Speaker 0: I call on you when I when I need an input or I'm considering something. Well, what should I do? What do you think? And and you always lead me in the right direction. So a Debbie Ryan, that's what I went blank on for a minute there. So anyway, thank you for bringing this resolution forward. Nice staff report, Patrick. And with that, I'm looking for a motion. Who's going to race to be first? Speaker 3: Ackerman. Oh, of. Speaker 0: Approval. Right. Don't be shy. We have a motion by Councilmember Odie, a second by vice mayor. Mayor? They're not quite all in favor. I the motion passes you. May I? Speaker 11: But. No, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we let's. Speaker 0: Let's play by the rules. Yeah, that works. That works. But we got to keep things moving because people it's core to date and we're just finishing consensus. Yeah. Quality nine. Yes we spring forward. Okay. If everyone could leave as quietly as possible. Oh, I see some of my hands now. Speaker 3: STUDENTS Hello. Speaker 0: We are going to move right into the next in this. Do we need a plan? No. Okay. We are going to move right into the regular agenda. So we have I'm first step item six A and six a is the adoption of a resolution adopting, appointing or not going to adopt him appointing Vadim down the cove as

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution to Endorse Declaration of a Climate Emergency and Request Regional Collaboration on an Immediate Just Transition and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate. (Public Works 001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6618

Speaker 1: 60 is a presentation on the COSA Compact and a recommendation to the interim city manager to incorporate state legislation introduced to implement the cost contract into the city's legislative agenda. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Council. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. At the January 2nd, 2019 City Council meeting, Council member Jim Odey provided a copy of the cost compact to the City Council and the community and requested that staff work with Bay Metro, the new Bag and MTC organization on a presentation of the cost of compact . We are fortunate to have Mr. Brad Paul, the deputy executive director of Bay Metro, with us this evening to provide that presentation. The Costa Compact was prepared by a blue ribbon task force of elected and civic leaders convened by a bag. And T.C., the task force, worked on the compact for over 18 months and published its results the compact in December of 2018. The compact is a 15 year emergency policy package intended to address the Bay Area's housing crisis. A key strategy for implementing the compacts recommendations is to introduce state legislation addressing the ten elements that Mr. Paul will present. Bills have now been introduced at the state level to address each of these elements, and staff is recommending that following Mr. Paul's presentation, council directed staff to incorporate that legislation into the city's legislative agenda and to track and comment on these bills as appropriate. And with that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Paul. Speaker 0: Thank you. Hello. Hello. Speaker 12: Thank you for that introduction. I am assuming this is the advance, sir, here. Yes. It's actually nice to be here and have this is the council, which is the committee to house the Bay Area. And it's not the only cost you heard about tonight. I thank all the people who worked on the other costs. It's probably a little less controversial than this one is. So what I wanted to talk about is where we are today in the process more than anything. Your staff has put together an excellent memo in your packets about how costly it was created, what it was meant to do, and the elements themselves. So I wanted to just go back one. This is interesting because this is one of these places where Alameda really stands out in a good way. As you probably know, one of the reasons that we have the crisis we do today is in the last few years, we've created 700,000 jobs in the Bay Area, but only 100,000 units of housing. And we refer to that as the job. Housing is the ratio of seven jobs to one unit of housing. This is county by county. How bad it has gotten. And in San Mateo, it's 17 jobs for one unit in Sonoma, 12 jobs, but in and 20 jobs per unit in Marin. But here in Alameda County, you're closest to the ideal, which is about one and a half jobs per unit of housing. You're at 4 to 1, so you actually get the best score. Speaker 5: County going the. Speaker 12: Wrong way. So we talk about often the three P's in Corsa, and that are the three things we're trying to do to make up for the fact that in the past we've failed to protect the current residents from displacement, failed to preserve some of the existing affordable housing, and failed to produce enough new housing to really meet the needs of the region. The way it was set up, we had a leadership team, three co-chairs, a developer, a nonprofit housing advocate, and someone from philanthropy Michael Korver, Ruby DMG, Leslie Consiglio from Silicon Valley at Home, an advocacy group, and Fred Blackwell from the San Francisco Foundation. And our up until recently executive director Steve Hemminger was our lead at MTC. A big yeah he has since retired at the end of February and again we had three co-chairs, a steering committee of 18 members, a technical committee of 32 members that broke down to three working groups around production, protection and preservation. The CASA Compact is made up of ten elements. It was finished in December of 2018. And as you all know, dealing with the press, the press loves short headlines. So the headline was that MTC approved CASA, that a sport gave it a thumbs up. And that's not what happened. What happened is each of those boards empty in December and a bag in January voted to allow their chair to sign it. They authorized the chairs to sign it with several caveats. First caveat was they didn't approve everything that was in the contract. The second caveat was they didn't approve any of the specific revenue ideas that are in there. And the reason they did this is they wanted to stay at the table and engage with the state legislature in the process we're in today, which is all these bills you've been reading about, some of which relate to causes some don't . Even before Costa started, the state was really going to work on housing. They did a lot of work on transportation in the last few sessions. They were going to focus on housing. So let me just go through the ten elements very quickly. The first one is just cause eviction policy. This would be to protect tenants from arbitrary evictions. It would set up a regional just cause eviction. It just says that landlords have to give an actual reason when they evict someone, both for cause, which is not paying your rent, destroying the unit or a fault, I mean, or no fault, which is that you had. The landlord wants to use the unit for a family member or for some other use. And I should say that if jurisdictions already have ordinances related to any of these elements in place, what's in the CASA Compact does not preempt what you do locally. Number two is establish a Bay Area emergency rent cap. This would be for 15 years, and where the cost to group landed was CPI plus 5%, which is about 8% in today's numbers. This was to have increases be a reasonable amount. Now what is reasonable people can disagree about that. And what they were striving for is a number that would protect tenants from what we're reading about where their rent goes up 30, 40% in a year, but also not make it so low that it made it impossible for developers to go out and build housing, get the financing they needed to do that. The state of Oregon just recently passed something like this rental assistance and access to legal counsel. This started off as a discussion about providing free legal assistance to low income tenants that were being given eviction notices. But the group came up with a better idea even, and that is that if there's some way for people that are facing an emergency, whether it's a loss of a job or a medical emergency, where they can't pay their rent for a couple of months rather than evict them and spend money on a lawyer to help them in that process, why not just give them emergency funding for a few months as well as other services they may need so they can stay where they are? So this is now about both remove regulatory barriers. Number four, to accessory dwelling units and number of cities in the Bay Area have done some excellent work around Adus and Junior Adus. The idea is to take the best practices from the region and have them apply to every community. One of the problems you probably heard about is cities may have fees, but some of the water districts were doing hookup fees that were the same as if you were building a new single family home. And this is when you were doing an Adu within the footprint of your building. So part of this would deal with impact fees being charged on a per square foot basis. Number five, minimum zoning, near transit. This is one of the most controversial. It talks about setting minimum height and zoning and density standards around high quality bus service and major transit stops. Your staff report has pointed out that the high quality bus service does not apply. It has to be busses that run on a 15 minute head away during the week and a half an hour headway on weekends. We did a map for this. It really only applies to San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, parts of Berkeley and San Leandro for the rest of the region, including your city. It would not apply. And it has. Has to do with making housing an eligible use on a large, commercially zoned parcels. What does that mean? You're probably all familiar with the Hilltop Mall in Richmond. It's not doing well and hasn't been doing well for a while. A developer I ran into out there when I was at a car event with my son on a weekend, told me that the city had just approved Richmond just approved about 8000 units of housing over a period of time there. And they're going to repurpose the mall for a safe way or some sort of shopping or grocery store in there for residents. And those are the kinds of things that make sense because of the land that's there and the fact that they're not being used as much anymore for mall use, good government reforms to the housing approval process. This is actually done in many communities throughout the Bay Area now, but not all. And it just requires that local jurisdictions create a publicly accessible format online where people can read about the rules, codes and standards that apply to residential applications. And when you decide now places deem complete, it also would strive to say that once you decide an application is complete, the rules, fees and historic designations are set in place. At that time, I'm sure all heard developers say that what they really don't like is when the rules change throughout the process. That's what the last thing is about for zoning compliant residential projects. No more than 310 oval public hearings. I didn't used to know what de novo meant, but I went to a lot of planning commission hearings and learned from the lawyers that it means how many you have before you start over again. So if you have a project and it doesn't change at all, there would be three public hearings. But if you're planning commission, the developer and the community got together and said, You know what, we should make some changes. That starts the clock again. And there's three more hearings after that. Number seven, expedite approvals and financial incentives for missing middle housing. Missing middle is usually referred to as housing. And the 82 either 120, 150% of AMI. In this case, it would accelerate approval for zoning compliant projects that provide on site affordability for a missing middle, where at least 20% of the units are between 50 and up between 80 and under 50% of EMI pays prevailing wage and uses apprentice labor. Now, you see here a list of incentives that were thrown out by the Castle group as examples. The first one, which is very controversial, is a 15 year property tax increment abatement modeled after New York City program. We learned recently that this is unconstitutional in California, so it's off the list. Others would be lowering impact fees, creating extra density bonuses and reducing parking minimums. Unlock public land for housing, promote increased utilization of both surplus and underutilized public land for affordable housing. Now, this is also a little bit controversial. I'm doing this now two, three or four times a week around the region doing presentations in order to get feedback. And what people say is in the East Bay, what we'd like to see is more jobs. Right now, one of the big imbalances is you get lots of jobs and not a lot of housing built over the last ten years in the West Bay, in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara in the East Bay, you've done a much better job of building housing, but haven't gotten the jobs. And so what we could do is sit with the number of things we do. But one is to set aside some of your surplus land for creating new job centers and new places where jobs could move to. But where it's it makes sense. We like to figure out ways to help you use surplus and underutilized public land for housing. Number nine, and this is again, one of the more controversial ones. This is how do you finance it? This chart just shows you how they came up with a $1.5 billion goal for how much they'd like to try to raise. And what you see in the upper left is if you were to average 24,000 households a year, that you would help with rental assistance and legal assistance that would cost $50 Million. Trying to fund 14,000 units of new housing a year affordable at 150,000 per unit would come to 2.1 billion and of subsidizing or preserving market rate and subsidize affordable housing at a little bit less, 100,000 a unit would cost 4750 units $376 million a year for a total of 2.5 billion. The cost groups came up with trying to figure out a way to raise 1.5. This is the chart that both MTC and the ABC board said they do not support. This is a menu of potential sources of funding. If every sector, property owners, housing developers, employers, etc. contributed something. There used to be twice as many on here. Then there were half as many. Now this is what is a menu of just potential ideas. A menu to to look at. To give you a couple of examples of what I hear when I go around is people hate on the left for property owners regional parcel tax. We just did this recently for the Bay Area and people say that parcel taxes are one of the only ways that local government has to raise more. Money to pay for housing, infrastructure, schools, parks. So to the extent that you go and take something that is one of the few sources local government has, that's a problem for a lot of local governments. On the far right, where you see half cent regional sales tax. Same response that I've gotten as we've gone along around here all but are worried about hitting up against the 10% sales tax. And so the closer we get to that, if we use it for this, it gives you less leeway going forward for schools, for open space, for all the things that you need to fund as a little community. Now, I will say there's a lot of support for the 1% vacant homes tax on the upper left, because we're seeing more and more homes in the Bay Area that are being kept vacant as investments not being used as housing. And this is being done now in Vancouver and in in Paris. There's also a lot of sentiment that we should have the people who are causing the problem during the most jobs help pay for that. That's what the developers variable commercial linkage fee does. And on the only employers side, the gross receipts tax, both of those are arranged again, if you do a range where you charge a higher amount in the West Bay, where there's lots of job development and charge a lower rent in the East Bay where you're trying to get the jobs to move to, it helps make that happen as a policy matter. Again, these are just rough numbers. But for whatever amount of money is raised, up to 10% would be for local jurisdiction incentives, up to 10% for 1010 and protection services for affordable housing preservation up to 20%. And for affordable housing production a minimum of 60% of the money raised. But we've heard from people that we should probably combine the last two so that in different times in the building cycle, in the economy, you might want to switch to preserving existing affordable housing and other times switch more resources to building new affordable housing. 75% of the money spent would be spent within the county of origin. Under what was proposed, 25% would go to a regional program for revenue sharing, and this would be subject to ongoing performance and policy outcomes. And again, number ten, regional housing enterprise is one of the more misunderstood ones. It would be to establish a regional leadership entity to fund affordable housing track and report progress in all of these and provide incentives, direct incentives and technical assistance to cities and counties. It would not have direct land use or zoning authority or play any regulatory or enforcement role. It would have an independent board made up of people from MTC and air bags, boards and some other key stakeholders and be staffed by the MTC, a big consolidated staff. There were several other calls to action in the report that they couldn't get to. One is redevelopment 2.0. Is there a way to bring back tax increment financing? Lower the voting threshold for housing fund measures to 55%. Address the fiscal ization of land use with which is what Prop 13 do with some Prop 13 reforms. If you preserve and build more affordable housing, it helps prevent homelessness. But you're all dealing with homelessness now. And so what can we do about that? And finally, grow and stabilize the construction of labor force on a on the schedule. The CASO was the document was signed by the participants, including a representative of AIRBAG and MTC in January. The legislative packets that are now being talked about in Sacramento have some or to do with parts of the cost ten elements. Others are totally different. And so what we're going to be doing now when we get to the last slide. There are over 200 bills in Sacramento. As I said, the two boards that empty and bag authorize the chair to sign it, but did not support everything in it. Didn't support those revenue numbers I should put up there. They are taking this action to stay at the table, engaging the legislature there. Each has a legislative committee and they will take every bill and every piece of this and debate it and decide whether they want to support it, oppose it, support it with amendments or oppose it until amended. They've instructed staff, myself and a number of the people to go out and talk to all of you, to city and county organizations, to tell you where things stand now and to get your input and a bag established. An ad hoc local government committee to directly advise both the air bag and MTC legislator legislative committees on these bills. And Madam Mayor, I understand you're a member of that committee, along with the mayor of Fremont for Alameda County. Speaker 0: I am. Speaker 12: And then finally, the cities and counties are already engaging with the California League of Cities, which is very involved in this. And the legislators are going to be making decisions about these bills as they come up. So that's the end of my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And do we have any clarifying questions from the council? She'll get our public speakers come back to the council. Okay. So thank you and nice presentation. We have an increasing number of public speakers. Okay. Thank you. All right. I have three have. Speakers in this order. Catherine Pauling. Brian Maguire. William Smith. Ms.. Pauling. Speaker 6: I gathered calling Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members. Forgive me. I'm going to read this for my phone. On behalf of the Alameda Renters Coalition, I'm submitting this brief statement and response. Tonight's Agenda Item six B on the Classic Compact, our exposition on the classic compact alliance with the Regional Tenants Together position. We send you a letter. There is going to be an attachment so you can read it yourself. While we appreciate the attention paid to tenant protections. Like just cause eviction and rent control. We deeply disagree with CASA on the following points. One Their last minute change on just cause to omit relocation assistance for owner move in evictions and to leave out tenants in their first year of tenancy. Second point the recommendation of regional and perhaps statewide rent cap that far exceeds the Regional Consumer Price Index. We and Alameda know that 5% each and every year is unsustainable. This is even higher. Their lack of insistence on tenant protections and new revenues for affordable housing before applying zoning and streamlining changes and the relatively low amount of funding 30%. And actually I think it's even lower now for tenant protections and affordable housing preservation, while very low income and low income price points remain the furthest behind and housing availability. For these reasons and others outlined in the Tenants Together article ARC urges the City Council to do better than the CASA compacts and adequate recommendations and move to implement the twin pillars of an essential local rent stabilization policy. Basically rent control, at least an annual cap of 4% or less, and a three year cumulative cap of no more than 10% and have true just cause evictions protections without any emissions. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Brian Maguire and Bill Smith. William Smith. Speaker 4: Good evening. I think I generally agree with Catherine sentiments on the tenant protection side. I think Alameda can push for this compact to hopefully have the strongest, viable, you know, passable tenant protections in it for the region. I think Alameda hopefully soon will be enacting stronger protections than what this compact calls for. And on the production side, I think this also is an opportunity for us to hold our neighbors accountable. I think Alameda is doing a comparatively decent job on the production side, at least aspirationally trying to get housing built and supplied at all levels for the community. And this as the those numbers in the presentation show just how bad, you know, some of our peninsula neighbors and the incentives are all wrong, obviously, and they have been for a generations on how we fund cities and how we, you know, our tax structure and what we can do prefers job creation over housing production. And that's one reason is because one thing that's missing from this is so a lot of trying to capture fees from new things that happen. But the sort of the horse is already out of the barn, right? All the the land value the the value that this economy and this housing crisis has all are all that wealth has already been shifted to incumbent landowners. So this company should be looking as aggressively as possible at ways to capture some of that value back from from those who just happened to purchase property at the right time and then capitalize off the wealth that's been generated by the economy. And most most of that wealth has gone to, you know, something like 80% goes to incumbent landowners and not to the actual people in the economy that are doing the work that's creating that value and whether it's Silicon Valley or any other part of part of the economy. So I think we should definitely push for those items to be as strong as possible and support it, because we're trying to do our part. And I'm I'm optimistic that this council is doing its part. And this is where we can convince our community and that we are also pushing our neighbors to to do their part. Speaker 0: Thank you, William Smith. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair and members of the Council. I'm William Smith, a resident of Alameda, and I've been working on housing in this city for a number of decades now. I'd like to say that the two semis that go right to the point that presented by the speaker, the housing plan is going to make the problems much worse. And it needs major reforms in these major changes. Urban habitat did not sign off on it because of many of the same reasons and more that were cited by my Catherine Pauling. So it's a problem. The fundamental flaw in the whole problem is the and Brian McGuire hit on this, too, is the emphasis on jobs creation. Yes, the East Bay has done a better job than the peninsula in producing jobs, housing, but we're still producing more jobs on the East Bay than housing on our own. So it's not going to help to minimize our housing and bring the jobs over here. So we just absolutely have to find more funding for housing. There is no question about it. And you'll hear more from me later if I mean, if it doesn't go to late tonight on a couple of the other later items on the agenda on that topic. But a lot of people are getting very concerned about this. And when you read the headlines, more jobs created in Santa Clara County last week and then in many, many years, I just cringed because that means more homelessness is coming, more people are going to be moving out and so on. And so that's definitely going to be a turn around in the next decade to job creation is going to be seem a pariah and not a not a good thing. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: That's my last speaker. So of closing public comment, do we have council comments before we entertain in motion? Vice Mayor Knox Quite right. Speaker 2: I guess a quick question. I don't know who whether it's for Andrew or somebody on staff, but I was a little caught by surprise and I missed it in our our staff report. But the presentation says that we have no high quality bus service and yet the 51 AA meets all the criteria. Plus we have ferry terminals, both of which meet the criteria. Is there something that opts us out? Because the presentation said we don't actually meet that. Speaker 0: Who's taking it, Ms.. Potter? Speaker 6: So I will start and then maybe Mr. Paul will have more to add. But MTC produced a map based on the definition of a high quality bus transit route, and that's a separate category than the ferries. We recognize that we have the ferry service here and the high quality bus service was defined as 15 minute headways during the week and a 30 minute headways on the weekend. And MTC mapped it for the nine counties. And so I just relied on the map that and Tsay prepared. Speaker 3: Okay, said. Speaker 0: Mr.. Speaker 3: Paul. Speaker 12: And that's the reason I'm here, is to see if we made any mistakes. We had the same comment in Contra Costa County the other night, but I found out from one of their planning directors that they have 15 minute during the week, 30 minute on Saturday, but on Sunday they have 45 minutes. So that may be why or if there is a mistake, just let us know and we'll correct the maps. Speaker 2: The 51 A is I looked 50 minutes Saturday and Sunday in 10 minutes. All all peak period. Speaker 12: Then it should then that should count though. Speaker 2: Just want to make sure. Speaker 3: I say. Speaker 0: Thank you. And did I see whose hands did I see? You can go talk to Councilmember Dave. Speaker 7: You know I a at some east bay league a city meetings I hear a lot of concern about the cost of capac being raised, particularly by officials representing cities from contra costa county cities. And I see some merit in a lot of the concerns about the cost of compact. I would not want our city to make any decisions regarding the cost of compact tonight. For example, you know, the debate is still on about just cause eviction. You know, my my position on just cause eviction. I'm not supportive of just cause eviction. And if that's one of the arrows in the council quiver, I have to be very concerned about that. Strangely enough, Alameda Rental Coalition appears to be concerned about how just cause eviction is framed as well. So that's a concern. And this whole thing about what's a reasonable rent increase, you know, I like what we the city of Alameda had arrived at back in 2015, early 2016, as 5% as a trigger, a threshold trigger for dealing for implementing our local rent stabilization measures. You know, I if you're talking about the Bay Area CPI on top of 5%, I mean, we could be talking about 9% as being a reasonable rent increase or even 10% rate increase. So we're going to have to be clear as to what we mean by CPI. I mean Bay Area or Western regional CPI, very different from national CPI. So again, that's an area of concern. And frankly, you know, if 15 minute headways along Santa Clara Avenue as a result of the AC Transit 51, a bus line means that, you know, we would be subject to the cost of provision regarding minimum zoning, near transit line lines. I would be concerned about that. I would be concerned about that because of, you know, for a lot of the reasons stated by the Contra Costa County stakeholders, they're concerned about the loss of local prerogative. So for me, I think there still a lot of questions that are outstanding regarding the CASA this afternoon, the second CASA matter. So I'm not ready to to give any recommendations about this. You know, I would say this much, though. I think if we're going to do any recommendations, I think, you know, we need to know, you know, in what specific ways are we vulnerable as a city, vulnerable to, um, to the CASA Compact if, if it passes as presented, if, if the just cause evictions are there or if the 5%, 8%, I think, I think he need to go through I don't line by line analysis of of of of the regulatory effects to Alameda. And also, you know, maybe this isn't related to the COSA compact, but I understand that assembly member from San Francisco, I think his name is David Chiu, wants to create a regional housing body that has a taxing authority. And I understand, you know, why we pay taxes. But for many of the things that we put our money towards, our tax money towards our property, tax money towards you know, there is there's a connection between the service that we as taxpayers receive. We put our money and then, you know, we are potentially we can potentially take part. We pay we can pay taxes that goes to BART or we pay taxes that goes towards mosquito abatement. Well, you know, mosquito abatement people locally around town to help resolve I think if there's going to be a parcel tax on property, on homeowners for rental assistance, I think that has to be discussed a little bit more because I don't see the the the the nexus there. So I, I think I think there's a lot of people in positions of power who are running around like chickens with their head cut off, trying to come up with any solution and throwing it on the board and not really giving it the deliberation that it deserves. So at this point, I would suggest that we accept the presentation on CASA and do within our own City Hall, do our more of our own homework. Speaker 0: So I'm actually going to take the next time to speak just because I want people to be clear on what we are being asked to do tonight and what we're not being asked to do. So this is simply we're being asked to direct the interim city manager to incorporate state legislation introduced to implement the CASA Compact into the city's legislative agenda. And I can tell you, incidentally, Councilmember Amelia Vella and I will sit on a statewide policy committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development for this League of California Cities. And next week, we're going to be in where are we going to be? Southern California, somewhere called Costa mesa, maybe. Anyway, we're going to be at our statewide policy committee and I'm sure we're going to be looking over a lot of the proposed legislation. It is proposed legislation. I think there's something like 2700 bills have come to the legislature. I was honored to be voted by the mayors of Alameda County to be one of two representatives on this legislative task force that will consider proposed legislation that would be needed to implement the CASA Compact, because right now it is just this collection of principles. I mean, some of them are fleshed out more than others. And one of the things and Councilmember Desai is right, this is not without controversy. Can anyone name any issue today? That is not without controversy, but it is. Housing in our state is such an important issue. And one thing we've learned from our housing policy committee is every city in the state has to do its part. But that's not to say that every city in the state has to do the same thing. And so one of the criticisms about the CASA Compact is it tended to be this collection of big city mayors who got together and they have big problems and they implemented solutions that address their big problems. But it is also true that we have cities that are housing rich. We have cities that are jobs rich, and yet we feel the impact. And I would call Alameda more housing rich than jobs rich. And yet every time you try to leave the island to get to work, unless you're on the ferry, you're going to run into traffic congestion. But the point is, we need to look at this. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, doesn't make it go better. Has the final solution been reached? Is this going to be without controversy? No, but we're rolling up our sleeves. And I think all. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 0: Points that Councilmember de SAC raised are fair points that need to be in a discussion. But tonight, we are neither accepting or rejecting anything. We're just saying we want to have a say in the legislation. And I just saw our state senator, Nancy Skinner, on Sunday, and she just texted me this evening to say, I want to discuss my housing bill with you. I think it's more moderate. So I mean, there's lots of lots of work yet to do, but we got to get started. So with that, who's next? Councilmember Vella. Speaker 8: Madam Mayor, to your point, I think that of the thousands of bills that are being considered by the legislators in this session, a fair percentage of them actually touch on housing, housing in various capacity. It is. And I think it behooves us to to really consider the legislation that is being tied to this and to to play a part and to to really have a say in terms of what ends up happening. And so I think that that's really what we're trying to do tonight with what's before us. And I think that it's important that we do have our say in it and that we keep track of it, because when the state does decide to implement different things, we want to be able to know what's coming down the pipeline and we want to be able to advocate for Alameda and for all means when the time comes. And I also think that it's a regional issue and this is part of having a regional conversation and trying to work together on these issues . We may not always agree, but I think part of what this is trying to do is to at least identify the issue areas in the concern areas, we may not agree on the solution or the pathway to get there, but it's part of having that important dialog that's going to get us where we need to go. Speaker 0: So thank you, Councilman Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll get to go next. I call. Speaker 3: On you. Yes. Speaker 5: I appreciate the presentation and the work, Ms.. Potter, you've done to to synthesize this for the council. And I was at the League of Cities meeting to where concept presented to the folks from the East Bay region. And, you know, I got a different take from it than my colleague. Respectfully, the controversy to me was a lot of the people that are not doing their share still are trying to fight this because this was a solution that would force them to do their share. So that to me tells me we're headed in the right direction. And I don't view this as the be all, end all. I don't view this as, you know, the ceiling on what we can do to help alleviate the housing crisis. I view it as a floor and then we can expand on it like and I think, for example, the fact that a regional body recognized that there is an issue with displacement and an issue with rents and an issue with evictions, enough to say that there needs to be a regional solution that includes just cause some type of rent cap for a temporary period, and this idea of rental assistance for tenants to help pay their rent so they're not displaced. I mean, that's something that, you know, I think is something that's worthwhile, that we shouldn't just shut out. I think it's something we really need to think about. You know, we've talked about here in Alameda the missing middle and how workforce we call it workforce housing, middle middle income, housing, whatever you want to call it. You know, it's nice to see that, you know, policy decision makers at a regional level and now at the state level understand that this this is a problem. And we've known it's a problem for quite some time. And the whole idea and I think this is, I think, instructive for us as a body and for our staff is, you know, public land for housing. I mean, we've seen one proposal to sell public land come to us that didn't include additional housing. I mean, we kind of had some restrictions because of historical the historical significance of the building. But we saw another one that was pulled off the agenda that didn't have any housing. So I think we need to think first. And I said this Saturday, you know, housing needs to be at the top of the list when when our staff evaluates potential projects, whether they're, you know, in Emacs or multifamily or in commercial zones . And, you know, we had to be part of the solution and transient aurion development. If we're serious about our transportation goals, about getting cars off the road and reducing greenhouse emissions, it's going to be with dense housing on transit lines or near places like BART stations and ferry stations. I mean, there's just no way around that. So I think to say that, you know, we shouldn't do that or we should like soft pedal, let her slow pedal it because that might be resistance. Well, I mean, the resistance to housing is why we're in this problem. And I'm really glad that somebody stepped up and kind of outlined the reasons. And I would be more than happy to make sure that we put this on our legislative agenda. We follow it and we make sure that we're part of the solution and that our neighbors are part of the solution. Because, you know, I think we've done a pretty good job, but a lot of our neighbors haven't. And we're not going to solve this problem on our own. We're going to need tools. And I think we need hammers for some of these cities like Lafayette and Walnut Creek and places like that to actually, you know, do the things that need to be done in order to meet this crisis. So I appreciate all the work done by. Our staff and buy a bag, an empty seat to bring this forward. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. De Vice Mayor. Not quite. Speaker 2: Well, first, I'm going to say Jim took everything I was going to say. Speaker 4: So I got you back for the last time. Speaker 2: No, I for for me, I'll be really short because I agree with the majority of the comments from from my colleagues. You know, we are in this problem because we have not tried to address it. Everybody has pointed at somebody else. And it's going to be uncomfortable when we get around to finally addressing this. And it's you know, it's a hard conversation and nobody wants there wants to see changes to their community. But at the same time, nobody wants to see their neighbors move out. And they are displaced through rents, displaced because of their commutes, etc.. And so, you know, former Vice Mayor Avella, Councilmember Vela, you know, said, you know, we we need a seat at the table. We need to be pushing on this. I said when Councilmember Odie brought this the cost fact sheet forward, our first member meeting in January. It may not be perfect, but it aligns very much with the work that we have been doing here. I think to say that 18 months worth of work on behalf of the cast of compact folks is just people throwing ideas at the wall to see if it'll stick. I think that's that's kind of unfair, quite honestly. And while I can see that some people don't agree with it or necessarily want to want to look at this more, I think also it's really important that folks here who have had to listen to us all talk so much also leave that they are these are these are very intelligent people who have worked really hard with in large groups to try to identify good ways forward. And hopefully what we can leave with is the idea that doing the same thing that we've been doing for 40 years is not going to solve the problem. So with that, I would like to make a motion that we direct our interim city manager to incorporate into the city's legislative legislation agenda, incorporate incorporate our incorporate the concept, compact into our legislative agenda. Speaker 8: And I'll second that. Do you mind if I say a. Speaker 6: Couple things, Madam Chair? Speaker 0: Well, I don't know. Maybe I need to hear that. Speaker 3: You know, was a brief. Speaker 8: It is brief. I would just point out figure three on on page seven of the of the costs a compact or I think it's page 13 out of 40 and which shows the map of rent increases from 2010 to 2016. Or it kind of says two things 2010 to 2016 and 2011 to 2016. In either way, what's alarming is that increase greater than 30% is is a is a broad swath of Alameda. And I think that thematically that's what we've heard from our renters groups and things like that. And I do want to I do want to point out that that, you know, this is, you know, to Councilmember Otis point, this is about getting people to focus on on kind of problem definition and figuring out general solutions. It's not to say that we're planning to ignore that. And obviously different communities have been impacted differently by these issues. But I think some of these maps can be very visually helpful in terms of showing and reinforcing what we've heard from from some of our constituents here. Speaker 0: Thank you. And so we had a motion second and we want to have some discussion. Councilmember So. Speaker 3: Real quick. Speaker 7: Point. I think what would help the city of Alameda get its ducks in a row as it deals with either of the regional CASA? And I want to say regional CASA to distinguish that from the local CASA or housing legislations coming from Sacramento. What would help the residents get our ducks in a row is if we, in a comprehensive manner update our general plan, because then that will really begin to have neighbors giving input as to what they see, what they want to have in their neighborhoods with regard to things like accessory dwelling units, etc.. So I think that's important. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have a motion. We have a second all in favor. I opposed one opposed to the motion passes with four eyes. Speaker 3: And yes. Speaker 0: All you have to do is ask for EIS in when? In opposition. All right, council, quick decision here. I am going to call a break before we hear the hotel item with 56 speaker subs today. And do you want to hear this next item? And then take a break you and take a break now. And let's not take too long to make that decision because the idea is to keep things moving quickly now. Quick break now. Okay. 5 minutes. No, it's 5 minutes. Don't go too. Speaker 3: Far. Okay. Okay.

Regular Agenda Item

Presentation on the CASA Compact; and Recommendation to Direct the Interim City Manager to Incorporate State Legislation Introduced to Implement the CASA Compact into the City’s Legislative Agenda. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6614

Speaker 3: Far. Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: If everyone could please take your seats. We are back in session staff. We are back in session here. My children always hang on my every word. This training, they didn't. Okay. I am going to propose a couple of agenda changes. So we. Our next item is six C, the public hearing to consider endorsing the annual report on the status of the general plan and housing element and more. But we have an item item six E, which is this public hearing having to do with an appeal about this Park Street hotel, which I have close to 60 and growing speakers clips. So I'm going to propose that we move that item next, because I hate to keep you all out late. And then we also have a lot of city staff here because item six F is the adoption of the resolution amending the fiscal year 2018 19 budget workforce change and others. So my proposal council is that we take items six E, items six F and then I just talk to Mr. Thomas about item six C. If we didn't get it to to it tonight, it wouldn't be the end of the world, as my colleagues would say. The sun will still rise in tomorrow morning. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 0: We have. Okay. So is that okay with everybody? Speaker 3: Councilmember Otis, I mean, I'm. Speaker 5: Just wondering if, given the number of staff here on the budget, that if it might make sense to do that 1/1? Speaker 0: We have we have 50 we have 60 speakers slips from the public. I really would favor taking that item next. Speaker 5: Okay. I just know I'm worried about overworking our. Speaker 3: Staff and making them said far too. Speaker 0: Many things. So why don't we. Why don't we get started then? Speaker 2: Okay, I make one suggestion. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Can we just decide to bump six C? We said. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 2: I just if somebody is here for six I'd like to. Speaker 0: Oh good point. Do we have speaker absent 669. Speaker 1: We have one speaker A on 60 and it is a public hearing. So if you would like to, you could continue it to the date specific of April 2nd and we wouldn't have to re notice. Speaker 0: I'm getting a thumbs up from Mr. Thomas. Okay. Okay. Do we need a motion on that, too? Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 0: There was a motion, Mr. Knox. Wait in a second, Mr. Odie. Okay. That's what I thought. All in favor. I That's unanimous. Okay. Right along. We can do this. Okay, so we have item six E and that's you, Mr. Thomas Rae Hotel. Hotel Rep. Speaker 3: Europe. Oh, scary. Speaker 4: Are you ready? Speaker 0: We're ready. Speaker 9: Okay, great. I promised planning director. I will be introducing your item tonight. I think if it is the pleasure of the council, the. The the project applicant would like a few minutes to speak after my presentation and then this is an appeal. So you might consider allowing the appellant to speak after the applicant before taking all the public speakers. Speaker 0: Thank you. We can do that. Speaker 3: If you wish. Speaker 9: This is as I said. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: One minute, Mr. Mayor. Speaker 2: I just wanted, since we have so many speakers and we are going to like this short that I just want to make, maybe if we give. Speaker 0: Should we do that now? Speaker 3: So just so. Speaker 2: People have some time to adjust if they need to. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: And what is it? Are you suggesting shorter? Well, we can't do 3 minutes because we have exceeded the number. Are you making a motion on, say, allowing a minute each or what's your proposal? Speaker 2: I would like to move that. We allow speakers one minute to speak, which will still be an hour of public comment. And with the requests that if you just want to say, I agree with that guy, that's perfect and we will listen. Speaker 0: Okay. You have second in that. Speaker 5: Question the of inquiry for the appellant and the applicant that I think we have some rules that give them what is it, 10 minutes or 50. Speaker 9: Typically give them 10 minutes. Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Speaker 5: Somebody move that last second time. Speaker 0: They hang on to every word. It's okay. It's been moved in, seconded that we give speakers one minute each because we have 60 or more speakers and the applicant and the appellant will each get up to 10 minutes. Speaker 3: Correct. Okay. Speaker 0: All in favor. I, i any opposed? Okay. That was unanimous. Right? Okay. Okay. Once again. Speaker 9: Okay. I'll try to set the tone here and move along quickly so you can get to the speakers. This is a appeal of a planning board decision to approve a new hotel at 1825 Park Street. The hotel would be 96 rooms with 62 parking spaces. It's four stories and meets the zoning and height requirements for the district. The Planning Board's decision was a decision to approve essentially two entitlements that were required for this project to move forward. They needed to be approved before it could get building permits. Number one, design review. That's the architectural design. That's our process for the review of architectural design. The planning board approved that a design with a condition that the they still had some concerns about some of the detailing on the building and they required their resolution of approval required that the applicant and their architect come back for refinements on the final design before building permits are issued. They also approved a parking reduction which allowed for the 96 required parking spaces to be reduced to 62 parking spaces. But they conditioned it that in all cases, on all parking required for the hotel that they exceeded their six two space. It had to be provided on site through a valet parking program. So essentially ensuring that all the cars generated by the full 96 rooms would be parked on site. If the spaces are not available, then it would be done through valet service on site. This, as I said, the project meets the North Park Gateway Zoning District Zoning designation. This is also this site does have a multi-family residential combining overlay on it. This is raised in the in the appeal. That is a permissive zoning overlay. It allows for multifamily housing, but it does not require multifamily housing on the site. The hotels are permitted by right on the North Park Street zoning district. The general plan is can you commercial hotels are encouraged and allowed in community commercial in the general plan. And of course, hotels are supported strongly by our economic development strategic plan that was approved by the council just last year. So as I said, this was approved by the planning board. That was on July 20 excuse me, January 28th. They had a study session a few months earlier at which time they looked at a prior design, which they weren't happy with, gave the architect instructions. He came back. They came back on June 28th, at which time the project was approved with those conditions that I mentioned earlier. The Appellant has raised three issues in their appeal. They've focused really on the parking aspect of the Planning Board's decision. They questioned the adequacy of the parking analysis and the team measures which were imposed by the city and approved by the planning board on this project, and because of their dispute on the part where their questioning of the parking analysis. They then the appellant makes the case that the the project was not adequately reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. And they also raise the issue of the fact that this is a multifamily zoning district and there's no housing in this project. Staff disagrees with the appellant's analysis on the parking and the California Environmental Quality Act. We believe that the planning board did follow the zoning code, which and the parking code which allows the planning board to evaluate parking on a case by case basis, imposed measures to reduce the demand and therefore allow for reduction in parking. In this case, the Planning Board didn't even actually allow a reduction in parking. It simply required a valet parking and required and imposed tedium, tedium measures to reduce demand on top of that. So we feel that the planning board did the right decision on the parking aspect of the project. And the other issue that was raised in terms of California Environmental Quality Act. We respectfully disagree with the appellant. This project is consistent with the zoning because the zoning allows for these types of waivers and adjustments by the planning board. Therefore, there is no problem with the analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. And then of course, as I said earlier, the multifamily zoning district is a permissive zone. It permits multifamily housing on the site. It does not require it. So for those reasons, we don't support these aspects of the or don't believe that the appellant has made a strong case on the parking issue or the multifamily overlay issue. Staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Board's decision. We think the Planning Board made the right decision in moving this forward with their conditions of approval and which would allow the project to proceed under the conditions I described. However, the planning this is a de novo hearing, which means that you can consider any issues brought before you and or that are raised by this approval by the Planning Board board. Therefore, an alternative action by the Council could be to uphold the appeal and direct the planning board to reconsider their prior approval. When you send it back to the planning board, you can also specify what it is that you want them to reconsider. As I said earlier, there's two pieces to this to this approval that they made design review, the actual architecture of the building, the parking plan that they approved, or of course, you could send it back if you wanted to uphold the appeal, send it back to have them reconsider both of those issues. So you can you can and should, if you decide to uphold the appeal, give the planning board clear direction as to what it is you think they did wrong and you'd like them to reconsider. That is the end of my presentation myself. I also want to recognize staff member Linda PEREIRA and Alan Tigh from our staff here, who did really most of the work on this project and I think did a. Speaker 3: Nice thank you staff. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So who's up next? Appellant The applicant goes first or the appellant. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 4: Thank you. Before I start, I also wanted to say thank you very much for moving us up a little bit. And I wanted to say that we did lose like 15, 20 people already. They did fill out the slip, but they're gone. But they did put up there that they are in favor of this project. So good evening, everyone. I want to thank honorable mayor, vice mayor and city council members. As many of you know. My name is Paul Patel and I wanted to thank all of you guys for being here tonight. Your support, guidance and suggestions in helping me to bring this project to the city of Alameda has been incredible. No matter the outcome, you will always have my thanks and respect. I still remember so well the moment when 18 years ago, I fell in love with Alameda. I had just moved from India. I was a housekeeper at Days Inn, which is now roadway in cleaning rooms and cleaning toilets. I had very little money. I remember looking out the ocean and how my heart skipped a beat when I realized something. I was home. I have had some people ask me, why not invest elsewhere? And I'm speechless. I love this city. I still live just a few blocks from that ocean. I eat at Alameda Restaurants in Alameda, Texas, and dream not of building of faraway cities, but my own. Everything I have learned and earned is from this city, this community, and these citizens. I'm a seasoned hotel owner. I'm getting my MBA from Harvard. I have the skills, the funds and the will. I want to give back to this city that has given me so much. I'm not a foreigner. I'm son of Alameda. I had a moment of total desperation last week when I called my mother in India. She's a small town woman, doesn't understand the political world, but she's also one of the most moral people that I know. She was trying to make sense of all of these. So she asked me three questions. Is everything you're doing legal? Yes. Will your project help the community? Yes. And will you take care of the people that works with you? Yes. She laughed and told me to have hope that all would be fine with the project. She said an argument where the answer to all three of those questions was yes would be unbeatable. Downtown Alameda has a problem. There is no hotel within walking distance of our downtown restaurants and other businesses. There are too many empty storefronts because we don't have enough foot traffic. This new hotel will create jobs and revenue for all of our well-loved downtown establishments from tiny little House to Maggie's to Alameda Cineplex to Alameda Island Brewing Company to East End Pizza . Our restaurants, coffee shops, our bars will benefit. We will provide meeting space for local at discounted rates. Contribute to the local transportation agency, open up our gym to Alameda residents, increase tourism, benefit local nonprofit organization and local artist and contribute to the beautification of Park Street. The direct and indirect benefit are endless and enduring. It is a win win situation for everyone. I'm the only Alameda Hotel developer who's also a resident who cares about this community as much as you all. If we don't take this opportunity now and the owner of the land decides to do something else with it, there is no other appropriate lodge. So we may never have a hotel in downtown Alameda. The reason I'm here before you is to work with you, to partner with other businesses and support the people that live here. Because at the end of the day, who cares about this community as much as we do? Before I go, I would also like to thank Alan, Linda and Mr. Andrew Thomas and the city staff. For all your help. You have made this process much better for me and it is appreciated whether you're here to support this project or not. Each of you that took time out of your lives to be here, you truly cares about this community. And that's why I love this city. And I'm doing this project because I also care about this community and want to give back. My goal has always been to solve the problem that needs to be addressed. And with your help, we can work together to make this a reality. So please vote for this photo. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Battelle. And then we will also hear from the appellate tie, Hudson and Mr. Hudson. You will also have 10 minutes. Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor. As you Ashcraft and members of the city council. My name is Ty Hudson. I'm with Unite Here Local 2850 and we are the appellant. And I want to speak to a couple of different issues here. First, I'm going to speak to really the letter of the law when it comes to how the city, how the Alameda Municipal Code talks about allows for parking reductions. And second, I'm going to speak to whether this is really the right project for the city and for that location from a bigger picture point of view. But I'll start with with the letter of the law on the parking. The municipal code allows for does allow for for parking reductions by the planning board. And that, as Mr. Thomas mentioned, that that is true. But it also spells out very specifically what the planning board has to find and what what the the project has to provide in order to qualify for those reductions. The two reductions that are sort of that this project claims to or the two criteria this project claims to to to meet are a a parking demand study that would show that the parking that the project wouldn't need as much parking as it is the code would ordinarily require. And that and a transportation demand management program which the the criteria which are very specifically defined in the code. So I'll start with that one. One of the. The program that the this project purports to provide is participation in the Transportation Management Association, which would give transit passes to employees of the hotel and subsidizing Uber or Lyft to various locations for the guests. And but that does not meet the criteria of the code. The code requires, among other things, specific performance targets for trip reductions and parking reductions that these measures would are supposed to try to meet and. Secondary measures that they that the project would be committed to implementing if those targets were not met. There are no targets included in the proposal here for how many of the guests would take rideshare. There are no targets mentioned for how many of the employees would actually use public transportation to get to work. And there are no secondary measures proposed for if those two measures weren't enough. And so it just simply doesn't meet the criteria. I'll say a little bit more about the Uber and the lift further, further along. Second is the parking study. There have been other hotels that have come forward that that in some cases that I've been here to oppose or support. And but whether I suppose opposed them or supported them, some of them have done real parking demand studies. There was a hotel out on Harbor Bay Parkway which which I was opposed to, which we were opposed to that did a parking study that observed a comparable hotels. For 77 days over the course of four months to determine how many parking spaces this new hotel would would likely require. The purported parking study for this project observed two days, once on a weekend and once on a weekday. That is not a parking study, and any anyone who tries to pass that off as a parking study should be embarrassed. There was no mention of how how what was the occupancy of the particular hotel on Webster Street that they observed? And it's just it's just not a it's not a credible study. For what it's worth, the study out on Harvard Bay Parkway came up with a much higher ratio of of parking spaces to rooms that would be required. After they actually did a robust, robust data collection. Then what this then what this purported study concludes. So that's the letter of the law and the parking. The project simply hasn't met the the criteria that required for the granting of a parking reduction. And I respectfully would submit to you that perhaps the parking that they want to provide would be enough, but they should go back to the planning board, do their homework and actually demonstrate that. Second, I want to talk about whether this project is really what the city of Alameda needs. Our appeal mentioned and Mr. Thomas mentioned that this is one of very few sites that is designated as a multi-family overlay. I recognize that that doesn't mean hotels are not allowed and I don't make the argument that a hotel is not allowed to use here. But we just had a long presentation about the housing crisis and all of the. Really extreme measures that that legislators and other policymakers are considering taking to address this serious crisis and to put a sort of mediocre hotel on a spot that has that that is an opportunity site for for multifamily housing. I would I would suggest that the council should think really hard before before approving that. Second of all, there is a lot of rhetoric about activating the street and improving the pedestrian activity on Park Street. But this hotel is inward faces, places in the parking lot in the back to be. To be perfectly honest, people are going to drive in, parked their car, or have a valet parked their car and drive from the back and the front door and the front windows are really just decoration. There was a lot of talk at the planning board about about the the appearance of the windows to create an appearance of pedestrian friendliness. But there's nothing that about this hotel that activates the street in any way. There's nothing that, you know, there's no retail or food on the ground floor that would actually bring people in and have and have people walking up and down that street. And that is a second that is a portion of Park Street that, you know, could really use that kind of pedestrian activity. So on the whole, is this a project that is good enough for the city to overlook that the that it doesn't need the the letter of the law and the parking reductions? I believe it's not. And I, I hope you'll at the very least send it back to the Planning Board for it to really do its homework and to create a better project for the city. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel, before we get to our stack of speaker slips, do we have any clarifying questions for staff? Councilmember Desai Yeah. Speaker 7: One clarifying question is on the if we're going to basically remove this from the housing overlay, are we require then to make up the loss of this area? That would have been no. Speaker 9: We're already in surplus, so sites on it. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: Mr. Thomas. Speaker 3: I don't. Don't go. Speaker 0: I had a question about the appellant's assertion that the parking study just observed two days at another hotel. Can you speak to that? Speaker 9: Yeah. You know, I we looked at the the Webster the hotel on Webster Street. We did some independent analysis as well. You know, I think, you know, the issue for us as staff when we think about the appellants arguments is we keep coming back to the larger question. That entire provision in the zoning code that Mr. Hudson referenced references is all about the planning board reducing the amount of parking on the site available under what the code requires. And what the planning board actually did is they said, look, you need we think you probably only need 62 spaces. That's what your parking lot shows. But when you if in fact, we're wrong and you need more, you're going to park it all on site through a valet program. So they technically didn't actually reduce the amount of parking. They said you have to park. If if 96 people show up and rent 96 rooms and each one of them has a car that they need to park on the site, you're going to park all 96 of them. So the whole argument about the parking analysis is for us at staff becomes we sort of find ourselves jumping ahead. If really the issue is you want 96 spaces that are independently accessible without any valet, then there there is really a simple solution. The hotel has to get smaller because we just can't fit 96 rooms and 96 parking spaces on that site. So you could say, all right, 62, that's all you the parking you have. So let's reduce the hotel to 62 rooms if you really felt that you needed every room to have an independently accessible parking space. So for us, the whole argument about the parking study is interesting, but just not particularly relevant because at the end of the day, the planning board said if the parking study is wrong. Then you'll be valet parking because we don't want you dumping any cars into the neighborhood or onto the street. You're going to park at least 96 cars on this parking lot. And if that means you need to have your staff people come out in valet park and that's what you're going to do. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions before we go to public speakers? Okay. So public speakers. It would help if you don't wait until I've called your name. The third time to walk up to the front. I'm going to call three or four in advance, cut out to the aisle so you can get up here easily. We will get you home sooner if you do. So our first public speakers in this order are Carrie Thompson. Michelle Russo. Correct me if I mispronounce your name. Oh, wait. And Paul, Minnesota. Oh, I know who that is. He's ten pizza and cut a long line and bah! Thank you for the phonetic pronunciation. Miss Thompson, you are for it. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening. I just wanted to say that I feel that the planning board did do a good job on their due diligence and that they are taking into account everything, including parking, including the design of the hotel. Whether they enter from the front or the back makes no difference. And that we fully the the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee fully supports this project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And you even gave me the phonetic spelling. Michelle Manila. Sorry, it's getting late. Speaker 3: Hello. Hello. Speaker 6: My name is Fisherman who says I am an Alameda resident and one of the owners of East End Restaurant down on a park. And what a vista. I want to also second, a lot of feeling here that I think the planning department did do due diligence on this project. The many, many hoops they had them jump through on design review and still more to come. I feel that there's a viable project here, and especially to address the idea that there's not going to be pedestrian activity because the hotel has a parking lot. I just want to say feet in that end of Park Street is going to benefit my business. A lot of the businesses around us and I look forward to meeting and greeting a lot of new visitors to Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And Paul, is this. Speaker 4: You know and a man and council I am family says I am one also of the owners of East End restaurant here in Alameda and I say no to the appeal and yet to the hotel because I think it'll do wonders for businesses here in Alameda and I think it's a great idea. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. By the way, you're all rock stars. It's staying under one minute, so keep that up and you'll be home even sooner. Okay. And also continue these phonetic pronunciations. I love it. Kurt, Long and Bob. Then I have no excuse for mispronouncing your name. All right, he's left. All right, so then we have O Zens and Lee. And I bet I said that incorrectly. Speaker 6: Thank you for all your time. There's a lot of business and, you know, companies here. And I mean, that is a great thing. It's a great thing. But they also don't need in a hotel to help them because they have clients coming into the city. You don't want you know, they are doing their business with their clime and go to, you know, San Francisco or Oakland to live. So I think, you know, and to me, that is another, you know, tourist destination. But, you know, to help business and the companies to stay here. Thank you. I support a hotel. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then our next speakers in this order are Justin Wong, Wes Warren and Sam Patel. Mr. Wong. Speaker 3: No. Speaker 4: All right. Good evening, everyone. So I went to be for elementary. I went to Lincoln Middle School. I went to Alameda High. Park Street has been a great part of my childhood and some of my best childhood memories. And a lot of it is the retail. And so I think that the Bay Area should know about Alameda. And I think that, you know, more traffic would really bode well for Park Street and the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: And San Patel here is. Speaker 13: I'm Sam, but I was a resident of Alameda. Two years ago, I moved to Saint Louis, Missouri. But I still have business here. Uh, consulting, say business. I bring in a staff, people here, uh, for the interviews and all that, and we've been housing them at the airport. The biggest problem is they don't want to go to Oakland. Uh, they want to come to eliminate some beautiful island. They feel safe here. Very safe. And it's a beautiful. I lived here, so I know. And why I was sitting and hearing all the different cases before us, uh, the, the one at the golf course. So they're building the event center and that is very exciting news for us as a business then. Now we can do a event there and have my staff living in, in downtown, and that will help us very big because the staff will be very happy. And I will I will love to see this hotel coming up. It's a beautiful project. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Patel is followed by Ming Yanan and also private citizen Cameron and Jean Schmidt in that order. Speaker 4: Hi, my name is Amelia Yang. I support the hotel because we are the on this side. There are no hotel really nice and new and provide for the city and also the citizens who has family members come visit. So I will be Fred I my family members, they stay in Oakland and come over visit me. That's why I support for how they are like this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then we have private citizen Cameron. Are you here? There he is. Followed by John Schmidt. It's John Schmidt here. Okay. John Schmidt's not here. Then Ed Shore will go next. Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you for the time. After hearing the facts in this. Speaker 7: Case and understanding Park Street and Alameda, myself, being a community member and coming down here all my life, I think that downtown needs a. Speaker 4: Little bit of a revitalization. Speaker 7: And hearing both sides and facts the case, I don't see really a reason why this community wouldn't benefit. Speaker 4: From. Speaker 7: A hotel like this, being in the area and knowing the brand. Hearing the objections. Speaker 4: On the park's parking side, it doesn't really seem like. Speaker 7: It's going to negatively hurt the city in the way it would benefit it. So I just wanted to take a couple of moments coming here and thank you for the time. Speaker 0: Thank you. So is it are you Mr. Shaw? Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 0: Come on up. Speaker 4: The Mayor and staff and city council. I'm Ed Shy. I'm the regional development director for Intercontinental Hotels Group. And the proposed hotel would be one of our brands, a Holiday Inn Express. And we're very excited to have a hotel in downtown Alameda. We think it's hugely beneficial to the city with the all the taxes that this hotel will pay and provide and also not use very many city services. And we'll also greatly support all the businesses along Park Street, which could use a help, you know. So this is a wonderful project. We're very excited. I take a little offense to the union representative calling it a mediocre hotel because it's a fantastic hotel brand. It's one of the top largest hotels in the country. Speaker 0: We do not do applies. We have got 60 plus speakers. We will be here all night. Please, no more applause. Thank you. And you get the speaker off. So don't do that again. Please keep the mayor more cheerful. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Our next speakers. Speaker 3: Are. Speaker 0: Benjamin Winters, followed by a rich at Creek's King Rich crank. So it is followed by a who's who know he you know in host. Boy, you're going to have to help me with that one. Okay. Are you Mr. Winter? Speaker 4: I am. Hello, I am Benjamin Winter. I'm the owner of Phenix, the venue right here on the corner. I am speaking in favor of the hotel. I was on the fence until Mr. Pertell took the time three or four times to come by, to call me and to get to know me and to talk to me and be personal about this. And I just hope we take that very seriously. I opened my venue two years ago and it takes a fire and it takes local pride. And I saw that in him. And I didn't know him. I didn't know about I didn't know about the project. And I had the same kind of shared the sentiment of a of a major hotel chain coming in. And but things need to be local and personal. Our growth needs to be local. It needs to be personal. I think that's at the root of the concern. And I see local and personal in this project, and I think it will catalyze a lot of vitality downtown, which is a band game. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Which brings. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And Council members and staff, rich drinks, long time resident and commercial broker here in town. I want to bring to your mind 1989 1990 movie called Do the Right Thing by Spike Lee. This project has been going on for three years. About a half a million dollars spent by the applicant, two planning boards, two mayors and two councils. So it's time to move on. We have a50 vote by the planning board. They've done their homework. Staff has really done their homework. We've gone over and over and over with the design. Three architects on the design hotels bring in a lot of businesses and that means more jobs. I know someone spoke earlier about not having jobs. I think we need jobs and this will bring in more jobs. It's also going to bring more money to the businesses in town where their their employees can maybe afford to live here and the rents will be better. So I implore you, as Spike Lee said, do the right thing. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And now will you will you correct me on the awful pronunciation? I'll make. Speaker 4: It. I'll make it easy for you. Seni in Hausa. Speaker 0: Hausa. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 4: I knew it was going to happen, so. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 4: Well, first off, thank you so much for letting me talk for a moment or for a minute. This is a fantastic opportunity to bring something to the city that I think it needs. But more importantly, I'm here to support the Planning Commission and what they've already approved and they've already talked about. It's interesting when I see the the unite here come and talk negatively about the location of what it is and what it could be and on set. But they've addressed all those things. Everything has been. The Planning Commission was very, very they did their homework. They knew what was going on. One of the things that I do for a living as a filmmaker and when I do a film, I shot a short film here a few years back. And the first thing I do is I go to the local businesses, I go to the restaurants, I bring a crew to the you know, we shot inside the Starbucks, we shot inside the movie theater. We were at the marina. This is a beautiful and wonderful place to be, but without a hotel downtown makes it really inconvenient to do things like that. So I just want to say that I support I support the hotel and I. Speaker 5: Hope you make the right decision. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. So our next speakers are being followed by hisses joining us, followed by Vincent some hello. Speaker 6: My name is Phoebe. I'm a local resident of Alameda for many, many years. I am in favor of full title. I believe that it will bring a lot of new business, will bring life to downtown. Growing up here, downtown has changed so much and I think that we need to provide stay for a lot of people. There's not very many high end or very nice hotels in the area, and I think a brand new hotel will definitely change the flavor, especially towards the bridge where right now people say it's dead. I think it'll bring a lot more people to Alameda than want to stay because currently everybody is staying and either Jack London or downtown Oakland. And I think that Alameda has a lot to bring and I think I'll bring a lot more people. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And do we have his his 20th Mr.. Joining us going once going twice. Okay Vincent some Mr.. Some is followed by Mike Gorman. Speaker 4: I'm from Irwin Vincent's. I'm here to speak in favor of the hotel. I believe it's going to be a boon to the economy, both in the construction phase and after construction. The minute you break ground, you'll have construction crews here all day, sometimes at night. And that number of people will be visiting local businesses. Following that, he's also going to be helping revitalize some of the infrastructure in the local area with regard to undergrounding of the overhead lines, the ADA compliance of the sidewalks and some of the streets. Now nearby the hotel, he will be taking on the cost and the effort of redoing all of those for the city of Alameda, as well as his own business. The burden of proof to prove that this is a viable and beneficial project has been met. And I believe that you should proceed with this without any further delay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And are you Mike Gorman? You're another former councilmember, Mike Gorman. Speaker 3: But that's okay. Speaker 4: Thank you for your time. I'll be brief. I grew up in a small island community in the great state of Maryland. I moved to the Bay Area two years ago. Ever since then, I've taken probably around 20 client meetings in Oakland. And every time I try to stop by Alameda because it reminds me of home tonight, I have to drive 45 minutes back to Campbell. If there was a conveniently placed hotel, I would probably stay the night and wouldn't have to drive back. I believe it would be great for the city both with tax revenue and jobs. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Gorman is followed by Sean Flynn. Followed by Vincent Moore, followed by. Lay Tai chi. Tai, you're going to help me. Okay. Mr. Flynn. Speaker 4: My name is John Flynn. I've waited a couple of hours now just to say I am for this hotel, all right? Speaker 3: And we. And we were waiting for you. Speaker 0: Okay. Vincent, is Vincent my hair? Vincent. Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Vince and Mom, former business owner, owner in Alameda, also a former commercial property owner. And I'm currently a barber shop owner. And I can tell you right now, I heard on the way over here that tourism is down now all time high. They have absolutely no hotel rooms here. And this is a perfect opportunity for you guys to be the first in Alameda. And I applaud you that I flavor favored the proposal and I really hope you guys can consider it. And thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. And do we have Louie, Louie, tie dye. Speaker 3: Tie dye, man, tie food. Speaker 0: Say, okay, perfect. Oh, yeah, it is. Speaker 3: I'm here. Speaker 4: I'm just here to support the hotel, that's all. Speaker 3: Simple. Speaker 4: Straightforward. Speaker 0: It took me longer to say your name than you spoke. Okay, whatever. You get credit for that. Okay. Michael Villa. Villa Luna. Level the Villa Luna via you. Come help me out with your. Speaker 3: Name, please. Speaker 4: Oh, it's really a luna. Speaker 0: What is it? Speaker 4: Villa Luna. Speaker 0: Villa Luna. Hello. Speaker 4: Hi, I'm Mike. Villa Luna. And I'm in favor of the hotel. I think it will be good for the economy and creates jobs. The hotel visitors will help local businesses with. Visitors need to eat and shop. Speaker 0: Thank you. You guys are doing a great job on your public speaking. Okay, three more. We have Harvey Yang, followed by John. Oh, boy. Speaker 3: Friend Gordon Ali. Speaker 0: And Madeleine Sadek. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 0: RV. Yes. Hi. And is John here as well, or did I butcher your name so badly you don't recognize it? Well, try again, Mr. Yen. Speaker 4: I am going to keep this real sweet. Yes, my name is Harvey Young, and I couldn't say it any better than what he's already saying. So I'm going to support this. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. You can come correct me on that of a pronunciation. Speaker 4: By the mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council. My name is John Franklin. My kids and I own the new Park Street Tavern across the street from the proposed New York City, hopefully hotel. My father in law had a grocery store on Park Street in the forties and fifties. My kids have 30 year lease on that place and they plan to stay there for a long time. I heard that the proposed project is a mediocre project. By no means that project is going to enhance the gateway to the city. We plan to hire between 5 to 10 more people to do because of the increased visitor to anticipate. So I hope you approve the project without any further delay, because it's going to create no more no more and more income for the city from the hotel, but also from the rest of the business around. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Evangelist. I can say that. Okay. Madeline Saric. Speaker 6: Good evening. Mayor and Council Members. My name is Madeline Saturday and I'm the new executive director of Alameda Chamber and I'm very proud to be one. And I'm going to echo a lot of the people that said great things about it. But being new to the city of Alameda, I call it the destination. It's the hidden gem of the Bay Area. And I think we do need the hotels here because we need to increase tourism to the city very much. And I'm all for that. Plus, it's going to increase business, it's going to increase jobs and everything. So we're all for it. The chamber supports that. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then we have Brian Landers, followed by Ryan Mooney, followed by. Speaker 3: Gary Garrick. Garrick. Speaker 0: Garrick. Okay. Do I have. I'm Brian Landers. Brian Landers. Maybe not. I know I have run Mooney. Are you Brian? No, that's Mike Gorman. Come on up. Don't be shy. Speaker 3: He's not. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor and council members. The attempt to keep the mayor happy will be short. I live just a couple of blocks from here and that's six blocks from the project. I'm in support of the project. I've read the full packet, listen to the applicant and the appellant and think you should support the Planning Commission in their decision and move it. Do the resolution are provided. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mooney. And you are. Speaker 3: Mr. Garrick. How? Speaker 4: My name is Gary Yaniv. My family and I are patrons of the Park Street. We support the hotel. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I have Lisa Fong, followed by Tina Blaine, followed by Enrique. Ms.. Samantha. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Miss Fine, right? Speaker 3: Yes. Hi, Mayor. Vice mayor and council. People of men. Women. The people. Okay. Second phase. I'm in support of the hotel. I believe that it will bring more, you know, tourists, everything like that. I think that Patel has done a lot of research and the planning commission has all. Are in favor. And you see all the business people that are actually here in support of the hotel. I feel that you guys should not delay and I'll vote yes. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, I. Tina Brown. Speaker 6: Blue. My name is Tina Blaine. I am a resident of Alameda. I live about two blocks away from the new proposed hotel project. And I'm also the director of Rhythmic Sculptural Works, which I think will benefit greatly from having more visitors to our island. I was really inspired by Mr. Patel story. I think it's a very Alameda story that most people could really feel really good about that someone who is really ingrained and enmeshed in the community and like Benjamin Winters from Phenix said. Mr. Patel took the time to come out and meet with me and hear about my concerns and was really looking for ways to partner and to find ways that his guests could benefit from the kinds of entertainment that rhythmic provides to the community here. I also think that the hotel tax fund and the moneys that will be generated for public art are great for the city. Speaker 0: Thank you to I have Enrique Nascimento cabinet. Gustav Link, Mr. Link and Mr. Link is followed by Amy Quintero. Speaker 4: Hi. How's it going? Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 4: Gustavo, like I said, I'll let you know I support the project. Not gonna really go any farther. Sean Simple. Speaker 0: Thank you. Great. 5 seconds. I love it. All right, so do I have Amy Quintero. Here she is. Speaker 1: I thank you so much for the vetting that you're doing for this project. My husband and I are business owners and residents of Alameda. My husband went to Alameda High School. We have a vested interest in. Speaker 8: This hotel happening for the community. We all know Paul has met every requirement thrown at him. He's done it with grace and a big smile on his face. What you might not know is what he's doing because. Speaker 1: Of his heart. I'm on the board of Dreamcatcher. It's a shelter for sexually trafficked youth. I know, Mayor, you and I have attended some of the same fundraisers. When I told Paul about their mission, he asked for an introduction because. Speaker 8: Their mission is close to his heart. He doesn't have to do this for the hotel. He's reaching out because he cares and he's offered to provide additional shelter for sexually trafficked youth when the shelter has no more beds. He's also. Speaker 1: Reached out to Alameda Family Services to. Speaker 8: See how he might work with their Family Resource Center. He's a good human being and deserves. Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Quintero. Miss Quintero is followed by Mike Parisi, my priest here yet there he is. Followed. Followed by Mark Skolnick. Followed by Lars Hansen. Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Mike Parisi, the owner of the tiny little house on Alameda. My wife's Thai. I've seen the faces. Some Thai. It's a it's a mediocre little restaurant on Park Street, but it goes out. Well, first of all, I'm kind of fascinated that that somebody that interested a union rep in the parking situation. But I'm just going to call it short. I, I want this hotel. It's great, great opportunity for everybody. Speaker 0: And I agree. Thank you, Mr. Percy and Mark Skolnick. Speaker 3: Are you here? There you are. Speaker 0: Hi. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Mark Skolnick. I'm here to support this hotel. It's going to bring a lot of revenue to the city. It's a well thought out program that's been thoroughly vetted by the planning department at very high expense to Mr. Patel. And this is the right project at the right time in the right place. So I thoroughly approve. And I urge you to do the same. Speaker 0: Thank you. And could I just ask the audience not to be talking like speakers are talking? Let's give everyone their do because we want to hear from Mr. Hansen. Lars Hansen, you're up next, followed by Eric Hamlin, panelists and as well as panelists. Okay, that's an interesting spy. And Christina, hurry after that. Mr. Hansen. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Lance Hansen and I, both a restaurant and business owner in Alameda. I'm here tonight to give my support for the hotel project, have my work with Park Street Business Association for many, many years. A project like what is in front of us tonight at the north end of Park Street has been a goal for the organization for many, many years that I welcome this project. The hotel will not only generate needed revenue to the city, but I also believe it will inspire other developments and improvement to the north end of the Park Street. And in that process, the gateway to Park Street and our city will improve and become more attractive. I believe that this project will do due to the north end of Park Street, but the theater project, Detroit, downtown, it will become a success. So I urge you to support it tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. And Eric, you're going to help me with that last name, Rose Railers. Okay. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Eric Willows and I'm here to support Paul's project. I'm going to echo many of the benefits that others have already said. The business tax revenue for the city of Alameda is going to be great. I think there's spillover benefits to many of the retailers and merchants along Park Street and other streets. Others like it in Alameda will be tremendous and a gentleman mentioned it earlier. Now, if I have friends and family visiting instead of packing them in my house, they have a place to stay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. You won't get on each other's nerves that way. Okay. Christina Huie. Hi. Followed by Michel Rayo Arroyo, followed by La, my Korean. And you can correct me on that pronunciation mystery. Speaker 3: Good evening. My name's Christina. Hi. Hi. It's okay. Everyone says Huey. I am in favor of the hotel. I think Alameda is a beautiful little place. It deserves to be shared not only through tourism, but also promoting local businesses. I think overall it's a win win situation. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Michelle and Michelle, is it real or real? Okay. Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Michelle Rayo. I'm just like a lot of people here. I do support the hotel. I believe it's going to be good for the community of Alameda. And I would like to commend Mr. Patel as an immigrant myself. And he planted here 18 years ago and he wants to build his business here. I think it's going to be good for Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And LA my Damien do you recognize your name? Is it that person has left okay. Because they pronounce the name so badly. And then we have to picture Michoud. The last name is Michelle. Janet Maccabee. I saw her. There she is. Speaker 6: Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Janet Mckelvie, I. I'm the executive director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, which enthusiastically supports this hotel. We hope you feel the same way. I want to put a little bit of spin on something that you may not be thinking about, but we do, as an association, produce the biggest events in downtown Alameda. And all of those people need to stay a second day and spend the night and spend twice as much money as they would spend if they just came to the mother the Mother's Day event for one day or the art and wine fair for one day or so many of the other great events that we have. And Mr. Pertell has been an absolute delight to work with his community minded. He's resilient, certainly, and he is somebody that we really want to support. And on behalf of our board of directors and our committee members, we ask you to approve this project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Maccabee is followed by Steven Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman followed by the champion Nam Cam. Followed by Steven. So, so sorry. So sorry. Mr. Zimmerman. Hi. Thank you. Speaker 4: Mayor. And members of the council whose proposed project, hotel project, will revitalize the northern section, partially bring more visitors, obviously revenue to our town and support businesses like Tuckers, but also will support a lot of nonprofit groups. What a lot of people forget to realize as we put on a lot of great events in town as the incoming president of Rotary, we're going to be hosting a district call in the Hornet this May. We're going to bring some world class speakers like astronaut Scott Kelly. It's a three day event. We're expecting hundreds, if not over a thousand attendees for three days. During this time, we were trying to reserve room hotel rooms on the island. We could only get 46 rooms, not only to be an asset to the businesses, but also nonprofit groups in town like Darbar, Rotary Boys and Girls Club and their big event in October. So there are many reasons to support this project. It makes sense for the community, it makes sense for businesses, it makes sense for visitors and their family members. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Do we have Ms. or Mr. Nam Cam? No. Okay. I'm Steven. So sorry. No. Nora Gordon. We could be out of here even sooner. Darren and. No. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: We really scared them off. Ivan Gutierrez, Mr. Gobierno, Joe La Parra. I saw him. There he is. Speaker 3: Where you are. Speaker 4: Well, I get the other ten in. Speaker 3: Front of me, you know. Speaker 0: You do know we have rules in this body. Speaker 4: There's nothing more I can say other than I support this hotel and everybody else. Every single speaker in front of me supports the hotel, and they said everything beautifully. Better than I could. So thank. Speaker 0: You. Thank you. Okay. And then I have. See, look, look, look. No, Nora. A bill. No. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: Do you want to come up here and just read this now? Okay. I need to ng. There you are. Okay. You coming up? You read. I know, but remember, we've got rules. Okay. Ms.. NG. Speaker 6: Hello, everyone. I'm a local resident, small business owner in town and a commercial property owner on Park Street. I think the hotel is good for our downtown district. Hotel guests will come stay and spend money in our beautiful downtown. I think it will help our economy. I totally support the hotel project. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. NG is followed by Vida's Vida Circus. Here he is. Hi. And you can tell us the real pronunciation of your name. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: Vida Sharky's. Speaker 0: Vida. Speaker 3: Not too bad. Speaker 4: Speaking of the hotel without the restaurant is the best news to all Park Street restaurants. No, that's confirmed. That was the first what I figured when people told me about the situation and I really feel the pain for years trying to present this project and start building. I mean, that's wow. It took me half a year to build my little restaurant and I thought, it's a disaster. So for years, I really feel the pain. I really want to support him as much as they can. And all this nearby out of mobile, out body shops, maybe they will convert for more parking lots, so who knows? Maybe they will see the opportunity once the hotel is going to be standing there. So it can really bring good news to everybody. So I shouldn't be really sad about locals comments. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. What's your restaurant, by the way? Speaker 4: I'm more popular to my restaurant. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah? Yeah. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: And then Richard kind of Powell. Speaker 3: Kind of Powell. Speaker 0: Followed by Alex. Rachel, Rachel followed by Crash. Speaker 3: I hear. Speaker 4: So thank you for the opportunity to speak. As a long time East Bay resident and supporter of our major businesses. I heartily support the project and urge acceptance. Speaker 0: Thank you. Alex Patel. Hi. Speaker 14: Good evening. I'll try to keep it brief. I grew up in Oakland for first 24 years of my life and every time I would get a straight AA, we would go to Tucker's. Every time we wanted to, as Burma came up, we would go to Burma. I mean, it's been a place that I've come my entire life and it's been really special. And then seeing it grow and expand over the years has been really tremendous. And just and this is a project that I think will drive a lot of business here. And hearing everybody talk about the business growth, it just seems like it makes sense. And then also, my brother had a very important event. We brought family in. We lived in Oakland for a while and we looked for places and we didn't find a place safe that we felt comfortable bringing our families here. But we would always come here to Alameda with all of the family when they would come into town. And so having a hotel like this, I could see family bringing in people to stay at the hotel. And it would be something that would be great for us to be able to come here and spend more time. Speaker 0: Thank you. And to have Koresh are here and and followed by Carlos Rosales, followed by Sunil Lama. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. I'm in favor of the hotel project. I'm an L.A. based filmmaker who does business here in Alameda and, you know, have meetings over projects. And it's usually here in downtown. You know, all these is one of the examples that we usually meet. So it would be great to walk down the hotel and just walk over to the restaurant versus driving. So I hope this happens. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And Carlos Rosales, there is. Speaker 3: So hello. Speaker 4: You just want to start by saying that a certain said from the local union that the gas will come in through the back, go inside the hotel and inside there they need to eat. Everybody here in Alameda has most of the restaurants are privately owned. They're not a big chain. So I think the all the businesses will benefit, you know, by having 97 people come out in the city every day if it's sold out. So I am for the hotel. Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: And let's see, we've got Sunil Lama there. Sunil. Followed by William Smith, followed by Brian Maguire, followed by Carlos Serrano crying. Hello. Speaker 4: Hello. Good evening. I'm here to support Paul's Hotel Project. Thank you. Speaker 0: It took longer to walk to the microphone. Bill Smith. Speaker 4: That was short. Bill Smith, again, welcome to you. Back up here. I'm really impressed and delighted to see the business community get behind something, the business. And so that's very impressive. But not one of them has mentioned housing and where these employers are going to live and all these new jobs are. And I do have find a couple of suggestions for our planning director to work about in terms of approaching this. He said, we met arena numbers. That is absolutely not true. We are way behind on the affordable housing component, which is the housing group where they employ most, employ for the restaurants and the hotels will live. And so we're going to have a problem that we're going to add to it. They said, oh, it isn't high. Everybody locally, well, they're not going hiring away from someone else locally. So eventually people are going to move in. So that doesn't work. Then the other thing I wanted to say is we really should do a social vulnerability analysis because you wrote me, the city wrote me that squat does not do consider social vulnerability in the fact of income for affordable housing. That's outside of CEQA. We need to get that in. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Brian Maguire. Speaker 4: Hello, Brian Maguire. You guys dealt with a couple of big issues today climate change item, big housing crisis item. And one thing that both of those colossal problems have in common is that they're one of the big contributors to those is bad local process that leads to bad faith appeals that delay in order to delay and deny projects for infill development. So hopefully we're not going to play that game here any longer, even if it's our friends who are asking for something. Putting on my bike walk hat. I'm hopeful that we can have a way to direct the right chair, sort of which to substituting for a shuttle to go to the back of the hotel. Better yet, offering to transit day passes to users as an alternative to Uber and Lyft. I think this is would be a decent project to have a few project based bike share options for guests. Three or four bikes, maybe. Lastly, if you've ever scratch your head trying to park at the marketplace, you should grant staff flexibility to give one further reduction of parking so that the 17 compact spaces can be six inches wider. Speaker 0: Carlos Serrano, Keegan and Mr. Serrano. Quinn is my last speaker slip. If you want to speak, just don't feel compelled. But if you want to speak, get his speeches live. And right away. Speaker 4: That could be Ashcraft and the council member for this evening. Okay. Mr. Patel is a personal friend of mine, actually, and he's very passionate about this project. About a year ago, he actually toward me around Park Street. I used to live in Bay Port Alameda myself, and he's so passionate about this project that he explained to me about all the economic benefits that it would bring to the city that would bring the parks. As a matter of fact, he took it all the way down Park Street. How he would benefit all the companies and businesses down Park Street. And I used to have a friend that owns chicken wire. I don't know if you guys remember on Park Street. He didn't make it. He was right there really close to the hotel site. So in my 20 seconds, let me just tell you a little story about Mr. Patel and where he has come from and where he's going right now with this hotel. This is not his first. This was not at first. I'll tell he's experience hotel operator and he no, he's really knows what he's doing. And I highly urge you guys to support the denial of the people. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Our last speaker is Michael McKenna. Speaker 4: Is it morning yet? No, it's still afternoon. Still evening. Good evening, council mayor. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I turned in my speaker slip, slip last because I wanted to speak last. And I don't know if any of you were taking roll or taking. I was chicken scratching. Everybody that came up here, we had 46 for one that I'm not sure if he was for or against, but it sounded like you might have been against. But I have never seen that many speak. We had 12 that left or 13 that left. That's on the back of my slip. Mayor, if you want to check that. I have never seen that many speakers come out and all be for something. And I think it's because there's no doubt that the businesses in Alameda, as we see today, need a hotel in Alameda. There's no doubt that the residents need another hotel in Alameda. There's no doubt that the tote tax will benefit our budget. There's no doubt that it will stimulate the economy again. On Park Street, remember what the thinking is. Thank you, guys. Speaker 0: See you again. All right. With that, I'm closing public comment and I'm opening up council discussion. Who wants to go first? Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: A couple of questions for Mr. Thomas. So we heard about that story in question. And we also heard that there was a study done from a hotel on Webster. There's two hotels on Webster. How many rooms do they have? Speaker 3: So number. Mm hmm. Speaker 9: Approximately 50 rooms for both. Speaker 8: Both hotels. Speaker 6: You know. Speaker 9: That's the Hawthorne Suites we're talking about. Speaker 8: I mean, I guess part of my question is just we're hearing about all the business that is going to be generated. Do the and at the Hawthorne and the I think the date but I don't know the name of the other hotel. Speaker 4: Days in. Speaker 8: Days Inn or something like that. The roadway or. Speaker 3: Roadway in. Speaker 8: That that. How much business are they generating right now for Webster Street? They're both at the entrance of Webster. Do we do we have can we quantify that? Speaker 9: I can't standing here now. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 8: But we're hearing that they're at capacity. Speaker 9: I have. I know. Yes. The I don't know about the roadway. And I do know about the Webster. The other Hawthorne Suites is often at capacity. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 8: And that's that's about 50% of what this proposed hotel is. Speaker 9: Yeah, it's about 50 rooms. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 8: Regarding the the ride share proposals, you know, have we I mean, obviously that came up. That was one of the that's one of the proposals in terms of how to handle that. Do we have any sort of guidance or policies in place regarding. Speaker 9: You know, what the what the condition of approval requires is that to make that available to hotel patrons so that they can get a ride? What we're trying to do is we were trying to make it as easy as possible for people flying into the open airport to not have to rent a car. So with with different hotels, we've taken different approaches. Sometimes we require that they run a free shuttle just back and forth. In this case, the operator and staff discussed using a ride share program so that make that available for. I'm sorry. Speaker 0: You could feel free to come up if you want. Also, I know she's got a broken foot, but if you. Speaker 3: Say yes to the idea. Speaker 9: The idea of the ride share was to essentially make it free for the for the patrons to be able to get back and forth from the airport to the hotel without having to rent a car. Speaker 8: So the operator would be paying for the ride share. Right. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. And, Councilor, we've got a little bit of housekeeping business we need to conduct first. We are approaching 11 p.m.. It's 1051. We need four yes votes to call new items after this one after 11 p.m.. We have six F is our budget. We have nine is a council referral on the transient occupancy tax, nine B is a breastfeeding etc. referral. 10 a.m. a head swim center update ten be sure a moved. So okay to hear the dates here all of them the balance. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 7: Oh I'm happy to delay my till next time. Speaker 3: Okay. By me. Speaker 0: Okay. That one. That's the Toti and Mr. Adejumo. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 5: The stop waste info thing is for info so we can just push that. Speaker 0: Is that. Speaker 3: Okay, so. Speaker 8: Amend my motion to move the balance except for those two. Speaker 0: Is that that was the. Speaker 1: Ten C. Speaker 0: Okay. And what's the charter amendment. Speaker 1: That's the subcommittee. Speaker 8: Subcommittee's report. Speaker 2: Back. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh yeah. Right. That was the time frame. Okay. Speaker 3: Okay. The motion. Speaker 0: Okay. So that's the motion to hear. Six, seven, 9a9b, ten a, ten B, okay. All in favor. Speaker 3: By. Speaker 0: Anyone opposed. Abstained. Okay, we've got two five over on that one. Okay. Sorry to cut you off for you. Did you finish your what. Speaker 8: I'm done with my questions. Okay, I have. I don't know if anyone else has any questions. Otherwise, I'm happy to move in my comments. Speaker 9: If I may just finish the answer to that one. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 9: Linda was cluing me in there. She the the way the condition is written, it's hotel pays for ride, share services for the guests airport and any place within three miles. So once again the idea is try to reduce the need for for patrons of the hotel to have to rent cars, which would then have to be stored in the parking area. Speaker 4: Question. Speaker 0: Okay. So finish your. Speaker 3: Question. Go ahead and I spell. Okay, then I'm ready. Okay. Speaker 0: Oh, well, we'll see if anyone else. Councilman Brody. Speaker 5: My quick question was like, practically, I'm like in use case mode. How's that going to work? Speaker 3: I mean, because usually. Speaker 5: Usually, like you pick it up on your phone, but then you pay for. Speaker 9: It. You call. Let's say you're flying in from Oklahoma. You've you've observed a room at the hotel. You ask if there's a shuttle from the airport. They say, well, yes, we'll pay for the ride share. And they contact the ride share for you. Speaker 3: Oh, okay. Okay. Speaker 0: So they will dispatch or I mean, the. Speaker 9: Idea is you're you know, I mean, obviously, if you don't know that it's available, but if you call the hotel and say, hey, how do I get to your hotel? Do you have a free shuttle from the airport? That's how you'd find out about it. Speaker 5: I mean, do we consider any type of bike option like not necessarily like calling luggage from the. Speaker 4: Airport, but, you know. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 4: Park Street or whatever. Speaker 9: Those sort of things. I mean, we didn't we didn't require that when the we need to get you up here. They do have they have onsite bike parking but not bike share. Yeah. Speaker 3: Oh, do we. Speaker 0: Have a bike that we can give Linda. Speaker 3: Don't we live that. Speaker 0: We have the. Speaker 9: Holder. So I think. Speaker 4: We'll be. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: Well, the budget hearing coming up. Speaker 3: Maybe. Speaker 9: It was not a conditional approval. This is a de novo hearing. You certainly can add conditions if if you'd like to. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions? Okay. Who wants to start with discussion, Miss Vella? Speaker 8: So we just had our two items. One was on climate impact and the other was on the the CASA Compact. And I think, you know, the questions that I was really asking is it's not so much about parking to me. It's about what are we doing to reduce single occupancy vehicles. And so, you know, we've also heard from the business community. I mean, Tony Kuttner has been up here multiple times talking about the need for an Alameda shuttle and a free Alameda shuttle. And we are trying to promote that. And I've heard from a lot of you in support of that shuttle. And I think that, you know, to me, it's, you know, I think the number of parking spaces, yeah, I think I would do away with the compact spaces and just make them passable. Actually, I got pinned in some some nice gentleman decided to park so close to me at the marketplace that with my seven months belly, I couldn't quite get into my car. And I ended up waiting for 45 minutes for him to come out of the restaurant he was in. But but I, I do think also, you know, with with the rideshare agreement, I'm not in support of that, frankly. I think that we need to be supporting public transit. We do have we have busses that go to and from the airport. I've taken them. I in fact, I've had friends that were visiting recently from another country who were able to manage it. And I think we need to we need to be looking in that direction. I don't want to be supporting any extra single, single occupancy vehicles coming in and out. And I certainly don't want our businesses supporting that. I also, you know, I, I like the idea that this is going to generate business. I'm not necessarily we have two hotels on Webster Street. I think, you know, they to a certain extent might improve business, but not to the level that I've kind of heard into in terms of the enthusiasm. But I do, I do think that we need to work on improving, uh, you know, doing what we can to improve our business districts. Again, I and I like the idea of of of you know again the offer to house traffic youth. I used to be on Almeida Family Services Board and have done a lot with dream catchers. There's actually new laws you can't house traffic youth anywhere there's there it's very highly regulated. I hope that the support for dream catchers will continue and there's actually new training for hotel and motel workers that's just gone into place because of trafficking actually occurring in hotels, which is why you're not allowed to use temporary beds in in hotels and motels for traffic in particular. But I do think overall, there's there's a problem and a couple of speakers have raised it with the process involved for hotel approvals. And we have these processes involved that are very strict for certain projects. And then for hotels, it kind of seems like, you know, each hotel project is very different and I get that we've done the work session before, the planning board. But I also think that, you know, we should have a process that includes at least one public like community meeting. I'm not talking about a study session before planning board. I'm talking about just generally speaking, there should be a community meeting where we notify the neighbors and we let them know. And I think the city should be doing that, not to not to impede or bogged down the design review process or the approval process, but just so that we're we're we're just kind of creating a level playing field and saying this should happen. And neighbors know and we don't hear from people, people that live nearby after the fact that they weren't noticed and why city require that. So that's just something that I've seen and there's been a lot of talk. Michael mentioned the number of people who've come out. I've also heard from a number of people who had various complaints and different things and didn't know who to who to talk to. I directed them to rich cranks and and other folks, but I think just setting that process up would be helpful before it even goes to a study session or final, final planning, planning, board approval . I you know. I do think that there you know, I do have concerns about the pedestrian just safety in general. We also have things like Vision Zero in place. And if we're again, if we're in encouraging rideshares and there isn't a designated drop off point or we're not investing in public transit right now, there's a big problem on Park Street with double parking. And it's become it's becoming increasingly bad and it's actually slowing down traffic. And so I do think that there needs to be some work done on that in terms of how are people going to get dropped off? Where are they going to get dropped off? And why are we not supporting public transit or the Alameda shuttle or some of these other things? So I do want those things looked at. Speaker 0: Okay. Who wants to go next? Mr. Desai. Speaker 7: Thank you. I've read the staff report, reviewed the planning board documents, looked into the relevant ordinances and the the TDM analyzes. And I've concluded that the appeal does not rise to the level of significance. And so I will vote to deny the appeal and vote in favor of the hotel. Speaker 0: Okay. Who's next with the. Did you finish? I didn't mean to cut you off, Councilman Brody. Speaker 5: I just make up comments. I appreciate everyone coming out and waiting till after 11 to to hear us deliberate on this. I do share some of the concerns raised by my colleague, Ms.. Vella, especially related to the ride share, and that we we just went through an exercise declaring a climate emergency where we want to get more cars off the road. And yet, you know, we're asked to approve a project that basically puts more cars on the road. And I won't even get into the whole like independent contractor gig economy thing and income inequality that that I think is exasperated by by some of these rideshare companies. And I do think if we're going to want people to take bicycles and, you know, walk more, you know, we need to have projects that actually promote that. I mean, in an ideal world, I would have liked to seen a project that had ground floor retail, that generated foot traffic for retail, that had three stories of hotel and three stories of residents. I mean, the issue or housing, I mean, we had a long discussion earlier about the housing crisis, yet we're giving up one of our multifamily overlay sites for purely commercial. So I think there's a way that we could have worked in retail, commercial, hotel and residence at the same time and really taken advantage of the position of this property right in the gateway of Alameda to generate foot traffic from tourists and residents. And I think that's a missed opportunity. And I would have liked to have I would like to see in a project like that come forward. On the parking thing, I'm not really convinced that that that's an issue. I, I can't remember where I saw it, but I think it was one of our agenda items that, you know, these parking minimum parking requirements seem to be a tool that people use to oppose these development projects. And, you know, I don't think that's a good idea. Again, if our goal is to reduce the amount of cars providing more parking, it's kind of disincentivizes that. So that that argument really didn't hold a lot of water with me. On the design review, I mean, this is a matter of taste. You know, I personally would have preferred something other than art deco there. But, you know, I'm not going to like again, it's a matter of taste and style, so I'm not going to tell anyone to come back and do anything differently, considering it's been like done redone three times. But I think, again, I'm disappointed that a project didn't come to us that included housing, because I think we could have we could have done we could have done more with this project and more with this property. Speaker 0: Then. Okay. Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 2: Sure. So I'll pick up from there. I will. Jim's no councilmember. Speaker 5: I'm coming to you. Speaker 2: Vision, I think, is a great one. And I hope one of the things that comes out of this is maybe as a part of maybe the general general plan and housing update. We can talk about how in the future, if we're going to go up five or six stories on Park Street, maybe we can actually require it . Changes are needed to look at requiring some of that to be housing. You know, I was on the planning board when we wrote the North Park Street zoning rules. It was on the subcommittee that helped write those rules. And one of the things we wanted to do with the north north of Lincoln, on Park Street District was was attract businesses that are not like businesses in other parts of Park Street so that there was no competition. And so I do think that a hotel makes sense here. And, you know, I do want to thank Mr. Patel. I met with him over three years, so I did not get to vote for his project on the planning board. So there's no inconsistency here. But he did come before us for at least one hearing, and I think I met with him about a year before he ever got to the planning board, as did most of the planning board members, just to talk about the design and whatnot. And through those through those meetings over that time, through the many architects, we saw a significant improvement in the design. And we really listened listened to the architects on the board. Right. The people who should be making these decisions listen very carefully. I want to echo Jim Emilia's concerns about the tenses, Ubers and lifts there. Yeah, they're not ride share. They're surrogate ride programs and surrogate chauffeurs. You know, I would like to for me, I would like to see and I've talked to the applicant and he was supportive of this. I would like to see some of that engagement on the on the ground floor happened. The lobby is going to be open to the public, and I think it should be. I think when this goes back to to design review with the planning board, I'd like to see signage and how the design of this first floor is going to actually look like it doesn't have to be a Starbucks, but it should look like it's a coffee shop that somebody who lives across the street should feel comfortable walking into. That goes with the design inside the building, etc. It should be very clear that it's open to the public and if you want to go use the wi fi and sit down and drink a cup of coffee and grab a snack from the from the snack machine, then you could do that. I would like to. I would like to see the team program much more. You know, I think my colleagues have really said it very well, so I won't say it, but I would like to see that that that team shift. And, you know, this is one of the places where the 21 bus literally stops outside. Right. And gets you straight to the airport. There is no reason why we are not just giving people a free pick up at the airport and drop off in front of the Holiday Inn. And if people decide that they don't want to do that and they want to pay for our TNC or something like that, if they want to drive that, just like driving their car, they will do that better. But I think that that we should be taking steps to not encourage it. I would like to you know, I think the appellant tonight raises a good point and a good point that he raises is is not I do not they will not find that there is a violation of sequel, because at the end of the day, the planning board actually helped them force them to meet the parking requirements with the with the the valet parking. But I do think the way in which we keep going through this, not just with this project, with other projects, it is the way we have written our parking requirements is not it's a 1970s mindset and here we are. And you know, I want to say post global warming, but in mid global warming mindset where we know that, we know that those requirements didn't make sense in the seventies and now they don't make sense today. But we keep trying to pretend they do. And then we get very almost every project comes to us. It's a variant. So let's let's change that and look at, you know, removing them or doing parking maximums or something like that. And I think that that's probably a pretty quick fix that we could look at while we come up with our new one. And then lastly. Yeah. That's it. I oh. Yeah, I'd like to, you know, I do think we continue to have conversation some hotels come forward with, uh, you know, with agreements for the workers and some don't. And I think that it's something that we can look at as we go forward. You know, we have to be careful in not putting our position ourselves in a position where we can require, you know, no city can require labor use and whatever else. But we do, too, that we had a couple of we did have one speaker who was not glowing about the project. And one of the things he talked about is where will these people be able to afford to live? And we want to make sure that when people are working in our city that they can afford to live in our city as well. Part of that is addressing the housing issue and the other side of that is addressing the the wage issue. And I would like to have some conversations around that because I don't think this'll be. Speaker 4: The last that I will see. So those are my thoughts. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Desai wants to speak before I do. If I can. Speaker 7: Just add one more point really quickly. You know, as a west ender who lives right next to Webster Street, literally, I always, you know, go to restaurants and eating places on Web's history. Kapok Nation's West Cafe Cafe Zola You know, I mean, those are my go to places. But I have to say, though, you know, in the few times that I, you know, venture on the other side of Grand Street to Park Street, you know, Park Street, north of Lincoln Avenue, especially, you know, the where the monkey restaurant is or whatever or where the you know, is. It's a whole bunch of great restaurants that that I just say to myself, I want to go to there when I go to there. So I know that when this hotel is made that the people who go there will feel the same way. So, you know, maybe my presentation tonight is a little dry, but. But I find this project exciting. Speaker 0: Okay, my turn. So I am supportive of the parking waiver. I think the planning board has done a good job on that. I in no particular order, just maybe the way the topics came up, I think it's great to get people to ride the bus. I ride the bus a lot. I think it's unrealistic to expect every guest who flies in from out of town to hop on the 21 bus. Sometimes you're jetlagged from, you know, flying across the country. Sometimes you're elderly or have some physical limitations. But I'm all for having a variety of options available. And I was just thinking of maybe a month ago, I tagged along with my husband on a business trip to St Petersburg, Florida. It's quite lovely. We were seeing a beautiful hotel right on the water. We took a Uber, Lyft or a taxi, I don't remember in because we didn't want to pay for parking in the hotel. And once we got there, St Peter's St Petersburg is a very walkable city. It also has a free shuttle. The free shuttle is paid for by all the businesses and the hotels in the downtown. It is not borne by the most recent hotel developer. I also feel like people, even Alameda Inns, don't realize just how widespread AC transit is. But I do like the idea and maybe will consider including it as a condition to make available day passes for AC transit because as was noted, there's nearby bus routes. But and then the other thing about rideshare, I know there's the argument that's been made. I will also say I love talking to my rideshare drivers and asking them about themselves. The majority are immigrants. They're here. This is a way oftentimes they you know, as soon as one spouse comes home, they go off to work or they go off and drive. And that's how they handle child care and that's how they handle establishing a foothold in in a new country. So I the model I get, there's some arguments to be made. I don't think we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on that one. But I think the Army, the shuttle, good idea. We're not going to have it right now today. But and then I I don't think the comparison with Webster and Park Street as far as will show us how many how much business the Hawthorne Suites has generated and their different streets. But what we are hearing and we heard from a lot of business owners is that you need the foot traffic. And I know from talking to many of you, you are barely making ends meet as far as, you know, paying your workers and your benefits and your insurance and all that. So if we can bring a hotel to the downtown to increase business visitors and getting people to stay in Alameda, I think that's great. The other thing is we did just have a really serious discussion about climate change and our need for more housing. But isn't the idea that we want to get people out of single occupancy vehicles? I don't want them all to just drive their. Their rental car in from the from the airport. But I do think there's a range of options. The bike share. Yeah, they had that in St Petersburg too. They also had this parking meters that we're going to do where you put in money to donate to homelessness. But that's off the subject right now. But anyway, just I think that we we definitely want to that that's why the parking waiver makes sense. And I think Councilmember Brody said it, if you keep saying, yeah, for every room, we're going to give you a parking space, it's not a disincentive. And as far as the housing on the upper levels, an inspired idea for a future project, but it is not fair to hold an applicant to a standard that was not set forth for him to meet. I mean, we don't keep adding on as we go. So but I will say that I'm not 100% on board because I also served on the city council. And no, I'm in the city council now. I served on the planning board when Vice Mayor Knox White was on and I was part of the group that drafted the the the North Park Suite north of Lincoln form based codes. And that is indeed the gateway to Alameda. And so I am not taken with the current design of this hotel and I want it to get better. And I don't care that it's already been back to the planning board because this, this design and I don't mean to be unkind, but I'll just be frank, I would describe it as nondescript. It could be located anywhere along a freeway. It might be better viewed at 65 miles an hour, but it doesn't seem appropriate to the historic gateway of our downtown. I will hasten to add that I'm not saying everything has to be Victorian or Brick or whatever. There's a very nice building going up even closer to the Park Street Bridge. It's Morris single's glass and steel, but it's really exciting quality architecture and so that that is what I am looking for. I do not find the streamlined moderne architectural style appropriate for the site or for the adjacent neighbors. And again, you don't have to look too far down Park Street, north of Lincoln. You've got the market place. You've got the the brick building that is the Walgreens that is there. And that's more what I'm looking for. But I consulted with our very capable city attorney, deputy city attorney, Selina chan, and she gave me some framework that I I'm going to just propose to the council. If any of you share my ideas, we can break out the different issues before us. And this is a de novo hearing so we can consider other things. We can take a vote to approve the parking waiver. And then I believe well, I'm not sure would that be the time to add whatever conditions people were suggesting to make it better? Mischin At I think somebody had said about easy transit day passes and. Bike shares. But. But anyway, just, you know, interested. Speaker 9: Mr. Thomas I'm just saying I was just whispering back there. I think in terms of process, I think the first issue to to decide as a group is, are you are you upholding the appeal and sending it back to the planning board? And if you are, then then get to the question of, for example, on the design as you were arguing or making the. Speaker 0: Case for the appeal doesn't go to the design right. Speaker 9: Of the appeal. So think of it this way. Project gets approved by planning board. Somebody appeals it. What they're saying is, don't let this project go forward. Stop it in its tracks. In this case, one of your options is, you know, and send it back. You might send it back for the reasons they argued in this case, parking waiver. Or you might send it back for other reasons, like design. At the end of the day, it's a de novo hearing. You get to decide whether this project is ready for prime time or not. So I think what I was hearing from just your position here is that you're not sending it back for the parking. You're sending it back for the the design, if that's the feeling of the board, I mean, the full council, what's good about articulating why you're sending it back? And so the planning board knows what they need to work on. Speaker 0: Absolutely. I've been in the planning board before. We appreciate that. Okay. So I would be in favor of sending it back for the design. Does anyone want to chime in their thoughts? Council Councilmember Vella. Speaker 8: So I'll I'll second that. I do have a question though about the the parking. My whole thing with the parking is I actually think there's too much parking and I would like to see I would I think there's too much parking. I think we over park our hotels, to be honest with you. Speaker 0: Well, that's your proposal. So, you know what could we I was thinking maybe we would handle one item at a time design and then go to parking and that's fine. Speaker 8: Okay, that's fine. But so if it goes back to planning board, could there be one community meeting or something like that or notification to the committee? I mean, we, we send out notices for other projects, even if there isn't a community meeting because I think when it comes to the subject of design, people have a lot of opinions. Speaker 0: That is true. Is that what you're thinking of as far as sending it to a community meeting? Speaker 8: But I know it could go back to the planning board, but just that there would be like a community meeting or that we would notice the community to let them know what specifically is going back to the planning board relative to design and input. Speaker 0: Mr. Thomas, you want to. Speaker 3: Come back up. Speaker 0: Please? Okay. Speaker 9: We if it goes back to the planning where we can certainly notice that the community that it's coming back to the planning board then is a study session. If if the council wishes that there be a separate community meeting before that, the planning board reviews it, that's also something that could be orchestrated. Speaker 0: I don't know that I'm saying that because I think, you know, we also heard in the course of a little bit different because it's talking about housing. But we we want to be fair to our applicants as well. And so if we do, we need a separate, separate public meeting on the design. I want to go back to planning, but. Speaker 8: I'm not saying that there needs to be a separate meeting. I'm saying that it might be helpful to have, if it is a work session, whatever, to let the community know, because I think there are strong feelings about design. Speaker 0: Yeah, absolutely. The community would be noticed. I mean, it's it's a public meeting and then. Speaker 8: But specifically about what's on the table. Speaker 0: Right. But that might also be your parking waiver. But hold that thought. Well, and then I would also say that if we are going to send it back, I agree that we need to send it back with some specific guidelines for what we're looking for. Vice Mayor, I sense you might want to say something. Speaker 2: It's not a flag that I mean, this is had at least two public hearings that were on the front page of the newspaper with drawings before the planning board did it. And I guess I'm a little I'm not going to support that is sending the design back because I think the design is fine. I mean, that's fine. It's that the personal tastes on that one. But but I want to be careful. We didn't have 60 speakers. We didn't have one person stand up and say they hate the design. So I just want to make sure that it's going to go back for design review that which is going back to the planning board and that we're not adding multiple more meetings to that to solve an issue that I don't think we've actually heard. Speaker 0: And I'll just say to that that I feel a responsibility as an elected official voting to approve a project that it is as high quality and is appropriate in appearance as I think believes belongs in our downtown. Gateway corridor. Councilmember Brody, did you have your hand up? Speaker 3: No, no. Speaker 0: Decide. Okay. Speaker 3: On something. Speaker 7: I'll just. On the issue of design. Like I said, having reviewed the staff reports and having reviewed the planning board report's documents, I am satisfied that the project has been properly vetted, which means that I am satisfied with the design that we have now. More importantly, I am satisfied that the design is consistent with north of Lincoln Avenue Park Street strategy that we put together. One of the reasons why we have reversed the project that's near the the bridge, because I think we had demonstrated that it was not consistent with the north of Lincoln Park Street Plan. I believe this project is consistent. So I am satisfied with the project. And I would I would encourage us not to return it for design review. More importantly, on the issue of parking, I am satisfied with the vetting that has gone through on the parking and the TDM strategy that was put in place. So for that reason, I will still continue to encourage us to deny the appeal. And yeah. Speaker 5: Councilman Brody. Okay. I mean, since you brought up design, I'll chime in. I mean, I kind of agree with the mayor's comments about. I mean, fitting in with that neighborhood. I mean, we have like the the Rialto Building, the marketplace, the Walgreens, I mean, the City Hall, which is not quite there, but, you know, that kind of feel as opposed to something that looks like this is not a bad thing. But, you know, it looks like an office building on the base there. Nothing wrong with office buildings on the base. But, you know, all those kind of look alike and they are totally in character for that neighborhood. But, you know, if it if it does come back and go back for that that reason, you know, that's kind of my thought on the design. Again, I mean, it's all a matter of taste. So, you know, I'm not going to be like insistent on it, but I mean, I would like to see something a little bit more fit, for lack of a better word, traditional brick that kind of fits in with, you know, with the surrounding buildings, not the Salvation Army. Speaker 0: But something I'll take it that now and there are findings, there are three design review findings we have to make in those last two that the proposed design is appropriate for the site compatible with adjacent or neighboring buildings or surroundings, and promotes harmonious transitions and scale and character in areas between different designated land uses and proposed design of the structure and exterior materials and landscaping are visually compatible with the surrounding. Development and design elements have been incorporated to ensure the compatibility of the structure with the character and uses of adjacent development. I think I'm hearing that there are three councilmembers in favor, so with that I'm going to make a motion that we will. I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought that the. Oh, so this is help me out with the mechanics. Can we, can we move to, to send it back to planning board on that to improve the design. Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 0: To be more compatible with those last two designs. Speaker 9: And in making that motion, if you don't if you, if you're satisfied with the planning board's action on the parking, then just say so. So they know what they what it what you want them to work on and improve. Speaker 0: And Mr. Chen. Speaker 6: Good evening. Celina Chen, on behalf of the city attorney's office, I think more specifically, if the city council can't make all three of the findings that are required for design review, we'd like you to specify which findings you can't make and for the reasons you've enunciated, in which case, you know, the motion would be to uphold the appeal for reasons independently reviewed by the City Council. These weren't raised in the appeal, but you do have because it's a de novo hearing. You do have the ability doesn't. Decide if it's a council's will that that one or more of the required findings has not been met. Speaker 0: And then with regard to the parking waiver, can we take a vote this evening or does it need to be a straw vote and, you know, of direction? Speaker 6: So the resolution that's in your packet tonight is in staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal and approve the project. We don't have a resolution prepared that reflects these these considerations that have been brought up this evening. So if that's. If the council if there's a motion in a second which there has been to move in the opposite direction of staff's recommendation, what we'd ask you to do is take a straw vote. And if that motion passes, you would direct staff to return at the next regularly scheduled meeting with a resolution that has the appropriate findings that reflect your discussion tonight. Speaker 0: And we'll do that both for design and then for parking waiver, because I think we have some I think we have some concurrence on the parking waiver issue. I think. Speaker 5: It's a. Speaker 0: Do we need to make them all in together? Speaker 6: I think you could do it together. You could. Speaker 0: And you know why I think we can't? Because I can hear three. I can count. And I've got three votes in support of the design review. But I. I don't have. But I don't think if the design review were in there, that two of my colleagues would join in. So can we bifurcate those? Speaker 6: So I think to uphold the appeal, you can base it on either not being able to make the design review findings or not being able to make the parking waiver findings. You know that you're finding that the planning board erred somewhere, made a mistake somewhere by making all these findings. Speaker 0: My sense is I think the council is going to say that they do uphold. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 0: Plan. I think it's just my sense that they're going to uphold the planning board's parking waiver. So. And I want to just hear from my colleague, Ms.. Vella. You're going to say something. Speaker 8: Earlier, the vice mayor had said that he thinks that there's a fix, pretty easy fix relative to just treating parking in general. Speaker 0: Do you? Speaker 8: Yeah. So I'm just wondering, rather than do a straw poll, I mean, I'm just saying, if it's going, I'm fine, you know, basically upholding the the parking waiver. I just think that in general, we need to look at that, what we're doing with parking. I think that that's something that we could perhaps separately agenda as at a future meeting and address since we all have input and ideas and perhaps since this is already going back to the planning board on a design review issue, that that there's going to be leeway there, further leeway that they could discuss relative to the design and what what they might be able to get on those tradeoffs. So if that's possible. Speaker 4: Yeah. What I what I would suggest is. Speaker 0: To read. Speaker 4: That if there's three votes to uphold the appeal on the basis of design, that you take that vote. And then separately, if you want the planning commission, while is reviewing the design aspect to look at the parking issue more generally, then take a vote on that to direct the Planning Commission to look at that in context of the. Of reviewing that design review, not in context, but as part of that review. I think that's what Council Member Valdes saying. Speaker 0: Right. But I mean, I also want to be clear that, yeah, that's bifurcating because then will vote on the parking waiver next. That's what you said, isn't it? Speaker 4: Well, essentially, your if I'm hearing correctly, that the parking waiver is not really at issue, but there seems to be a a feeling that the whole parking the parking issue more generally needs to be discussed at the Planning Commission level because there's concern about the way it is, about the way it's currently written. Speaker 0: Okay, Miss Chen. Speaker 6: And here's an idea. What I heard Councilmember Avila say is that the the parking waiver may not be an issue to the council. And I think what you could do in the motion is if the council is going this way, the council could approve the parking waiver because that's under your consideration right now. And first and also send, you know, say that you can't meet one or more of the design review findings and remand to the planning board for that purpose only. Speaker 0: It sounds like two votes to me. Speaker 5: Question. Speaker 0: Yes, sorry. Speaker 3: Maybe that's a. Speaker 5: Comment. I'm sorry. But I think there was also some concern raised by more than three of us on the transit component and, you know, the Ryan chair. So the thing is, I don't want to relitigate the parking so or I don't want the planning board to have to relitigate the parking when they reevaluate this. So if there's a wait staff that we could do that and perhaps I mean, assuming every there's a majority, please tell us. Speaker 0: So I'm if I'm hearing you correctly, so we could approve the parking waiver, but ask that it be augmented. Speaker 3: By. Speaker 0: Certain suggestions that were made by my colleagues. Speaker 9: And I think for me, look, this is I think we're making this all more complicated and needs to be. What I'm hearing is there's three of you who at least three of you who are wanting to go back to the planning board for to look at the design of the project. That's what I mean. You haven't voted yet, but that's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that a number of you are also interested in having the planning board relook at the ride share aspect, not the parking numbers, just the ride share aspect and how that's going to work. And you can just tell us that and will tell the planning board that. I'm also hearing that there's a majority of you were like, don't miss what you did on the parking and the waiver for the six of you spaces is fine. What what Salena is suggesting is if one of you were to make that vote and make that motion sort of in those terms, if if it's clear that there's three of you who support sending it back with those directions, you've closed the public hearing tonight. What we would like to do is then come back with a resolution that is written to reflect what you just said, hopefully will, or that you voted at your next meeting. So then we'll have it actually articulated in writing for you to approve on consent. In the meantime, we can start working with the planning board and tell them why it's coming back and specifically what the council wants. Speaker 3: To look at. Speaker 0: And again, I'm probably getting a little laggy here, but. Two different votes on that. Speaker 9: I think you can just reticulated it that way and you can make a motion. Speaker 0: But we have one motion window. Speaker 4: Why don't you do it? I mean, because I do hear there is sort of a difference of opinion. So why don't you do the design aspect? Get that out of the way. And then if there's a desire for the planning board to look at the ride share issue, then make a separate motion to do that. Speaker 7: Point of inquiry. Speaker 0: Council Member. Speaker 7: So if, if, if the majority of council are going to find that the design review is questionable and on that grounds, basically they're going to send it back, don't we have to have particular findings that constitute the parameters of what the problem is with design review? Speaker 4: Well, not necessarily. I mean, if you can't make the required findings that's know, it's sort of the end of the issue if there are particular aspects of it other than what's been articulated. Yeah, that would be helpful. But you don't necessarily have to articulate you don't have to be the architect on the the project. Speaker 3: Yeah, I. Speaker 0: Know that that is helpful. Yeah. I think some of the things that I mean, it's paying attention to the second and third required findings and your design review and again concern with the streamline return architecture and also maybe even the earth tone and colors that fin. I just think it needs another look to be more consistent with the second and third findings and your design review. So I do think we had a motion in a second to send the project back on design review. So all in favor. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Discretion. Speaker 2: Vice Mayor, I want to ask your question really quickly about the North Park Street plan. Has design guidelines a streamline moderne, one of those? Yes. So I just I would just like I am not going to be supportive about this, but I think it would be fair to the applicant if it's going to get sent back that that there be really specific, like what what do we want to see? Because we have a whole design guideline booklet that says, here's what you're allowed to do and we'll pull from this design language booklet. Oh, we're going to. You're good. And I think it's I honestly think it's a little if the problem is we don't like the way they've done the the streamlined model. And I think that's one thing. But I think it's a little problematic that we're going to send this back without really specific streamlined doesn't work on this site because of this reason . And so therefore we'd like to see one of the other things that we've already done all the work around to decide. Well. Speaker 0: So there is. Speaker 8: If I go away and I think it doesn't I think it doesn't work because of the size of the building relative to what's around it and the fact that they're it's a very abrupt design to kind of walk into. And that's what I've heard the mayor say, is essentially that there's other there's other design options that are nearby that might better kind of fit in terms of. Building into the fabric of the street. And part of the two other points, two and three, are specific to that in terms of streamlining and fitting in with the overall neighboring buildings. Speaker 0: And I will just tag on to say that there might be a streamlined moderne building for that site that would work better. I just find the design very stark and just that's what looks that's what I was calling nondescript and out of place. I think it's improvable. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: So with that, we've had a motion in a second. All in favor. Speaker 3: I, I. Speaker 0: Okay. The motion passes 3 to 2. Yeah. Three to that was a 3 to 2. Right. Okay. And now do I have the motion to approve the parking waiver and perhaps with some conditions for it. Speaker 2: Do we can I ask a question quickly? Do we have to the parking waivers approved? We don't have to approve. Speaker 4: Correct. I thought the issue was if there were. Speaker 3: Other. Speaker 4: Aspects such as the ride share or other parts of it that you want the commission, the board to look at, that would be the appropriate motion at this point. I think the waiver is is off the table. Speaker 2: Right. So so I move that we we as a part of the design review, a quick review, a review of the TDM program that relies less on tanks and more on public transit and and multi person shuttles as well as bike share, etc. In align with our climate goals which we declared an emergency today, be a part of that as well. Speaker 4: That would be an appropriate motion. Speaker 3: Would you bring. I'm sorry. Speaker 0: And so we have discussion. Mr. Brody. Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Would you be willing to, instead of saying just tenses, tenses and automobiles. Speaker 0: And I'm sorry, tenses. Speaker 3: Being. Speaker 2: Uber and Lyft. Speaker 0: What's it? Stanford tents. Speaker 3: British, generic Japanese. Okay. Speaker 5: And automobiles. Automobiles, I mean. Yes. Speaker 0: Wait. So what is it we're saying? Speaker 2: So. So we are asking them to re re. Speaker 3: Reassess. Speaker 2: This plan with less emphasis on transportation network companies and automobiles as a way to get to and more reliance on multiple person vehicles, public transit and bicycles in a line in compliance with our or in alignment with our climate goals. Speaker 0: So adding more more options than just the. Speaker 3: Couple that were presented. Speaker 2: They were just going to pay for you to get over it. We're not saying you can't take over. I personally I'm not saying you can't take Uber and Lyft to or from the airport. I'm saying we should not tell the hotel they are required to provide that. We should tell the hotel you can provide free transit. If somebody wants to take a ride. Speaker 4: They'll do it in Saint Petersburg. Speaker 5: Because I think we want to encourage people to come out the front door and walk down the street. Speaker 0: Right. But not from the Oakland airport. Speaker 3: Okay. Right. All right. And then we have the hours. I'm sorry. Speaker 5: Can I have just a quick point and then what it might be helpful to have? And this is not going to be part of the motion, but if staff could come back with some update on the shuttle, because I have been hearing questions on why we haven't had any update on that. Speaker 0: So let's try to take that. That's another. Yeah, that's another. Okay. Yeah. That. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. Speaker 3: Wait, wait. Sorry. Speaker 0: One more. Speaker 8: Thing. And also, when we're looking at the rideshares that there be a specific designated safe drop off space in the in the parking lot, that it's not that basically because otherwise what happens is the rideshare companies will drop off right in front and that's just not safe. We could have a very. Speaker 0: Good point and perhaps I think there's a way that the hotel can list its location actually on the side street, which is Buena Vista way to us, too, so that when it comes when it comes up in rideshare, that's where the rider goes rather than we don't really want to encourage double parking on Park Street, I would imagine. Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Speaker 0: Shall we try this again? Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 0: On these machines spin segment. All in favor, I. Speaker 3: All right. Well. Speaker 0: Opposed and opposed. Sorry. And when opposed? When opposed. Okay. But the motion passes for the. The resolution. Speaker 3: Coming back. Speaker 9: So that was a. Speaker 3: No, no, no, no. Speaker 0: But what you need from us is to, um. What do you. What you need from us is that to bring it to you, because the resolution has to come back to us with these items in it and. Speaker 4: Your vote on it. And that point, you know, to be on the consent calendar and you can vote, you know, I'm voting no on this on content calendar item three. Well. Speaker 3: I, I. Speaker 0: Think, Madam. Speaker 1: Clerk, I'm sorry we kind of pout about this a little earlier and we were thinking is since you've closed this public hearing, if you continue this item to that April 2nd date consent calendar, could we. Speaker 0: Not say that? Speaker 1: You didn't say you continue to thinking, sorry. I was technically looking for in the motion that that was what you meant. Okay. Which she said didn't hear it. Yes. So and okay, so you're continuing this public hearing to the resolution. Speaker 0: Do you want an amended motion or. No, no, no. Speaker 1: I just didn't hear it specifically stated in the motion was concerned. So my that just a no. Speaker 0: No. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, everyone, for who came out. Yes, sir. Sorry. Speaker 5: I wanted everything. So I. I understand your concern about, like, not having the the the project. Add requirements at the end, but I would like to see something come back to us that we can discuss that talks about the future of development on Park Street and Webster Street, that it does include the ground floor, retail and commercial and then residential. If my colleagues don't have a problem with that. Speaker 0: That's that's fine. Okay. All right, everybody, thank you all to the public speakers and my sturdy city staff who are still here. Hang on. We're coming to the question. Do you want a five minute break and a five minute break? Speaker 7: That's my theme for tonight. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Nice to see you, too. Mr. Adair, I think we're going to need you. Okay. Okay, everyone. We are resuming. Speaker 3: So we are going to. Speaker 0: We said that we're going to do six F next. Hello. And that is, uh, Adam Kirk. Did you want that? Sure. Speaker 1: It has adopted a resolution amending the fiscal year 2018 19 budget and adoption of resolution. Doing workforce changes. And then an adoption of a resolution amending the Alameda City Employees Association salary schedule.

Consent Calendar Item

Continued Public Hearing (of Item 6-E on the March 19, 2019 City Council Agenda) to Consider Adoption of Resolution Denying the Appeal and Remanding the Design Review for a 96-Room Hotel with 62 Parking Spaces at 1825 Park Street (PLN17-0538) for Further Consideration by the Planning Board (for Reasons Independently Considered by the City Council that Were Not Raised in the Appeal). (Planning, Building & Transportation 481005) [Please note: Public Comment was closed on March 19, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6636

Speaker 1: It has adopted a resolution amending the fiscal year 2018 19 budget and adoption of resolution. Doing workforce changes. And then an adoption of a resolution amending the Alameda City Employees Association salary schedule. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Hello. Sorry. Speaker 10: Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. I'm Eleanor Dyer, finance director. And tonight we are going to discuss mid-year budget update for current fiscal year 1819. I'm going to be trying to be fairly brief, but I am going to ask to possibly hold your questions in at the end of which section we'll be able to have. Speaker 0: We will do that. Speaker 10: Questions and answers. Well, okay, quickly, what we're trying to accomplish today. One, provide you with an update of a general fund financial projections through the end of this fiscal year, review, pension and OPEB funding status, as well as discussed mid-year budget amendments, requests from not just general fund programs but other programs outside of the general fund action . In the end we would like to take is, as you know, there are three resolutions that we would like to ask you to approve if you agree and moving on with some of the highlights. So definitely we will start with General Fund and give you a little more details on some revenues. The revenues are still coming in fairly strong and again, part of it is our property tax are doing well, but our transfer tax is doing just as well, not as good as last year. It's actually reduced a little bit. But for this year's budget, it's actually 13% of our total budget for general fund. Last year it was only 10%. So a word of caution. It's fairly volatile revenue, more of a one time type of revenue. So when we consider how we plan on budgeting for it going forward, we just need to be cautious. Mid-Year operating expenditures request. As I mentioned, it's for general fund and other programs as well, including capital. And we'll look at CalPERS and OPEB assumptions on the revenue side. Overall, our current year revenue are projected to be at about $96 million. That includes the increase for this midyear update of about $5 million. As I mentioned before, the big part. Almost half of this $5 million is actually coming from transfer tax. And again, those were two particular parcels or two transactions that happened that amounted for those two as just kind of an update I looked at at the time , we even still currently we only have revenues for transfer tax received from the county through January. And if we compare same time period of this fiscal year, July through January versus last fiscal year, July through January of transfer tax, generally it declined in the transactions that happened more frequently, which is under $20,000. So we did have these two transactions at the higher value and we're increasing the budget for it, but they are slowing down a little. The other revenues that are presented here, a third of our budget is property taxes and anything related to property taxes, which are motor vehicle license fees as well, is a pass through tax increment from redevelopment agency. Sales tax is budgeted. AD Exactly same flat amount. You will see, however, that we do an increase on a different type of sales tax that's been recently approved as a transaction and use tax in everything else generally stayed the same. To focus a little bit on the property tax. Annual citywide growth for 1819 was 8% in prior years. Traditionally it's been in the past four years before then. It's about 6% growth. Now, this is a reminder. This is city wide. This is not general fund. General fund specific. The increase was about 7% in RDA or successor agency related areas were actually up 11%. The property tax, as I mentioned earlier, includes three different components. Our regular property tax that we collect the residual tax increment that comes in from redevelopment and then VLF. So the increase for 1819 budget is really a component of those three and the total of those is $1.1 million that we're projecting to increase the budget for the revenue compared to the mid-cycle update when it happened in June 2018 and the council back then approved at. As I mentioned, sales tax we're projecting to be flat for this year at $10.4 million. We're not projecting to make any changes at midyear for that revenue source. This particular slide is not the sales tax that we normally talk about, which is 1%. Brad Burns This is a transaction and use tax that was approved by the voters in November of 2018 and it will be effective April one. It's a little bit challenging to estimate what the revenue would be from this particular tax. Reason is it's applied differently than a sales tax, even though it's collected. At the same time, the application is a little different. For example, 1% Bradley Burns is based on the origin of the transaction, where transaction and use tax is based on where the goods are received. A good example would be cars. You will go and buy the car in a different city, for example, and you will pay the transaction and use tax that is applicable to Alameda and the city will receive that particular tax will receive it. For example, if someone comes in from out of town and decides to buy some groceries at the store, they will regardless where they live, they will pay it here. Bradley Burns as well as transaction and use tax. We decided to be a little bit more conservative in increasing the budget for 1819 for the transaction use tax and only estimating $100,000 for the period from April to June, particularly because we expect some of the vendors are going to be taking a little bit of time to figure out that they still have to collect it, even though the state will reach out and make sure provide them with the letter saying this is the new tax. Traditionally, it's been a little bit, at least from the surveys that we've heard. Other organizations, it will take time to adjust. On top of that, we don't know because we have such a large base for business to business transactions, including our consultants. We could not necessarily precisely estimate if the transaction, the use tax will be collected on those transactions again, because it's applied a little bit different and we don't necessarily know for our sales tax producers business to business if that is going to be an origin or is an actual destination here in Alameda. On a transfer tax. We kind of talked about it a little bit already. Again, we're increasing it for the two transactions that happened. And you will see that originally mid-cycle year, a little under a year ago, we've adopted it at $10.3 million. We're projecting currently 12 and a half million dollars. It's still, as I mentioned before, generates significant revenue. 13% of our budget is transfer tax. However, again, word of caution, it is a volatile revenue and more of a one time type of revenue. Program revenue adjustments. These are more specific to each individual departments that are being collected through fees or specific activities that are done by the departments. There's a few. Fire department, mutual aid. Mutual aid is your car fires where we actually send out our staff to go and assist. We are expecting a department is expecting a little over half a million dollars in reimbursements. That includes staffing, services and supplies as well as usage of some of the vehicles that they had to take out of that amount. You will also see that it's actually is offset by the overtime that they had to use in order to perform that work. Additional revenue is ambulance related fees. We're seeing that the trend, how much we've been receiving is a little higher as well as ground emergency medical transportation that's going up. Total for those to 295,000. And the other net that's listed in the attachment that actually provides a detail, but it's really is reduction in the false alarm fees for fire, $85,000, an increase of approximately $85,000 for the fire prevention revenues. So the net effect is zero, but one is up and one is down on a police. Same thing. Mutual aid. We had to send the staff over to, I believe it was Sonoma where they assisted. I believe it was also on the news. Same thing. We're increasing the revenue the department already received full amount and we do know that dollar amount, which is $85,000. One of the bigger items that we're reducing is the animal license fees. Since fees primarily we've budgeted a full amount of 150. We're not expecting to collect really anything in 1819, partially due to the staffing issues that we've had to try and get somebody on board to actually start up the program. We are expecting at this point the department has hired somebody and the person has been working on this program for quite a while and expecting to send out to Billings and actually realize the revenues for next year. There were some other miscellaneous revenue changes in the fire and police department related to overtime reimbursements and some fingerprinting fees that for net in total were about $8,000 in departmental revenues between city clerk and finance are up about 18,000. This is just a quick summary. What we budgeted in June of 18 is $5.9 million with the current revenues updates for program revenue. Specifically, we're expecting about 6.7 million. This provides you this slide, provide your full recap of just the revenues. Again, property taxes going up, transfer tax transaction, use tax franchise fees. I did not have a separate slide on it, but really reality of that is our cable is trending down mainly. You probably know that a lot of people switching from, let's say, watching cable to Hulu and things like that, and therefore we're not getting as much in terms of franchise fees. It also includes a small portion for the PGE and the bankruptcy. We receive couple of sources of revenues from PGE in one as utility user tax, which is a true pass through. So we do not expect any changes in that because all they do is they collect and disburse it to us with a franchise fees. That's one of the sources that is potential that in a bankruptcy would be a claim and therefore we may not receive it. So we're reducing it just as an estimate of $50,000 for that transfer in. You're all aware we've built our EOC in the fire station three. We had an open house for those. The construction is complete and what we are seeing is that general fund put up some money to build those particular projects and we believe we're going to be about $241,000 that we've contributed more than needed, and therefore, it's going to be returned back to the general fund purposes. So that's revenue. So before going into the expenditures, are there any questions related to the revenues? Speaker 7: I had a question and the question. Speaker 4: I forgot. Speaker 3: It. So sorry. Okay. Let's see here. Speaker 7: We can all hold that. Speaker 10: That's fine. We'll come back to it if necessary. For the time being, I'm just going to move on. On to the expenditures. Oops. Speaker 7: Oh, yes. The question was, you had three components to the property taxes. You had the one called the ordinary. Then you had the. Speaker 10: And VLF. Speaker 7: The that the VLF the VLF is is that the trade that for the VLF that we gave up, we were getting property taxes back. Speaker 10: So that's correct. So sometime ago and I want to say in early 2000, the state took away motor vehicle fees from the cities, but instead they put them in as a property tax. So that now grows with the property tax. That increases and we collect that. Speaker 7: Okay. So it's not VLF property tax per se. It's it's property tax actual. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 7: But VLF is kind of the place we use to explain it. Okay, great. Speaker 10: Thank you. Any expenditures? As you will see, the biggest components is going to be public safety, police and fire. But what you also see in here was showing a trend of four years, 15, 16, 16, 17 is fairly flat. Reality is, 16, 17 actually had about $3 million in vacancy savings or labor savings. So if we were to put it in a budgetary terms, that number would have been higher. But in the actual terms, it ended up being somewhat flat compared to 15, 16, 17, 18 has a huge jump. Part of the jump is actually something I want to focus on since we put in quite a bit of money for one time type of expenditures which were capital, were put in money for jeans, 20 park license plate readers. Our ERP project, which is the financial system, so was money a one time money using a one time sources that we've invested in our infrastructure and other capital items? The big component you will see is also pension and OPEB reserve. What we call it overall from general fund would put up $16 million in 1718 and there was an accumulation of several years of money. With the Council's policy that was adopted, we'll put in 16 million in total between direct down payment with CalPERS, as well as putting some money into our OPEB and Pension 115 trust, which is in the revocable trust for those specific purposes. I can tell you that with direct paydown with CalPERS, it saved us in this current year, 18, 19, a little over $1,000,000 in our PERS payments. So thanks to the policy that Council adopted and putting up and making an effort to actually pay down those liabilities, we are realizing the savings already. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 10: So a little bit of an update on the CalPERS pension and funding status. You may have seen this last year somewhat similar. I actually included three years worth or ten years of CalPERS to show where the funding levels were and where we are now and shows both the safety plan as well as your miscellaneous plans. The safety plan is obviously the biggest issue for us for General Fund. It's all funded by General Fund. And as you can see, in 2007, we actually had in that particular plan 91% of assets to fund the full liability. In a five year period, it dropped to 73%. And then currently, this is the most current valuation we have from CalPERS, where at 59%, the state average is actually 65%, actually 69%. So we're 10% below what the overall state average for just the safety plans is. One of the reasons why is in our safety plans, we actually have more retirees than we actually have active participants. So that is driving our unfunded liability much lower compared to other agencies in California. Kate, miscellaneous plan, as you will see, ten years ago was actually overfunded. We were at 105% and then it dropped down to 89 and then 73. The average for miscellaneous plan across the entire state is 72%. So we actually within that area combined safety miscellaneous over just a five year period for unfunded liability, it actually has gone up $142 million. So if you compare the liability of 2012 versus 20 1417, it went up $142 million. Speaker 7: I'll have a question on that, but it's fine. Speaker 10: The general fund component and you will see on the slide we've presented is unfunded liability is 201 million. It's 100% on the safety and it's only a third of the miscellaneous. We have other programs that are outside of general fund, which also include sewer and AMP that contribute and pay for their employees. So what you see here outside of General Fund Box is city wide. General Fund specifically relates to just the general fund component. One of the things I just want to mention is and we've said that before, we did not makes any changes necessarily to our process. Part of the reason why we seen this unfunded liability is because CalPERS is changing their policies and changing their assumptions. We've always paid the bills that we paid. The CalPERS presented to us. They all been paid. But because of those changes, that's what's going on with our unfunded liabilities. And this is really for the services of employees that already happened in the past. Just as a reminder on pension and funding policy. So the policy is we have a couple of close plans. So anything unused, we froze it at 1516 balances. And anything that we do not actually spend on those pensioners goes into payment of pension. The other big component is the general fund. So 50% of available balance from a prior year. We always look at it in hindsight in a way in arrears above the 25% set reserve and was set by council. We actually committed to pension and OPEB. As you can see in prior years. We put in quite a lot of money in June of 2018. We've estimated what we thought we will be putting in for 1819 year, which was six point close to $8 million. Today we're actually presenting it to you and we're saying the actual number based on 1718 actuals is $7.9 billion. So we've done better. Partially, again, because we had either unspent services and supplies or vacancies savings that now drop to the bottom line and create a difference. In one of the attachments we presented, we are projecting our 1819 fund balance and based on that front balance, we believe it will be about three and a half million dollars that we may be able to contribute towards pension and OPEB in the 1920 year, but we won't actually appropriate those funds until the audit is completed for 1819 and then we will bring it back to council likely at mid-year again. Councilmember member previously have asked a number of times to include the account balances in both the pension and OPEB. And so this slide is actually presenting what has happened. It does not include current year appropriate current appropriation that we're asking you to approve. So as I've mentioned, direct pay down to CalPERS last year was $10.7 million. We've also contributed money into Pars, which is the one six and 115 trust. It has more money in total. The balance in that account, which includes employee contributions, is $15.6 million as of January 31st. That's the most current information we had available at the time of publishing. We have received some in the February statements and now at $16 million. Big drop was actually in October, November timeframe when the market went down. But that's the balances as of right now. And the total that the city contributed outside of the requirements by the mill use was $17 million, over $17 million. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 10: So this is a quick recap of general fund expenditures and what we're asking council to approve. I do see that there's an error on this slide for a grand total amount. So it's $5.5 million. It's actually $10 million. That's over ten you got. So economic development, we are requesting $88,000. This amount was actually a blue approved last year in March of 2018 to allocate for homeless type of programs. The staff finally got all the programs going and now ready for payment and contracts to encumber the funds. And so we have to reappropriate those monies. Fire department net total for all the expenditures, $476,000. Again, this includes the overtime of about $318,000 for all the mutual aid. And then there's also an additional money for services and supplies that they are experiencing increases in, which includes utilities for the city clerk. That's one big amount. We have an April 9th special election. The dollar amount from the county actually ranged all the way to $740,000 and the low part was 580. What kind of went with a mid level? So we'll see what the actual number is going to come in. You'll also see that we are putting in some capital projects contributions, about $1,000,000 for that and there are several projects there we are asking to fund there. Again, one time type of money and a large component is the pension OPEB reserve contribution of $7.9 million out of the general fund. With that, I am going to take questions on expenditures and pension OPEB. Speaker 0: As I know, Councilmember Vella had one to ask something. Speaker 8: It's going back to page 12 of the slide on the CalPERS pension funding status. Lina, I mean, obviously you made the comment about the safety split in terms of the retirees versus the actives. What's the impact of the pepper new hires on that? Speaker 10: Actually, as of right now in terms of safety overall. So and that includes police and fire together. We only have 25 participants that are pepper employees, so we only have 25 and we have 150 actives. So our active is 175, but we have 260 retirees. Speaker 0: Can you give those numbers again? You said we have 25 peprah. Speaker 10: Yes. That's the new tier. Yes. For safety, 150 classic. Speaker 3: One for the classic. Okay. Speaker 10: And 260 retirees. Speaker 7: So the 175 are supporting the 260? Speaker 10: That's correct. Speaker 8: And how many vacancies do we have? Speaker 7: Well, not really supporting. Speaker 10: I am actually not aware to say how many we have specifically in each department. So I, I do not know that information right off the top of my head. We do have some department heads here that maybe will be able to assist us with that and perhaps our H.R. director. But I'm not sure if we were per se prepared for that. Speaker 4: Thank you. Our customers is currently in fire. We have 11 sworn vacancies and one civilian vacancy. Speaker 1: And it can fluctuate from day to day. But I think employees were at about ten vacancies. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 10: One of the things I do want to mention, though, with the unfunded liability component for prior service, not the normal cost, which is for the current employees that are currently here working, but for the ones that are already retired. CalPERS got pretty smart over the years and so instead of actually charging it as a percentage of payroll that used to happen, they now provide a flat dollar amount. So it doesn't really matter now how many active positions we have filled. They just provide us with a dollar amount and say you need to pay it regardless. How many people are actually filling current positions? Speaker 8: But we also only have 150 classic employees remaining in that in that division. Speaker 10: Correct out of 175. Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai. Speaker 7: Councilmember Vela, are you finished? Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry, I. I didn't mean to cut you off where you. So, I mean. Speaker 8: I was just saying that we only have 150 classics kind of remaining. It's not out of 175 would be out of out of whatever plus the vacancies. Speaker 10: Well, no, the CalPERS actually looks at it as. Speaker 8: Only as. Speaker 10: It would have been two years ago, because the valuation is of 2017. CalPERS is always behind. Mm hmm. So they're actually looking from two years ago, and I'm not sure what the vacancy rate would have been back then. Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. So then Councilmember Desai. Speaker 7: So two points on this chart. I think the thing that really concerns me is and I heard your explanation as to what's driving the miscellaneous the increase in the read portion of the of the bar chart there, particularly for miscellaneous 2017. So I heard your explanation. I think it's it is still concerning because, you know, when you look at the miscellaneous retirement formula, I mean, is it still 2.0 at 55 or. Speaker 10: Something for the classic? Speaker 7: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 10: And then and with the pepper, I believe it's 2% and 62. Speaker 7: Yeah. So the retirement formula, I mean, from if you're, you know, penny pinching type of person, you like that retirement formula. So to see such a favorable retirement formula still resulting in an increase in the and the read portion of that bar chart, that's concerning. I mean, on the flip side, that's why I understand why, you know, the read portion on the public safety, you know, in my opinion, the retirement formula is a challenge. So that that certainly explains, you know, 50, 73% number of 59% number that you're seeing. But but it is concerning to see the red increasing edging up there on the miscellaneous. I hear that it's you know, we're at the we're at the state average or slightly above the state average of 72. It's still is because the underlying formula is from a penny pinchers perspective, the underlying retirement formula is favorable. The second point that I want to raise is, you know. Seems as though we now have a policy where some portion of the of the reserve above 25% is dedicated to OPEB and and retirement. I certainly want to find out a little bit more about that, because if I'm doing my math, you know, part of what's driving the reserve conceivably could be holding down expenses on on the vacancy side. Right. So to the extent that you have revenues coming in, but you're holding down expenses on the expenditure shy because you're not filling vacancies, well then that's going to. Wouldn't that drive up the reserves mathematically so. Speaker 10: It would I wouldn't consider them as as holding. To be perfectly honest, I think every single department is trying to hire aggressively. Yeah. Speaker 7: But but to the extent that they're not hiring. The reality is there is there is not actual dollars being expended. So that mathematically means that the reserve the revenue side is going to be more than the than the expenditure side. Speaker 10: And so it's a one time, one time revenue, if you choose, because it may not repeat itself again in the next year. Speaker 7: Year by year in, year out, certain departments I think have had unfilled positions and so, so on the expenditure. So I think you get where I'm getting at. And so if the formula then for what to do with what's, what is so-called excess reserve is then being. So there's a certain concerns there that I think we should probably talk about and certainly revisit the the math formula that results in how we divvy up the excess reserve beyond 25%. That's that's my sense, just so. Thanks. Speaker 0: Q I'm Counselor Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 2: Sorry, I honestly didn't follow. I understand that you're. Speaker 4: You have I. Speaker 2: Understand the math you're doing. I'm not understanding why it's an issue. Speaker 7: It's an issue because you have revenues coming in and oh. Speaker 0: I didn't know whether this was the time to ask questions of you, but you're asking of councilmember. Speaker 7: From what I from what I'm looking at. You have revenues coming in, which is all good. And you also have on the expenditure side, you have staff people for whom you are, you have expenses right in their actual expenses because we're cutting people checks and they're, you know, and which is good, obviously. And we also have other expenses, not non staff related expenses. But by the same token, on the expense side, we also have all these unfilled positions. So to the extent that you have unfilled positions, you're not expending as much as perhaps you should because because the fire department is down ten, police department is down ten. So the revenue side is here and the and the and the expenditure side is here and that results in a surplus. So then the formula of the surplus then is to say some portion of that surplus then goes circles back into as into the OPEB trust. But that surplus that some portion of that surplus would not be there had we been filling the positions. So that's, that's what I'm getting at. So it might be a readjustment to the formula. That's all I'm getting at. Speaker 0: So I'm going to chime in because I was one of the people that brought this suggestion to the council and they adopted it. And it came from attending a League of California Cities meeting that was focused on helping cities pay down their open and CalPERS liabilities. And one of the things we looked at and again, everything's relative. We've been in some strong years and so we looked at our budget and we had a lot of surplus. And I want to say it was my colleague Frank Materazzi who said, Why are we just sitting on all this surplus? But of course you want you want a safety net and you have to have your rainy day fund. But we established that 25% was a pretty good reserve. And then anything above that and sometimes it's that one time windfall from a, you know, a large property transaction. I get what you're saying, Councilmember Desai, that some of it's there because we didn't spend all the money allocated. But the point being we never can afford to lose track of the fact that we've got this growing, looming CalPERS and OPEB liability that we I, you know, feel we have a moral obligation to pay our retirees. As you know, we've contracted with them. But more seriously, when we come to the lean years and I just think we have to expect that we will hit a recession at some point there. So right now, as Ms.. Adair pointed out, we are saving on by paying down in advance our CalPERS balance. We have saved up to $1,000,000 a year. And I forget when you look over the seven. Over time. It's pretty impressive what we've saved. So that's good. But also the trust fund is important because the CalPERS money we pay directly to CalPERS, the trust fund we put in into that lockbox, but it's there when we might come to that time when our city can't afford to pay the bill that comes due for CalPERS. So we've got that rainy day fund. So I just think I think we sock it away. Well, first of all, it's a council policy because we voted on it. But I think we just keep socking away that percentage as much as we can. And and then, you know, we're prepared better prepared for that rainy day at the same time. And I've used this analogy, you can't dig out of a hole with a shovel, you know, on the one side while you're shoveling the dirt back in on the other, which just means we have to be extremely careful about whenever we're adding to that OPEB liability. But that was they just didn't see that. I'm just having money sitting in a reserve, about 25% made sense. Speaker 7: So let me try to frame this. Why I think it's important as fast as possible to on the expenditure side, to have the right expenditures, because if you don't have the right expenditures reflecting the amount of staffing that you need, what you're saying, what you're doing is you're shortchanging the current residents from the amount of services that they need. With regard to the staffing, in an effort to put the revenues of the reserves that's generated by by the two in an effort to put the reserves towards, you know, post-employment things which you understand, understandably you have to do, but we can't systematically keep under under serving the residents. So it's getting late right now. And I think we're just rate I'm just raising concepts and I think we will flush it. Speaker 0: Out again, immature in the form of it and miss it as well in just a minute. But I just want to say, I, I, I'm, I'm taken aback by the characterization of shortchanging our residents. Neither the police chief nor the fire chief is saying, I'm not going to hire this many more firefighters because I want a budget savings. And and we know that will go to pay down CalPERS debt year after year. They try to fill their open positions. And what happens I know, you know, talking to the police chief and fire that they've got folks coming through the academy, folks training, that's good. They come on board. But then there's these retirees that, you know, keep keep going out the door. So, Miss Vella, were you going to speak to that? Speaker 8: I would. So my questions were really just to understand, because she had said that we have more retirees than we do actives. And to just understand that breakdown, it wasn't to suggest that essentially we're keeping our expenditures artificially low by holding open vacancies. I don't think that that's happening at all. And I think when you look at the number of vacancies that we're talking about, it's a very small percentage and they're in two departments that have a very hard time recruiting because they also have to put people through academy and they have to do background checks. It's it's it's very involved process. So it's not like you can just hire somebody off the street tomorrow and say, okay, you're a police officer or firefighter now. But, but I did you know, I do kind of want to go back to the the chart that we talked about that's on the screen. Essentially, what you're saying is that the big spikes have come from the new discount rates that CalPERS have put out because they've gotten smart about how they're billing us, essentially. And they're they're billing us. It's that flat rate that they're giving us. And it has nothing to do with the vacancies or the number of held over positions or anything. Speaker 10: No. And partially because of they've changed their assumptions, as I mentioned, which includes discount rate. It includes how long people live. It includes all the losses that they, you know. Yes. Passing. Now, that happened in the last recession. With that, they now figure it out. Well, maybe they shouldn't invest in certain type of, you know, investments that they make. So as part of all of those changes and also over the time period that they end up amortizing their losses, their assumption changes in terms of demographics and things like that. They've shortened them partially because they're trying to be fiduciary responsible and saying in order for us to pay all of these retirees that are here, we really need to get that money, which makes an impact on all the cities or agencies that are participating with CalPERS. And in two, part of the change was because they weren't recovering as much as they were actuarially planning through percentage of payroll. They instead went in and said, okay, we know we need this number. For this year. Pay it. And that's a flat amount from starting about two years ago. And so the city has to pay a flat amount regardless how many employees you have. And unfortunately, that amount is going to continue to grow for us. Councilmember de Sok was not here last year when we did have a presentation of a bell curve when it goes to 2031, I believe, and it continues to rise. And at that point in time, we said even in a five year period between what we have paid, if we froze what we said we were going to pay CalPERS for general fund alone, an additional amount over a five year period was $35 million just within five years. So for us, that is the full wall of debt that we are trying to deal with and the cash flow that we have to assume and cover in. However, whether it's five years or 20 years in this case, in pay for those obligations and still maintain the ability for us to provide services. And so with the prepayment, we're trying to shave off that top of that bell curve so that we don't have to cut it as much in as many services. It may be possible, I don't know. I cannot tell you going 15, ten years from now what it's going to happen. But our goal is to not have that occurred. So we do have a budget and a part of it is to drive those pension costs down. Speaker 0: And I'm just going to make a little this is a commercial to my colleagues that I and this is something I've also gotten from League of California Cities. It's important for us as council members to monitor what CalPERS is doing. They have monthly board meetings in Sacramento and where, for instance, they will decide things like what mix of types of investments are in the CalPERS portfolio. They've traditionally been very conservative and maybe they need to move away a little from that. Obviously, none of us are CalPERS board members, but, you know, people can show up, they can speak. And then last year I attended this is the first time CalPERS did a session for elected officials at its annual conference. And I was down in the desert somewhere for that. But this year the conference is in Oakland. So when we find out when I'll find out what the date is, and I would just encourage folks to show up for the the session for elected officials, because we need a better understanding of all the different ways that other cities. We're doing a lot of good things, but you can always learn what other cities are doing too. So other questions, concerns, discussion. Councilmember Day So I just want. Speaker 7: To quickly say I didn't mean to say that the department heads are holding it down. I mean, that that's I mean, I don't know how to elegantly say it at this hour. So I just want to make sure to say that I'm not saying that. But what I am saying, though, the effect of that, though, is something to, you know, for us to really think about. It's not done on purpose. But but the effect of it is, is we have to review that. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: I'll just add my $0.02 because I was here when we adopted that policy. And I think the mayor's recollection is pretty accurate. I mean, we do get I think what Ms.. Bello was trying to mention is that, you know, as we go forward, we're going to have more employees on Peprah than we are on classics. So just by the nature of that and the lower benefits that and over time we are going to see that bell curve eventually drop. And I thought we were pretty prudent when we decided if we had an excessive amount of we use that word, excessive amount of reserves that rather than just sit there, we would actually put it to work. And by putting it to work, we've saved the million dollars a year in purrs. And we've also, you know, put it aside that when we do have a shortfall or we have an economic downturn, you know, we're able to say we can pull from this to pay some of our liability instead of cutting officers on the street or closing a fire station or any of those those options, which just are not very palatable to us. And, you know, one thing I have noticed, and I think this is the fifth year, you know, our revenues always seem to be underestimated and our expenses seem to be overestimated. So that's just a comment. Speaker 0: Well, it's called being conservative, which is the way I would want it. Speaker 5: But I prefer to be accurate. I mean, because I mean, I just prefer to be more accurate if we can get that way. Speaker 7: You know what? Speaker 0: You raise Mary Knox ways. Speaker 2: No, no, no, no. I have no more comments on the here. 50% of 24 over 25% reserve fire operations. The mutual aid. For some reason, I thought when we go and do work for the state that is reimbursed. Sorry. This is just new guy on the council. So this $318,000 of mutual aid overtime incurred during the car and campfires, isn't that something we get reimbursed for? These are changing that because we won't get reimbursed until next fiscal year or. Speaker 10: We are getting reimbursed hands were recognizing the revenue from mutual aid for fire. And if you look on the revenue side, we're bringing in over half a million dollars for fire specifically and $85,000 for PD in those reimbursements from the state. But not all of those reimbursements are all overtime. It includes other components to it, which includes the equipment that they take with them. Speaker 4: Correct. So part of that 550 figure is including the overtime of the personnel that we do send. It includes vehicle charges on the vehicles, our own city vehicles that we send, and also our city's overhead rate, which is on top of that. Speaker 2: Some reason I'm having a hard time finding the 550 in the staff report. Sorry. Speaker 4: Okay. 12:30 a.m.. Okay. Speaker 10: The first exhibit, if you want to just look at the numbers, the very first exhibit for the fire department. Under program revenues, you will see 550,000 and corresponding expense increase of 318. 318 is your overtime side of it. It's just i think it's prudent to actually give the department their share of overtime that they've incurred. Otherwise it will put them over budget, which is not fair because they actually are bringing in the revenue. Speaker 2: That makes complete sense. Thank you. Speaker 10: Just as a quick comment on CalPERS, I do want to mention that in 1718 there were 195 agencies. Obviously, Alameda was one of them that made additional contributions to CalPERS above and beyond. What were the normal required contributions for the year? And the total of those amounts across the entire state were $538 million that was contributed just to pay down those liabilities. This is a problem, obviously, across the state. It's not just Alameda, but those are the numbers that are coming out directly from CalPERS. Speaker 0: Um, I, I think I've said I need to say about CalPERS, just that I really do want to urge colleagues to, you know, let's look at our budget through very fiscally conservative eyes, because I just feel that we're going to run into a recession not that far away and we've already got liability. That's that's unfunded. But I want to hearken back to something we talked about earlier. It was probably yesterday now, but on the the climate emergency. And so one of the things that this came up this Saturday, last Saturday, when we did our council priority setting workshop, is that I really want to see every vehicle that the city looks at purchasing for our fleet. I know there's a policy, but I want to see every decision looked at that, you know, should this be an EV. And I, I think that we just make assumptions that we have to replace, like with like but for instance, at the last council meeting, we approved a new position for fire and we approved $75,000 for a vehicle. Speaker 3: For a. Speaker 0: Deputy fire or the fire marshal or a deputy division chief who's going to have the fire marshal. So that's not a fire truck. It's a vehicle that this inspector or the head of this division will get around in. I don't see any reason that that couldn't be an EV because we can't declare climate emergencies on the one hand and then keep buying fossil fuel vehicles without even considering alternatives. Something for council to consider. Other comments? Questions. Otherwise. Do we want to entertain some resolutions? I'm sorry. Speaker 5: Were you finished? Speaker 3: Not yet. I was going. Speaker 0: To say, you just stopped. You stopped to take our questions. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 10: On that section. So this is a quick recap of the general fund. What you see in front of you in terms of adopted budget, and this is for people that prefer numbers over graphs. The graph is going to come next. We have an adopted budget adopted in June of 2018 and the operations were about $8,000. Pretty much breakeven for the year. We did make some adjustment during the year. So between July and now, council made approvals for several items, which is about $2.9 million. And then you see the mid-year column, which is what we're asking you to approve today. With all of those together, mid-year projection is what we are actually expecting through the end of the fiscal year. One of the things we try to do is pull out the one time unusual events. One of them is obviously the transfer tax from the just the two properties that were mentioned as well as pension and OPEB reserve. Those are using existing money from prior year. In this particular case, $7.9 million. And I really didn't want to show it as net impact for the year with just that amount because it's really it's not a true operations for the general fund. And so with the two operations right now, excluding that particular one time, we are under by $174,000. However, we have tried to look at to add vacancies for general fund departments, and we believe that by the end of the year we will have sufficient vacancies and maybe even more to even cover that particular deficit at this point. Speaker 0: That's a good thing, right? Speaker 7: Councilmember Desai So just to go back, the $7.9 million is a one time amount of that results via the the formula that was agreed upon. Speaker 3: That's correct. Okay. Speaker 4: All right. Each. Speaker 10: So here's a graphic presentation of exactly what you just seen on prior slide. It shows your revenues, including one time revenues and outside of one time revenues. Same thing with expenditures. And what we're seeing is obviously we're breaking at 174, 174,000. Again, we expect to make up that number by the end of the year with the vacancy savings. Speaker 0: That's why I say that. Speaker 2: It's a graph that uses colors I can't see. Oh, it's fine. I can interpret it, but. Speaker 3: Huh. Speaker 2: For. For future graphs. The more you can use primary colors, the better. They're ugly. And. Speaker 0: But red and green are primary colors. Speaker 2: Okay, but are they? I think I guess it depends on the red in the green, but the yellow, blue, red. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay, we'll look into that. Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 10: Are there any questions on the general fund projection for the year? Speaker 0: No hearing, then move on. Speaker 10: Okay. So at this point, we're going to talk about other programs. So outside of the general fund and they're more concise and to go over those rent stabilization well familiar program. Originally, when we put together a budget for it, as you know, we do a two year budget. The expectation was that we would be collecting $120 fee as we did in year one. However, the council adopted in the year or two, which is 1819, to collect it at $106, the revenue was never adjusted and we're just adjusting it now, but it lowers it by over half a million dollars. Speaker 0: And the question was but was wasn't that based on a year's worth of data that. Speaker 3: That. Speaker 0: School showed because we needed to make the the fee commensurate with the cost of administering the program? Speaker 10: That's correct. But our budgeted revenues were still showing higher than we would have brought in fiscal lease revenues. Originally, department did not expect or did not expect any lease revenues. This is the area of Alameda landing. And the expectation was that we were going to turn all of the buildings that are out there and warehouses over to a developer. That did not happen. We're close to that, but we're still receiving some of the lease revenues. And so the department is showing a budget that that's coming in on. Transportation Services received the grant. So they are budgeting for the grand community development. This is your building planning permits. They're experiencing higher revenue so far and so they're increasing those revenues. And then we have several other funds where we actually asking for expenditures for the Tidelands, for internal boat launch. There are some portions of that. Projects are within Tidelands areas and therefore some of the improvements that are making, we're asking Tidelands to pay for it. Park Street Corridor had that particular project had a little bit of a shortfall. And so we asking general fund sorry, not general fund gas tax to contribute to to cover that shortfall. We're showing the closed pension funds. We originally projected a certain amount and budgeted that will be left over. We actually experiencing a little bit more money because we unfortunately have some pensioners that are passing away. And so we appropriating those funds and again those are going towards pensions. We have a few internal service fund programs that we are asking for, changes in expenditures in equipment replacement, fire battalion chief vehicle that was unfortunately in the accident and we have to replace that. The second item for police taser maintenance contract in fiscal year 15, we actually moved the money to pay for it, but we omitted the appropriation for that particular contract. And so we're just correcting an error with the employment insurance where unemployment insurance we're seeing a rise in the claim payments and with h.r. Departments request because of those claims going up, we asking to increase the budget for that cable franchise equipment replacement. Again, we're dropping franchise revenue and this is specific to the 2006. It's called abbreviated as difficult act where we receive a portion of franchise fee specifically for an equipment. And as I mentioned earlier, the cable franchise revenues dropping on the general fund side. It's also dropping on the franchise side here for that particular replacement. And then we need to appropriate additional moneys for chamber timing system installation, which you all use here fairly regularly on a general liability. The Department of Risk Management is experiencing or been told that they will not receive an equity distribution for the general liability component of 60,000. Speaker 0: Can you explain what that means? Speaker 10: The way it was explained to me actually was during the time of the recession, the risk pool that the city's participating in for general liability. What they did is when we had to pay for our participation in their and what they did is they if they had a lot of equity, they distributed it to the cities to kind of assist with the payments to to pay for the insurance. This is the first year that they are looking at their own reserves and saying that they would like to rebuild some of their reserve, some of their equity, and therefore they are not doing that distribution. Speaker 4: They use. Speaker 0: Microphones. Speaker 4: The city manager, an actuary to assist them in all of these insurance pools. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 10: The next part is pension stabilization fund. This is where we actually make the disbursement to either CalPERS or pay the one through the 115 trust, which is with pass total would be $7.7 million. So all the reason why it's different is in here, it's actually combines everything together, general fund as well as are closed pension funds. And we're setting aside for OPEB payment half a million dollars. We have several projects. As I mentioned earlier, you've seen the some of the funds that are contributing towards projects. General Fund. Tidelands. Gas tax. So this particular slide actually shows where the monies will be spend in the internal boat launch facility specifically. We actually received a grant of almost $1.5 million. And so we're recognizing the grant as well as appropriating the money. Same thing for the climate change. It's a grant from Caltrans where recognizing the grant and also establishing the expenditures for that. And then we have two projects that are being funded by the general fund money, Shoreline Park, pathway, lighting replacement. Those are the projects that are ready to go. But we're short on funding and this is a funding that might be available at one time, money for one time type of expense. Same thing with the Alameda Point Gym for the modular restrooms. Speaker 0: Quick question on the might of the restroom. At the gym, it sounds like a great idea is just the well, it's a capital fund. So is that just for supplying the facility? Because who takes care of the maintenance and repair and that sort of thing is that. Captain? I see Ms. Wooldridge coming up. Speaker 3: To help people. Speaker 6: That's just the capital cost and all maintenance would continue to be would be under recreation and parks department. Speaker 0: Okay. So they because they've been maintaining the restrooms in the gym up until now, but they're not going to be used because they're not ADA accessible. Speaker 6: And all that. These are in addition to. These are because to supplement their they're there to supplement. We have tournaments at the gym that are sometimes upwards of a thousand people a day. And the groups have to rent portable, portable toilets. So you have a thousand people using a whole bank of portable toilets almost every weekend during the busy season, throughout the the the fall through spring for the most part. So this has been an ongoing need and this was a a solution rather than taking on the expense of trying to renovate within the building and everything that that opens up. Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. Thanks. Good explanation. Thank you. Speaker 5: Are we still talking about expenditures? Speaker 3: Whatever you like. Speaker 0: Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: Okay. Sorry. I mean, there's one thing that's come up recently that we don't have a line item for. And I mean, it'd be great if we can do it tonight. If we had to do it at another meeting, that would be great. And that's making sure that the support that our public works and our safety people provide at parades and festivals. So I know there was a meeting yesterday with the police chief, among others, and I think that was one of his suggestions. So I'd like to see if there's a way we can do that. Speaker 0: Vice spirit knocks. Knox. Speaker 2: I guess it's a question here is I know the recommendation is to approve these changes if we have other things we'd like to talk about. And I'm thinking we have an item after this that's talking about installing something in the city that the city probably should. Is there a place? What is the process for somebody who's never come through this for me to. Or for somebody here to say, hey, you know what? Breast breastfeeding stations are $10,000 a pop. We have none anywhere in the city, but we have probably at least five or six buildings that need them, fire stations, etc.. Speaker 10: Well, usually you would as a group make those suggestions. And if we need to incorporate them, for example, into our budget because we're so close to the two year budget at this point, we can do that. You can also request the staff to bring it as a separate item sooner, and that would be part of analysis in preparing a staff report. And if it's an adjustment that's needed for the budget. It's going to be a just a resolution that's going to be part of that particular report. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Speaker 10: Are there any other questions before we move on? Not right now. Okay. So the next slide is actually going to. Speaker 0: Be I'm sorry, I can't remember, Bill. Sorry. Speaker 8: I do hope to notes. Okay. I do have one question, which is the pool which we had talked about at previous meetings and gave directions on specifically for, um, just to cover whatever maintenance we need before May 31st. Is that noted in here or is that going to be a separate change that we do later on in the next budget? Speaker 10: This has not been included in the mid-year budget at this point or by the time we have this report completed. There was no specific dollar amount and no specifics to that particular item. So it wasn't included. It would be depends on what the wish, I guess, of council and what the available information is either would be brought in as a separate item or will be included likely because it has to happen before June 30th would be a separate item that would be brought up. I would defer to the Parks director to let me know if that's true. Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah. The cost is so unknown at this point that that that was the primary driver of we did why we didn't include it. And so that would come back as its own separate item for an allocation. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thanks. Speaker 0: I was married, actually. Oh, no, you were just me. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Replacement. Speaker 10: This actually concludes the a non general fund programs information. And I'm going to ask our retired director to come in and actually talk about workforce changes. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Good morning. Speaker 1: Good morning, Mayor. City council members Nancy Brownstein or H.R. director? I'm going to. Speaker 6: Very briefly. Speaker 1: Talk about some of the workforce changes that are being recommended as part of this mid-year update. We are requesting two new positions, a requesting to add a permit. Technician three Right now at the permit counter, there's such a high volume that we're pulling planners to provide that support, and we'd like to hire somebody on a limited, short term basis and be able to put the planners back to planning. And then we've also asking to add a senior management analyst in finance. This position would be a non accounting analytical position that would do budgeting, budget monitoring, cost allocation policies and special projects that need to get done in that department. Speaker 0: Question Ms.. Oh, I'm sorry. QUESTION For you, Mr. Bernstein or maybe for Mr. Thomas. Why is the permit technician position just a two year term? Speaker 3: You can answer it. Speaker 4: Permits are up. Yeah. Speaker 9: So we're very busy the counter. But since we're completely fee based, you know, we were just as you were saying earlier, a little bit worried about a possible recession coming along. So that's why we were thinking, let's just do it as a two year term. See where we're at. If if permit fees are still way up. We'll keep going. If. Yeah. And, you know, it's just we didn't want to get. That's that's the reason. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Question is there. Speaker 8: And also for this position, Andrew, we you know, one of the things that we've been talking about has been the amount of design review and kind of plan checking and plan review that goes on there. This position is is specifically to staff the counter. But are we doing an accounting of how much time we're kind of spending on on the other stuff? And do we know? Speaker 9: Yeah, let me explain this. I think we're on the same page. We are actually. Although permit fees are up and permanent activity is up, the number of design reviews, which is our sort of bread and butter, the number is actually going down. Two years ago, three years ago, we would average about 250 design reviews a year. But we've been instituting streamlining procedures, design review exemptions so that we don't have as many of those where we can just basically check at the counter. Okay, you're exempt. Go get a building permit. You don't have to go to design review. So that's that's good. But you would what it has done is increase the workload at the counter. So those people are checking and instead of putting in a pile saying a planner will get to it in a couple of weeks, they're just doing the time right there to check to see if they qualify for that exemption. So it's less work, less money for the applicants, a little bit more work for counter staff. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. We're also recommending two position upgrades an engineering office assistant in Public Works Executive Assistant. We had a study done and the work needed and the work being performed is that of an executive assistant. And then also to upgrade a transportation engineer position to supervising civil engineer due to the complexity of the transportation projects. And then we had some equity adjustments. We are having difficulty recruiting in our code enforcement building inspection areas. So we've done a salary survey. One of the things we'd like to do is add a new classification of combination building. Inspector one Retitle Our Current Combination Building Inspector Combination Building Inspector two. Speaker 6: Gives us a. Speaker 1: Little bit a couple of different ways to recruit for that position. And then we wanted to do equity for the other classifications within those positions. And if there are any questions otherwise, I'll turn it back over to Alina, dear. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 0: Questions, I guess, Mary. Not quite. Speaker 3: First. Speaker 2: This is probably a question for Liam on the public works. Transportation Engineer. Two Supervising civil engineer. Is that going to change the focus of what that person does and who gets hired in that position? Because we already have lots of conversations around, you know, just kind of. Modern transportation engineering practice. I'm just very sorry. It's getting really late. My words are escaping me worse than ever. Yeah, right. Yeah. Are we concerned that that's going to change the focus of this position at a time when we have more transportation jobs going forward? Speaker 4: Well, only that it will improve our ability to deliver in the transportation arena. So the supervising civil position will be a licensed transportation engineer. What it is, is a higher level position who can manage more complex projects and people in a way that benefits element as transportation system. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: No other questions. I'll turn it back over to Alina. Speaker 10: This were one of the last slides that we had. And so as a wrap up for us, one, do you have any questions now that what you've heard everything? And then with that, we're going to ask we ask you to take the actions. As we've mentioned before, there are three resolutions in front of you budget resolution, workforce changes, as well as adjustment to the salary schedule. Speaker 0: Okay, Counsel. Councilman Brody. Speaker 5: Okay, I'll go first. I'll try to be quick, though. Thank you for all of all of your hard work. You and all of the department heads in putting this together. I know you guys are very prudent with your ask, so that's much appreciated. Just a couple of quick points. I mean, I am concerned and I think there's a difference between accuracy and conservative projection. I am concerned that, you know, for five years now, our revenues have come in significantly higher than estimated and our expenses have come in lower. And, you know, I somehow get the feeling there's like a forced. The word escapes me. Austerity. Thank you. That I mean, there are some positives to that. But, you know, I think it causes undue stress in the departments and undue stress in the community. One thing I did want to point out, I saw that the slide where we talked about the assessed value and I know you can attribute some of the increase in the assessed value to the market, but I think a lot of it can be attributed to the hard work of the people here in Alameda. And I'm thinking, you know, among others, even our police or fire, our public works in maintaining our core services and making Alameda an attractive place to live and making sure that people are willing to pay them the property values and the cost that it is to live here. So as we move forward, I want to make sure that, you know, we don't cut off our nose to spite our faces and, you know. Trying to cut those core services in a way that actually hurts us because it ends up decreasing our property values. So I hopefully, as we do future budgets, will keep that in mind because I think it's it's hypercritical to maintain our quality of life and our total assessed value to to maintain those services. I am prepared to move forward with all of these items. I would like to see something for this year for the the parade and the festivals. And I would like to see that sooner rather than later, one for this year and also to be considered in the next budget. And I would defer to the appropriate department heads, whether it's whether it's the police chief or public works or Sara Henry to figure out what the appropriate amount is. But I think that is something that I think our community needs to know is going to be taken care of and that our long term that our department heads , such as police or public works, know that they're not going to have to find ways to raise that or take that money in the future out of existing budgets. So that's my comment. Speaker 6: I can just briefly address that. As I've been looking at the budget for the July 4th parade, we've identified available funds in the Non-Departmental contingency fund for this year's parade. So we don't need it as an additional ask on the budget. And we've already put in the request for as part of the overall request for the next two year budget cycle. And so we are looking towards both of those. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: The comments. I'm okay, Mossville. Speaker 8: I know one of the things that we do that we kind of do differently and I have noticed this the past couple of years is that the mid-year budget not to put more work on Melina's plate or to push it up earlier, but the mid-year budget comes several months into the year. And I think, you know, it's a little bit confusing. I mean, obviously, we need the time to to work back and everything. But I think one of the things that we as a council and that, you know, I love feedback from staff on moving forward is, you know, is it possible to me to get this report kind of done a little bit soon, you know, earlier in the year somewhere January, February, something like that, with still giving time to to give to give feedback and everything. Because I think I feel like we end up doing the mid-year budget and then like a couple of months later we're, we're back in the, in the budget cycle and I feel like it just ends up getting really compacted. So that's again, this is more just I would like to have that conversation about, you know, what that would look like and how that might impact things relative to, you know, hearing from department heads on that. And I'm ready to support the budget requests as as they've been listed. I do think that we need to kind of. Figure out the pool costs just to keep the hood open and functioning. I know that that's something that Amy is going to be diligently working on, as well as a number of other issues. But that will be coming up in in future budgets. And I think that there's you know, I think our policy that we put in place regarding the spend down or the pay down, I should say, of PERS and OPEB has been serving us well. I think there's many things that are outside of our control, but that's not one of them. And I think that we continue to to do, you know, to to help our future by continuing to do that. I would I would like to know kind of where we've we have overestimated in terms or underestimated our revenues. Um, if that's, you know, what kind of, what the trend has been where we have had those. Because I feel like every time we come here we hear that it's a, it's a one time savings, not so much on the staff vacancy side, but on maybe on the on the T on the transfer taxes and some of these other things where we've we've seen kind of a continued under projection of that. I'm not saying that we're purposefully doing that, but I would like to understand kind of where we're where we're missing the mark on those a little more. Speaker 0: For the comments. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 0: Councilmember Jason. Speaker 7: I'm going to support any resolutions with regard to workforce changes. I'm going to abstain on the amendments to the budgets. For the reasons that we discussed, but also for two other reasons. One is, you know, it's just it's difficult for me to vote for a budget that's coming in negative. I recognize that what's driving the negative is that one time I recognize that. But I'm also going to abstain because, frankly, this is a two year, 24 month budget. And really I'm having only involved in the final two months. So for me it's like, well, well, it wasn't my budget, so I'm going to abstain on the budget and look forward, you know, when we start the next two year budget cycle. Speaker 0: A couple thoughts. I, I actually appreciate the conservative projections that we've seen, both in revenue and expenditure. Ms.. Adair came to us from the city of Stockton. And, well, you know, all of us have been on the council. It's been in good times and in revenues have been coming in strong. But really, if you look back a decade, Mr. Thomas certainly remembers cutting the planning staff in half. And so none of us has a crystal ball. And we one of the things we just shouldn't, in my opinion, be so anxious to do is spend, you know, whatever excess revenues we have. I would rather have conservative estimates. I think we're just better served as a city. And again, the vacancies in public safety are not because the city council has said we're not going to fund those positions. I'm saying what belabor that. So one thing that strikes me every time I'm in the clerk's office, I think the city clerk's office is to be commended for the passport services they're doing. We have such happy customers. I run into them in the halls and these adorable families and things to me. But oh my goodness, the the environment in which you have to, you know, do the photos and everything. I have no idea what it would take to make that space better. But if there is anything I mean, and again, this is increasing revenue for our city and it's a nice service to to the public. So I would just encourage the clerk's office to think about what what might be needed, might be possible to make that space better. Ms.. Speaker 1: Weisinger We've annexed the chambers as our second area office and conduct many of the best works in here. Long as there is no other business going. Speaker 3: On, engage them. Speaker 0: Okay, well, maybe, you know, in the future downstream, because I do appreciate. Speaker 3: That that works. So. Speaker 0: Okay, are we ready to. Vice Mayor, do you have a comment? Motion. Whatever. Speaker 2: I'm just I'm just going to say that next time you'll know if you're going to ask for stuff in the budget, we're going to put you after an appeal. Speaker 3: You know. Speaker 0: Thank you. Along those lines, I really want to apologize to staff, but I just didn't see how I could make 60 members of the public wait. Speaker 2: In all seriousness, I want to say thank you for it, for your hard work. And I'm sorry that you're also here at 110 in the morning. Speaker 3: I am. Speaker 2: We signed up for this a little bit more than made. And with that, I with I would like to I would like to move approval of actually if I don't know if we can do this. But of all three recommended recommended actions, second is. Speaker 0: Well, because Councilmember Desai. That's all right. It's okay. It's okay. Okay. Can we do that? Is okay, especially at this hour. Speaker 3: Let's do anything I can. Speaker 0: Okay. We had a motion. We had a second. All in favor. We are approving the three resolutions. Speaker 3: Three rate I. Speaker 0: And opposed abstain. Okay. So we have four affirmative and one abstention. The motion, the resolutions passed. Thank you all. Go home. Speaker 3: Drive safely. Speaker 0: All right. But we're not done. Council, don't go anywhere. We are moving. Speaker 3: On to seven. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I believe, right? Speaker 3: Yeah, you are. Speaker 0: Right. Thank you. Okay. City Manager Communications for me. That says it all. Speaker 3: To the. Speaker 4: Mayor. Members of council. I just want to take my 30 seconds and thank each of you and the previous council and really all of the employees for their kind reception, their work, their work with me to help you solve the problems in this interim period of time.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget; and Adoption of Resolution Approving Workforce Changes to the FY 2018-19 Mid-Year Budget Update in the Planning, Building and Transportation Department, Finance Department and Public Works Department; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Combination Building Inspector I, Retitling the Combination Building Inspector Classification to Combination Building Inspector II, and Providing for Equity Adjustments to Increase the Base Pay of the Classifications of Senior Combination Building Inspector, Senior Building Code Compliance Officer, Senior Fire Code Compliance Officer, Combination Building Inspector II, and Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer Effective March 31, 2019. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6645

Speaker 1: Considered directing the city manager to create breastfeeding locations, baby changing stations and gender neutral bathrooms. The Senate was placed on the agenda at the request of councilmembers Bella and Odie. Speaker 3: Take it away. Speaker 8: So, you know, I've kind of talked about this a little bit, but essentially, you know, I'm a little embarrassed that it took me being pregnant to kind of start noticing these things, even though I've been babysitting my nieces and stuff. And I think during my swearing in, we had a bit of a trouble changing her because of the, the, the lack of changing stations. But I, I part of why I put this on is, and I do want to correct one thing. There's a little bit of misinformation out there that we don't have anywhere in City Hall to breastfeed or for nursing mothers to pump. And, you know, essentially before Nancy got here, some folks were using the the loft up there as a space, obviously not during council meetings, but staff were using that as as their area to to pump. Nancy has opened up the and offered the conference room. Speaker 0: This is Nancy Bronstein, our h.r. Speaker 3: Director. Speaker 8: And has has made that available. That said, in in some of our buildings, we don't have those areas. And in a way, our conference room isn't really the most ideal place. And so part of this is, is, you know, I looked at some other options. There are options out there that are available that don't require, you know, massive construction or change to the building structure on their pods that you can get. They range in in different prices. And so I would I just want to make sure that I would like to as to give direction not just for me, but I think also just for all of the staff that we have that are impacted really both here, City Hall, West and other city buildings to go ahead and look at at making those changes or acquiring that so that we can we can make our city buildings accessible and safe for nursing mothers. Councilmember Ody has also joined me. The other things and I've talked with Liam Garland, our director of Public Works, about the changing stations and the signage and he said that both of those would be kind of minimal costs. We have those items and they're they're fairly easy fixes. It's just a matter of kind of going through and making sure that we can get them actually installed. And so I would also like us to give that direction to make sure that all of our bathrooms, both here, City Hall West, especially because we have members of the public coming, are accessible. And I think that that's both for the changing stations and the gender neutral bathrooms that we really have made our our buildings, our civic buildings safe and accessible for members of the public and welcoming. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Anything from you? Speaker 5: I'll just second everything that Malia said and glad that she was able to talk about it this late, this late hour. I just think it's important that, you know, we have signs back there and all across town that say everyone belongs here. And, you know, just like the mayor mentioned with our fleet. I think it's important to put our money where our mouth is and walk the walk and not just talk the talk. And, you know, there are people that don't feel comfortable using either the male or female bathroom. And I think we need to be able to provide options for them. So all of our transgender folks are welcome here in Alameda and that we actually show them by our actions that they're welcome. And, of course, the the the nursing or the pumping is like a no brainer. I don't I don't know why it wasn't done before, but thanks for bringing that up. Speaker 0: Okay. So then if I and anybody else else want to comment and do we need a motion or just to give staff direction, what's the best way to do it, Mr. Rush? Speaker 4: I'm I'm I'm a little uncertain about what the policy has been with regarding that. I assume it would just be direction, but I will defer to the city clerk on this issue. Speaker 1: I think, as long as the council expresses consensus. But you could also take a vote. I think it's been done both ways. Speaker 3: But just so. Speaker 2: Move approval of the referral. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. We have a motion and we have a second and the referral to consider directing the city manager. Speaker 6: To do. Speaker 0: To have a direct yeah. To direct the city manager to create breastfeeding locations, baby changing stations in gender neutral bathrooms. All those in favor I opposed abstain. The motion passes unanimously. Okay, let's move on to. Speaker 3: Hello. Speaker 0: Are we at Council Communications? I think we are OC Council Communications. Any I can address, any matter. Not on the agenda. And you won't have a council communication. Okay. If hearing them. Let's move on to ten. A vice mayor?

Council Referral

Consider Directing the City Manager to Create Breastfeeding Locations, Baby Changing Stations and Gender Neutral Bathrooms. (Councilmembers Vella and Oddie)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6627

Speaker 0: Before a week. Okay. So thank you for that report. And then we have ten B, which is to review and discuss charter amendment timeline and issues proposed by the Council subcommittee. And there is an attachment on that one who's taken that. Speaker 2: I think I'll start. And I want to start with that. These are these are in the opposite order I would have gone in. I just want to be clear that this list is mostly things that came out of my head. I don't want to say that it was I think our wires got cross. I had asked for it to be presented as kind of John's list plus where he thinks he remembers. Tony deleted the list that I had presented to Tony. Unfortunately for today, we wanted to get buy in off on any kind of proposed process for working through this. At the time that Tony and I met, we were really thinking we would be moving towards putting things on a march ballot. It turns out that depending on what we work on, there may be some things that can only go on a November ballot and that so but if we kind of start working towards a march, march date, that means those things that might be able to go a little later. We'll just have more time to discuss. If you I don't think yet, hopefully you had a chance to read this. But if you think about this, that this is that there's kind of three, three meetings, this first meeting to kind of see if there are general ideas within the charter that people do or do not want us to talk about. Now is a great time to to flag those. Tony and I will then take those to a workshop working with staff to to get input on kind of those general ideas, what the community is interested in doing. And then take the feedback we get, put it into some sort of kind of bullet pointed draft idea of how we might move forward and come back here for feedback. So the idea is that once rather than having a subcommittee that just goes off, write a bunch of stuff and comes back in December and says, We got , we've got it, we want to have a check in somewhere along the process pretty early on to make sure that everybody's agreeing that we're heading in the right direction and not heading off in someplace that the two of us think is awesome. But people don't. Once we have that, we would then probably go back to the after we get input from the council, we would go back out sometime in July to a second set of workshops for them for the for the issues to get further input. And we would be back to the Council between September and November, probably with a series of drafts with the idea of trying to get to December with a suite of it. Could be one thing, could be ten different issues. You know, this depends on what we decide to work on, but a potential suite of charter amendments that we would then put on the ballot for March and or November. Can I. Speaker 0: Okay. Any questions? Comments? Anyone want to add? Anything? Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 8: Councilmember Avila So a couple questions for the workshop and workshop. Is it possible to just agenda as though so that members, other members of the council can attend? I appreciate the subcommittee working on it, but I also think that it would and I'm not saying that we would have to attend, but if it could at least be agenda, is it in accordance with our sunshine? That way we could. We could if other council members want to attend. I mean, I in particular would like to hear the input and everything else. Speaker 0: So I think that's a question for both the city clerk and the city. Acting City Attorney Ken. Speaker 4: Well, the the the rule is that you can it's not impermissible for a a member of the council to attend a subcommittee. You just can't participate in it. So if you're just there to listen, then we we wouldn't have to notice that as a council meeting per se. Speaker 8: Right. But I wouldn't be able to like ask questions or anything. Right. Speaker 4: Yeah. So if you if you want to participate in any respect, the safer course of action would be to notice it as a council meeting. And again, in order to do that, you know, there's certain timeline requirements that we would have to meet. So if you want to do it that way, then that's the city clerk know so we can get it agenda agendas properly. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, Kirk. Did you want to add to that? Speaker 1: We that rule require the seven days notice, and we could definitely just put out that to allow the whole council to attend and just to be cautious. Speaker 0: And speak, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: That agenda that we say is allowing the council to attend and gives you that. But we also notice that no minutes will be prepared and it's not a formal. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Comments. I mean. Speaker 5: My comment is kind of similar to Malia's. I mean, in workshop, there's a lot of media items that. You know, I pretty specifically remember what the charge of the revision was, and that was to kind of clarify the do's and don'ts of council members and like ranked choice voting, campaign finance, how we elect the mayor. You know, district elections. I mean, those are meaty issues that I don't think any of us had had an opportunity to weigh in on. So I'd be hesitant to, you know. Just have like a workshop and then it comes back to us and you know, we don't have a lot of input on it before a lot of work gets done on it. I mean, that's my my concern on those because, I mean, there's a lot of scope creep here that I'm a little concerned about. I mean, if the group has the the time, I guess they can do it. But I wasn't expecting something so ambitious. Speaker 2: I mean, I've just been pushed. Speaker 0: Back by vice mayor vice. Speaker 2: The charge, I was told was, look at the charter, everything is fair game. So I'm not sure where where the where the limited scope came from. I think I just want to say, yeah, I, you know, whatever we want to do, the goal of Tony and I bringing this here was literally to get input on areas of interest and to lay out a process whereby the council would be brought in before the media work was taken care of to make sure that there was that discussion. Okay. Speaker 0: I threw the chair. Speaker 3: Through the. Speaker 5: Chair. Thank you. I guess my point is those issues are meeting in mid April is three weeks away. So to have something ready, I just don't know if there's enough time to to discuss it and vet it through the community because those are some meaty changes that, you know. Just changes. Speaker 0: Yeah. And so I I'm going to just chime in. I and I do appreciate the the work that the subcommittee did. I but I also concur, I think in part with what Councilmember Odie is saying. Some of this, and I certainly did say go over the charter with a fine tooth comb and see what changes you think need to be done and triage it, because obviously you can't do everything at once and some things are more urgent than others. So the district election in ranked choice voting I think is a bit outside the scope of the charter. I mean, maybe that's arguable, but I, I do it. But, you know, some of these things like paid signature gatherer rules, I don't believe it's addressed in the charter now, but maybe it should be or maybe somewhere else. I do remember saying that at our swearing in that I think for a matter of public trust, something that came up in, you know, the last. Speaker 3: Year. Speaker 0: Is that so? What happens when a council member is found to be in violation of the charter, then, you know, what are what are the remedies? What are the actions? So I would say that's a. Speaker 3: Little. Speaker 0: Beyond clarify council interference language. So anyway, those are those are my thoughts. Speaker 7: Councilmember Day So yeah, going into it, what I shared with um, Vice Mayor Knox White as well as the staff is my view that whatever issues that we pursued had to have some form of and I mean this in the classic sense, political legitimacy that is it had to arise out of some issue about which everyone understood to be an issue. But by the same token, I don't recall us having been told that limit ourselves to issues. So while I myself might have held a hat that said, okay, this is how I'm going to this is the lens through which I'm going to look at issues. You know, I was open to listening to what the public had to have the public had in mind or what fellow council members had in mind. Now, if tonight fellow council members are saying, okay, we want you to limit it. Okay, well, that's the point of tonight is to is to help us. Speaker 0: Okay. So are you saying these items are all in the charter or should be? Is that what you're saying? Speaker 7: Oh, well, if you're asking me what I'm interested in as a council member, what I'm interested in as a council member is addressing issues regarding council member. What was the issue it being involved in employment and and and and kind of. Yeah. And fleshing out the the remedies. If the remedies are appropriate for the charter. I'm not sure they are, by the way, but if they are fleshing it out, I'm also interested in what I believe is at the top of my head. I believe in section two, Dash four, which has to do with qualifications for council members. And I think the qualifications to dash for says that if you're a federal legislator, state legislator or county legislator, you cannot be involved in commissions or things like that. And I would expand to Dennis for four reasons that I am happy to go into later. But I think it's to dash four, by the way. So so I am interested in in dealing with, you know. Dealing with the issues that our community dealt with in 2018. And I think that's an appropriate place. But by the same token, I think our charge was to look at other issues. Speaker 0: So. So just for clarification, the the title of this is Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timelines. So you say you look to the charter and you thought perhaps it should be amended to address all of these things. Speaker 7: No, no, no, no, no. I am not bought into all those things I am most interested in to. Speaker 0: This is not a mutually drafted document. Speaker 3: No. Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: Is that Councilmember Vela. Speaker 3: Not. Speaker 8: Giving to the late hour? And the fact that I think this this conversation might better suit us to a different time. I think what I'm hearing is perhaps there needs to be a little more council discussion on what the topics specifically are. And I think that there, you know, perhaps we could continue this conversation to the next meeting and with the specific mindset of we are we now understand that we're trying to set up a couple of workshops, but we're also trying to narrow the scope of what those workshops will cover. And if we could at the next meeting, all come with kind of what we think should be covered. We can have that discussion and then we can actually approve or set out a timeline. Speaker 0: How does that sound to the subcommittee and then others? Oh, what's that? What do I need to do? Oh, we have to just. Speaker 1: You're fine. I just to give you guys a little more background since your thinking about coming back, just for your mindset, please. The distinction that Vice Mayor mentioned earlier is in election code section 14, dash 15, and I can shoot an email off to you tomorrow. But it basically prohibits an employment type of anything that's related to employees. And you all are considered employees from being on the March election. And one more thing about the March election and putting anything on that date would the city would then be paying for participating in that election, which be in addition to anything to consider for the March date as you're coming back just to open your head? Speaker 0: No, that's helpful thing. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. And Councilor Brody, I just want. Speaker 5: To clarify, because I was intimately involved in this. The impetus of this was that there was a charter provision that an investigator found was unclear and vague. So his recommendation was to look at that charter provision and kind of clarify the do's and don'ts, what's allowed, what's not allowed. And if you read the document, that was the impetus. You'll see that there is a process outlined to deal with that in statute. And I think that the city attorney could probably update anyone that's not familiar with that process. So I think we need to be careful and not overstep our boundaries and make sure that we abide by the statutes in that that the state as adopted in this area. Speaker 0: Well, I am again, I think Councilmember Vella is correct that the hour is late and we will have a more productive discussion. But I think that anything should be able to be discussed. What we decide is something else. So, Madam Clerk, can we just continue this item? Do I need a vote. Speaker 3: To do that or. Speaker 0: Is that okay with everyone? Speaker 3: Okay with you? Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Speaker 0: So. So thank you. And then, Councilman Rudy, did you want to speak briefly on Tennessee? Speaker 5: No. Let's just talk about it next time. Speaker 0: Okay. So then we are at adjournment and I'm going to ask everybody if we could adjourn. We started the meeting on a happy note with the announcement of our new city attorney said they were going to end on a sad note because I want to adjourn the council meeting in memory of some people. Speaker 3: Who. Speaker 0: Who lost their lives in the last couple of weeks. One of them is Victor McElhaney. He was 21 years old, the son of my friend and Oakland City Councilmember Lynnette Gibson McElhaney. His mother attended our swearing in ceremony in in December. She was introduced, if you remember. And very tragically, he was a gifted musician studying at USC and just out on a Saturday night. And he and some friends were held up and he got shot and killed. And it's you know, there is nothing where you can say, but I want to do his memory, the honor of remembering him tonight. And at the same time, I want us to adjourn in honor of the I believe it's now 50 victims of the terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Last week, again, more a sense of gun violence, but maybe on a a little more positive note. I also want to announce that this Saturday, March 23rd at 6:30 p.m., I'm right here in front of City Hall. The Islamic Center of Alameda is presenting a solidarity vigil with Muslims. And so I hope that you all can attend and members of the public who might listen to this tape later, I hope you can attend, too . But if we could just rise and have a moment of silence and then this is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all. Good night.

Council Communication

Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by the Council Subcommittee. [Continued from March 19, 2019 to April 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03052019_2019-6519

Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's based reuse and community development director. And did you want a short staff reporter? Did you want to ask a question? Speaker 0: Just give us the the overview. And actually, in the spirit of full disclosure, I did reach out to Ms.. Potter this afternoon kind of late and asked a couple of questions. And do you want to just but why don't you give the audience a sense of what this project is? Because it's it's really important. And I think it's one of the things that makes Alameda a compassionate community. That's absolutely. Speaker 3: My pleasure. The staff came before the council in originally on this project in November of 2017, and we had recommended as part of implementing a referral that the City Council had adopted earlier about assisting refugee and immigrant families in Alameda, that we had been contacted by a nonprofit organization in the city, starting with the Catholic Deanery here in Alameda, who was taking Pope Francis's call that if every parish I think that's what if every parish housed a refugee family, it would go a long way to meeting the needs of refugees worldwide. And they wanted to work to do some refugee resettlement here in Alameda. We were enthusiastic about that proposal because the council did have its referral about assisting immigrant and refugee families. And we identified a house out at the base, one of the ranch houses that was not habitable because it needed foundation work. And we thought that would be a great opportunity to use CDBG funds to fix the Houses Foundation, have it become habitable, and then contract with the nonprofit to do refugee family resettlement on a transitional basis as families. Where we settled the house would then turn over and it would be able to serve another refugee family for the next 15 years. In November of 2017, the council approved that initiative, which we had anticipated might cost about $120,000. And unfortunately, just given the world of contracting and the world of getting bids, we we found that the cost of doing this work was $400,000. And we wanted to bring this item back to council and have the council weigh in if there was a desire to continue to move forward. We have these CDBG funds that are budgeted in the substantial rehab program. Under CDBG, the funds are budgeted and we can move forward. We have identified a contractor. We have the housing authority will project manage the project on behalf of the city and we can get the work done. And hopefully before November of 2019, we will be able to get a family into a house that is currently not habitable. So that is the request this evening for the council to authorize staff to move forward with the negotiation and award of the contract to to do this work. Speaker 0: Thank you. And just to to amplify a little bit, the the bid that the lowest responsive bid you got was 400,000. And then a contingency fund of about $60,000 is added for unanticipated things that often come up in the course of construction. It's there, but then beyond the foundation work, then this nonprofit will step in to do the rest. Speaker 3: They do, though, if you can imagine, the house has not been rented for several years. It needs new flooring, new carpeting, new painting, that kind of thing that the nonprofit working with congregants and that kind of thing will be taking on that additional work. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Nice job. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Speaker 5: Yes, Miss Potter. Sorry. Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Speaker 5: One quick. Speaker 7: Note. Speaker 5: Just to verify it's in the staff report, but I just want to make it clear for the public, this is not. There's no impact on the general fund. This is all out of CDBG funds, right? Speaker 3: That is correct. Speaker 5: Okay. So I'd like to move approval of the item. Speaker 8: Second. Speaker 0: All in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Good work, Council, because this continues to be a very important issue. Okay. Moving on then to the regular agenda. The first item is adoption of resolutions, appointing members to a couple of of our commissions and boards. So we have resolutions appointing Amy Barnes to the Recreation and Parks Commission provider, right to the Social Service Human Relations Board and Rebecca Colston Parsons and Tina U.N. to the Transportation Commission. And are there any questions or comments from council move. Speaker 5: Approval of the item? Speaker 8: 1/2. Speaker 0: All in favor. I. Okay. That passes unanimously. And do we have our four appointees here? I've seen some of them. Yeah. And I just want to say I'm so excited and enthused. We have some, for instance, Rebecca Coles, Jan Parsons, who is up here now, and I served on the Planning Commission together, but she's a seasoned veteran in the transportation industry. Prior to Wright, who is next to her, is going to be on our Social Services Human Relations Board. She is currently a caseworker, added Alameda Point Collaborative and has a wonderful life story herself and is bringing her talents to APEC in a year. And next to her is a rock star, a relatively new resident to Alameda, but works in the area of public transportation in city planning and is an avid public transit user herself. And Amy Barnes is a mother of young children, lives on the West End and very enthusiastic new member of our Recreation Parks Commission. So thank you all. And our city clerk will administer the oath to you. Speaker 2: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you'll well and safely discharge the duties upon which are about to enter? Speaker 3: I do. I do, yes. Speaker 0: And and while they're getting there and signing their their certificates, I just want to encourage everyone who's in the audience and anyone who's listening to take a look at our city's website, look at our boards and commissions and see where you might find an area of interest, because these are very important boards and commissions that advise the city council. They they do policy work and whatever the Border Commission is. And I am constantly impressed and appreciative of the talent we have in this community and people's willingness to share their time and talent with their city. And if you all wanted to just really briefly say something, you could do it really briefly if you want to. Speaker 1: Or not. Speaker 0: Oh, a picture. Okay. Okay. So get turned around for a player to take your picture. Thanks. I like the way you are coordinated. The color. Yeah, that's important. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. Okay, next step is item six.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Construction Contract and Related Agreements for the 2815 San Diego Road Rehabilitation Project with a Project Budget of up to $502,700. (Housing 236)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03052019_2019-6581

Speaker 2: Discussion on the status of the methods swim center at Alameda High School and provide direction as to options for some facilities in Alameda. Speaker 0: We have speakers on this item. Speaker 3: We want just one. Speaker 6: Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Amy Aldridge, interim assistant city manager and Recreation and Parks Director. So tonight, here it is. We're going to discuss the status of the AMA, heard from center at alameda high school and various options and really, most importantly, immediate next steps. I do want to introduce Shahrukh Khan, who is the Alameda Unified School District's chief business officer, who's here who was gracious enough to come tonight. So he is here in the audience for some quick background. This is an overhead of of the facility. There is a locker rooms, swimming pool and a dove pool. The dove pool is smaller and deeper. And that's just a quick overview in terms of background. It is an old facility. It's approximately 60 years old. The swimming pool itself was retrofitted in 1990 and the dove pools retrofitted in the mid 1980s. Some background of of our history with county health is in 2010 they issued a notice of closure due to public safety and other concerns and code violations. The Health County Health School District City got together at that time and developed some short term fixes and there are quite a few new filters, new heaters, new chlorine system, a new chemical feed controller that increase the water flow rate and at that time promised the county health that a long term solution would be put into place in 2013. Additional mechanical equipment repairs were done. Most of the pump room was replaced. There was pipe leaking, pipe pipe replacements. And in 2015, the new pool opened at an Arsenal high school. That one was chosen to be replaced first because it was in essentially worse condition than than Amad. So this is just to give you a background that really this has been discussed for quite a few, many years. Some additional background is that we do have a joint use agreement between the city of Alameda and Alameda Unified School District that used to be that the city operated and maintained the pools. That was changed a couple of years ago. So AOC now operates and maintains the pools. Throughout that time, both the city and school district pay half of the total operational costs. Just recently, county health, which is why we're here tonight, issued a notice of health concerns and they informed the school district that the facility would be red tagged, essentially closed May 31st after the school swim season. So per this notice, they are clear that the pools will be closed unless they are repaired, fully repaired, replaced or removed. So the school district, city and city has a standing subcommittee meeting. They met on February 13th and they asked both staff of both agencies to prioritize this issue and bring it back to their respective board and council. So these are the primary code violations. I'm not going to go into great depth. I'm happy to answer any questions. One is that at this facility, the two pool, there are two pools, and they're essentially is one pipe system and one pump room that serves both pools normally. And per code, the pools would be separate to a separate pump systems, essentially, so that you can verify that each pool is meeting the turnover rate of water. I did meet with County Health last week and I'll explain a little bit more about that meeting in a minute. But there was a recent relatively minor fix to an area that was able to increase the rate of that flow. And and county health was was happy to hear where that was at. Some of the other code violations are refinishing the plaster and the pools slip and fall cracks and concerns about the pool deck as well as a lack of overall ADA access and clearly overall and they're just generally in very outdated, poor condition. I wanted to give you a sense of the current use, both of the pools. Obviously, we have the school, water polo, swim and dove teams and then the community has very large and active youth swim and water polo teams as well as adult masters swim and polo teams. Our city programs are primarily in the summer. We have swim lessons and lap swim. Limited amounts of those in the spring. A huge amount of use for about 8 to 10 weeks, depending on the summer. For youth swim lessons and for lap swim, family swim. Recreation swim. We do not use the city does not currently program a use of either pool during the school day. Also, just to give you a sense that during the school year, those groups combined, not including our PD programs, are using it from 530 in the morning until school start. And then as soon as school is out until 9:00 at night and all day on weekends and then on the weekday weekends, I'm sorry, in the summer times, it's really all day. Every day. So it's it's despite the poor condition, it's a heavily used pool facility. This is really just to give you a sense of the numbers of people using the pools, but also the fact that when you look at the percent of Alameda residents, it's really Alameda residents using this pool. It's extremely high numbers compared to other cities and their program uses and residential rates. It's it's really this is Alameda Pool. I do want to note, because sometimes these numbers are comparative of percentage wise of city use and school use and community use. These numbers aren't exactly apples to apples because for all of the teams, both the community teams and the school teams, you're talking about actual individuals participating in that team . Whereas for our programs, for something like if you think about lap swim, you're going to have ten people on each go five times a week. And so there are duplicated numbers and same things for there are swim lessons. So 607 registered, but generally those kids taking those lessons week after week after week. So the school district, once they were informed by county health, they engaged their expert consultant on on swimming facilities. They were involved in the design of the Sentinel High School swim facility, and they created an assessment report. So these numbers are from the school district and from their consultant. And the numbers also, I want to be clear assume a projects under DSA requirements to depart the vision of California vision state architecture who oversees and approves all school projects. So it's a little bit different when there's a project on a school versus on city land. So starting from the smallest that's shown on the screen. One option would be to repair the swim pool and close and fill the dove pool. That would provide continued practice for the teams in the community and in a more limited way because now you don't have the dove pool but would be an option. It doesn't meet the the district's CIF their league requirements. Another and that's again from the report is 1.7 million to repair both pools to based on to make the repairs that count in full that county health wrote up is violations that we discussed earlier would cost per the report about 3.6 million and again still doesn't meet schools requirements but would continue the facilities as a practice facility . Another option is to replace the pool on these numbers. 5.2 million to 7 million are based on the internal high school swim facility. It would be based on that same layout that would meet schools facilities. It mostly meets the cities and communities needs, but I would say not entirely. And all of these numbers include a 20% allowance. And on top of the cost that's included in because when you're doing a project would dare say they often open up the entire facility. So the entire Alameda High School for ADA compliance. And so there's additional costs that that adds to the project. And then the least desirable. But an option is to demolish both cool pools or close them until further until further options are identified. Obviously, it doesn't meet anybody's needs. There is still a cost because unless you close and fill them, you still have to keep the the water at certain chemical levels and make sure the flow is happening. And there's certain basic safety aspects and maintenance that has to continue. I want to pause at this point because this PowerPoint was issued prior to my meeting with Alameda County Health. And so I want to give you an update on that. City staff, myself and our parks manager and our other staff person who's very familiar with the pool, met with three of their three, the county health staff, who are all very familiar with this project. And I think there's really opportunities for a significantly lower cost option and for something that can hopefully keep this going in the short term. And I think there's a real opportunity for collaboration here. What they said is they are willing to consider essentially patching. They reckon, well, let me back up. So they recognize that the swim pool plastering is in decent enough condition. It's not a safety hazard. The dove pool is a problem. And but they're willing to look at patching the problem areas in a dove pool rather than a full plaster. Same thing with the concrete deck. They're willing to look at repairs, repairing and fixing safety problems, but not necessarily replacing the entire concrete deck. Also similar with the co-mingling water issue. If as long as we got a verified engineer's report that the flow is happening to rate, that is makes it again safe for the public because it's really what it's about is making sure we have a safe facility for the public that that would be acceptable in all of this. I just want to be clear is pending, you know, their final directors report, you know, collaboration. And there's still a lot to happen between here and there, but it was an encouraging conversation. I also want to clarify that all of this, you know, lower cost option is also contingent upon the city and school district, bringing them an action plan. They want to see movement and they want to see concrete move in movement that happens moving forward for full replacement of the swim facility. They also want us obviously to work very closely in what those short and long term plans are and what that action plan is, and make sure we're getting the required permits through them. I also want to be very clear that the May 31st deadline is not changing, and they were clear on that. And I agree that. If we can make the repairs that are sufficient, suitable that they agree upon the county health and that we are able to make if we can make those before and get them done before May 31st, the pool will stay open. If we can't get that done, that May 31st, despite whatever great plan we may have put in front of them, will still close until we get those repairs in place. So there could be a period conceivably of of disrupted service in there. So I just want to be forthright with the community that that we're moving as fast as we can. But that May 31st deadline is still there. So obviously, all this requires final approval from the county, as well as action and agreements between our partnerships with the city and the school district. But I do think it's an opportunity to work collaboratively together. Yes. Speaker 0: So any clarifying questions about the staff report and then did the. Speaker 6: I had a couple of more slides, but I'm happy to answer questions. Speaker 0: Let's hear the can we hear the rest of the report? You have a question. Speaker 6: To this. Speaker 0: Specific to this. Okay. Go ahead. Speaker 8: What's the cost? You said it's perhaps it's a little bit different from the other numbers previously listed. Speaker 6: I'm hesitant to give a clear cost because we haven't gotten contractors out there to identify exactly how much patch work needs to happen. I mean, it would be a fraction of the lowest cost is, you know, somewhere south of half a million, certainly. But. But I don't want to give. I don't. But that's what the big caveat of not having contractors looked at it. Speaker 8: And I just wanted to. Okay. And then and these are for, as you put it, repairs kind of to keep it going for a period of time. Speaker 6: These would be repairs to make it safe for the public for a short term fix until we can put a long term action plan in place for the long term replacement. Speaker 8: How long would that short term fix me? How short is that short term? Speaker 6: Well, in my conversation, they you know, they felt like as long as you say for the public, though. So, for example, if the pool were plastering, if we fix those areas, but then other areas show up that continue to do laminate and deteriorate, we would need to fix that. But they're okay with the patchwork approach as long as it remains safe for the community. Speaker 8: And where where would we potentially be looking at to get these funds from the general fund? Speaker 6: I have not yet identified funding. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Another clarifying question, Mr. Odie. Speaker 5: I have more, but I'll hold those. Just want to follow up on on the last one. I really didn't I wasn't sure if I heard an answer. So how long would the short term how much time with the short term fixes bias? Six months? Nine months. Speaker 6: One year until the new pool is replaced. Until the pool is replaced. So that was they were okay with patching it, providing them with an action plan, with some kind of milestones showing that we're making progress towards a full replacement because they recognized the fact when I met with them that we can't even if we had all of the money and all of the design done, it would still take us a year or two, you know, to get really get moving, right? So they recognize it'll take 2 to 4 years, but they felt like if we have clear milestones that are agreed upon that we meet, then they're okay with us continuing to essentially limp along with this patchwork until we get a new pool in place. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? Okay. Please continue. Line. Perfect. Please continue your presentation, Ms.. Speaker 6: So some ideas for short and long term solutions that have been discussed in the short term. What was discussed at the subcommittee is potentially appointing an ad hoc working committee that would be comprised of potentially members of this body, as well as members of the school board, as well as staff and potentially a couple key community members to provide input as well so that it's a truly collaborative process. Clearly, we would need to have more meetings with county health. That was part of my conversations and they were more than willing because they recognized the need for this in the community to meet on site with the contractor, with the school district and say, okay, here's exactly what work needs to be done to their satisfaction, for example, in terms of long term. There's been a long list. I think this is an opportunity in that for many years even predates me. There's been conversation about the need for a city swimming pool, and this is potentially an option to do that. An opportunity to do that. Clearly, it would still be available to the school teams, just like all of our facility, athletic facilities are available to them. We would need to consider locations whether we work with the school district somehow to identify that a good area for land and that for to replace it there or potentially look at another location. All of that really could be stressed out by this ad hoc committee and then funding to the earlier question. It could include the infrastructure bond. And this is for replacement, full replacement. It could include a potential infrastructure bond in 2020. It could include a combination of private donors. So there's that, again, would need to be identified as the funding. In terms of opportunities for Citi Swim Center, it would provide for year round programing, which is not an opportunity we currently have. Year round programing would allow us to program four tiny top programs, senior aquatic programs, lunchtime lap squats, swim, or other times lap swim. That's a constant request that we get from the city is regular year round lap swim and more year round swim lessons depending on the the weather. And also just to expand our programing in other ways. Although what a lot of cities do is add a small splash pad, which is basically like a playground with water coming through it, which is really I also get quite a few requests for that from residents just in since I've been here or slides going to the pools . There's a lot of different ways that many other cities add these components when it's a city pool so that you still have the competitive aspect. But you can add these components to bring in more families and any time you bring kids to the water to get them comfortable is a good in the water is a good thing . In terms of cost considerations, it definitely is a big, high, high price tag for a pool, both initial construction and finishing the pool as well as ongoing maintenance. And I am always upfront that anything we build cost annually to maintain and will be an extra burden to the general fund or rec fund or other for ongoing maintenance . Pools do not recover costs. They are far from recovering costs and they are inherently a money loser if we did. It's also been discussed, you know, would the city and again, this is more a long term conversation, but would we look at an indoor facility versus an outdoor facility? And we can certainly look at all those. An indoor facility is appealing in some ways because you can use it year round all the time. One in East Oakland, there's one in Newark, and they're both heavily utilized. And the construction of an indoor pool facility is generally the highest per square foot cost of any public building. You can build it. They're expensive and they have a higher maintenance cost just because of the nature of how you have to move the air and all of that. And yet they tend to have higher cost recovery than outdoor pools because you can program them all the time and you can do a lot. If you look at aquatic over in here in Alameda that is used constantly as an indoor pool, there's always folks in there when swim lessons. So that concludes my report. I'm happy to answer any further questions. Speaker 0: And as the gentleman from the school district stroke, you're not planning to present. No. Okay. So we do have, as I have, one public speaker, is there anyone else who is interested in speaking on this? So get up speakers and clarifying questions before the public. Speaker Mr. O.D. Thank you. Speaker 5: Just a couple quick ones, Amy. Sorry, before you walk away, I'm sorry. On your on your slide when you talked about the history so the 2011 commitment for a long term solution, what was our long term solution for M0 or did we have one or. Speaker 6: We do not currently have one between the school district in the city? That was a hope and I think I came in after that. And I think what happened is, is, is resources were put towards internal swim center. Speaker 5: Okay. And then on the summer plans, I mean, if if it stays red tagged or we don't figure out a way to fund these these repairs, that may be a path forward. I mean, what happens to those programs? I mean, do we just not do them? Do we kind of absorb them somewhere. Speaker 6: Else for our city program? For the city we've already because there's so much uncertainty and we have to put out our activity guide. Now, it's actually being printed as we speak. We have already planned for everything to be moved to and snowstorm center. And so that's something that will just make it work. What the reality is, it actually means less pool time for the community swim teams. Speaker 5: Okay. And then the last clarifying question, so that there was a discussion about, you know, transferring property and DSA, can you kind of go over what just high level what the difference between a DSA approved pool that would be presumably on some school property versus a non DSA approved pool that would be on presumably city property? Speaker 6: Yeah, sure. So DSA, I'm not as familiar with that, but my my understanding is that so they essentially provide do the full permitting for any school project versus on city land where it goes through the planning board and the city permitting process and plan check and all of that. DSA also. Has certain requirements, be it earthquake safety ADA requirements and certainly the city on city land, we would have ADA requirements as well for the facility itself. But DSA looks at not only the facility itself of that swim facility, but looks potentially at the entire school facility for ADA improvements. So that's why the consultant built in the 20% additional cost for those potential other ADA schoolwide improvements, it's arguable whether it takes longer. I think it depends on DSA staffing. Sometimes it takes longer than city plan checks, sometimes similar. Those are the primary differences is what the plan check process is and the potential for higher cost with ADA and potentially earthquake improvements. Speaker 5: Okay. My last question is of our interim city manager. Do we have an eye? Do you recall? And if you don't, I can wait for the information what our budget surplus was last year. Speaker 4: No, I do not have that. Speaker 5: Or the year before. No. And do. Speaker 7: We gather that and. Speaker 5: Do we have an idea where we are? Like, we're six months in and we're more than six months and so we should have at least first and second quarter numbers. I mean, do we have an idea where we're where we're trending I think for the current fiscal. Speaker 4: Report for your mid-year coming up in. Okay. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other questions before we go to Speaker? Speaker 8: Councilmember Vela Uh, for the subcommittee. I understand that it would be a couple of members of council. I think we've we've that's been designated and a couple of members of the school district. What would the report back or the process structure look like and what would be kind of the the. The issues that would be discussed by the subcommittee and what would be the process for actually getting it. But are we going to sunshine who they're talking to, who's involved? You know, what are the opportunities for the community to get feedback and for the various boards, for the two different boards to actually weigh in? Speaker 6: A couple of things. So there's a lot in there, I think. I would like to see this committee when they get together, really talk about process. We really haven't flushed that out. And I was hesitant to lay out a process with before that group has convened in terms of sunshine ing and report out. You know, I'm certainly happy to report out each council meeting through made to this body as needed or once a month to report out to the community. Here's what's happening with that. There may be other potential ways we can potentially post minutes or find other ways to let the community know what's happening with this group. It could be onerous if it were fully public, and now we're getting feedback from anybody who walks in. Really, it would. We have a very short time frame. So I would I my own opinion is that would be very helpful to have a tight working group that can really make make some decisions and choices. I envisioned that any action plan that came from this group would clearly have to go to each body for final approval and full approval and full discussion. Speaker 8: And this is just for the short term. Yes. So there would be perhaps a different process relative to having a conversation about the long term, like we would lay out parameters of like potential locations, ballpark costs, indoor outdoor. Those sorts of questions would be answered by a separate working group. This this subgroup would really be working on the immediate concerns. Speaker 6: I think I envision the subgroup working on immediate concerns and getting twofold. One is on media concerns and getting final buy in with county health on a plan. But that plan to county health also has to include a plan for long term replacement. They don't care if it's going to be indoor or outdoor or how we're going to fund it. Those questions can be answered farther down the road when we're not on such a tight timeframe, but they are going to want to see some kind of milestone plan, such as and some of the examples of what a possibility. Possibilities. I was very clear with them. These were all possibilities pending final approval. But possibilities could be, you know, identifying a location. And so, for example, if we ask the school district to deed over that land so it could be a city project. You know, seeing in my view of that or if we chose to go the route of funding it through an infrastructure bond, a milestone might be when this body chooses to place that on the ballot and then if it's voted in at the ballot, those are all milestones, examples of milestones that they would want to see. So this action plan, this committee needs to come up with some kind of action plan that will essentially satisfy county health. And so I imagine the group will also at some point be the representatives of or the whole group will be meeting with county health to to flush out this this action plan to make sure it is does meet their needs. Speaker 8: So there's there seems to be a parallel track kind of going on that there would be both the short term and long term discussions with the short term obviously taking priority. But there would need to be I guess what I'm getting at is, is are we going to have an opportunity, Madam Mayor, to agenda? Is this in terms of having a long term conversation from the council so that we can actually give authority, it seems to me, before you actually have the long term conversation. The council needs to. Speaker 0: So I think that's a really reasonable question, and I think I even have an answer for you, but I want to save that for when the Council deliberates on after we've had our public speaker. But hold that thought, it's a good one. Did you have any other clarifying questions? Speaker 8: I did have one other clarifying question, and that is, you had also mentioned that there would be potentially members of the community on the subcommittee. Speaker 6: I'm throwing it out as an option. I think in terms of a collaborative approach, it's always nice to have constituents be part of a conversation, or even if they're not part of the committee, some way to be checking in with the constituent groups. Speaker 8: Did you have an idea or somebody in mind? Speaker 6: No, not yet. Speaker 8: The number of people because I noticed on one of the slides you make Slide seven, you list different the different organizations that make use of the pool. Mm hmm. And so how many individuals would we be talking about? And it seems to me like the smaller the group agreed, the better that we also want to have members of the community obviously involved. Speaker 6: There's a lot of crossover between the groups. So I think I would agree, I think the smaller working group would be more effective. So I imagine just a couple to three most. And I would look to the swim community and aquatics community to help us identify who those people may be. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. I have another clarifying question. Singular, plural, whatever, from Mr. O.D. and then we're going to go to our. Speaker 5: Sorry, it was just a follow up follow up on Councilmember Vela's discussion with you. So this potential infrastructure bond. I mean, are you envisioning like a global infrastructure bond? And this would be a piece of it. And if so, how do we actually guarantee that there's money that goes to the poles? Because I think I believe the threshold is different. If we say, you know, it's a project, a, you know, versus it's possible projects A through Z. Speaker 6: I think that's a larger discussion as part of an overall infrastructure discussion. But yes, I had imagined it'd be part of a larger global infrastructure bond, not just a bond for a pool. I have seen other cities do that. That's certainly an option as well. And I think then this body needs to look at an infrastructure bond and whether you identify projects and it's two thirds vote or, you know, 50 plus one vote, I think that's a larger discussion. Speaker 0: But we could and I want to just interrupt for one minute to just look to the acting city attorney to make sure we're not going beyond the scope of this agenda item. I do realize that an infrastructure bond is one of the options to be considered, but I'm not sure the deep dove, if that's not too much of a pan into all the particulars, is that I'll defer to the city attorney. Speaker 7: I would say a deep dove into the mechanics of an infrastructure bond or outside the scope of this particular hearing. But I also agree with Amy's quick assessment about. Speaker 5: Well, let me just ask it a different way. If we do a global infrastructure bond, is there any guarantee that this money will end up going to poor construction? Speaker 6: If it's you know. Absolutely and as best you can identify. Speaker 5: Funny but. Speaker 0: Really but it becomes it in the deep end here maybe stay a little. Speaker 5: I don't think we're in the deep end because I think if we're going to if we're going to be making a promise to people and say that this is a possible solution, I think we have to be clear with people that it's not a guarantee. Speaker 0: I completely agree with you. And when we have that discussion, I think that's the time to do that. But we would probably want a legal analysis of the the structure of a of an infrastructure bond before that time. Speaker 7: And I think we could I think we could structure without going into too much detail, but it's all in councils, resolutions, etc.. In terms of the mechanics of issuing the bond, you can be as specific as you want to be or as general as you know. But I think if you're going to be specific about this, about that, it goes for a particular purpose. Speaker 5: And that was the point. So we were clear with the public and if we did do a specific one, what that would require, and if we didn't, what that would require and what that would guarantee. I'm not finished talking I or what, what that would guarantee or what that would not apparently. Okay. So that's what I was looking to have an information of. Speaker 0: Any further questions. Okay. We have one public speaker, Barry Parker. Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Miss. By the way, Mr. Voltage. Really well done. Staff report. Thank you. Dr. Parker. Sorry. Speaker 3: Doctor. Okay. Speaker 4: Now, look at my clothes. No tie. Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft. Speaker 4: City Council Persons. And, Amy, that was a phenomenal description. Took everything. The one thing I want to sort of point out is that although the citizenry of Alameda probably looks at that pool as being in the high school pool, go to other communities, there are high school pools and then there are community pools. We as a city and you as city council people and have an obligation to the citizenry of this town to provide them with something they can use probably the most injury free form of exercise that is known to people. I swam in that pool for about 64 years. That was a a bond issue gym that that was to help the Parks and Recreation Department. But it was earmarked with $600,000. And that built that pool in 1954 for swimming. It was 1955. But I think behind the scenes, if you realize that, that it not only provides the high school with great swimmers, but we have a lot of different programs besides swimming programs. We have we don't have diving programs. We do have the Neptune's. And I look at these teams like the Alligator Islander combination now called the Gators. I look at Neptune's sort of like you would look at Little League football or a Little League baseball or the Wolverines. Now I think we call them and they are the they are the teams that are going to make the high school teams both Alameda and and so now the great teams that they have become because they have these feeder kids, they just really have excelled in the last few years. I swam age group, high school, college master's. Now Amy was right. That pool is 530 in the morning till 9:00 at night. The part in the middle, though, is where the city of the city owned that pool. We wouldn't have to do school background checks and all those are things we get have water aerobics programs which are really, you know, filling up in a lot of pools. We can have, as you say, lap school, lap swimming. It would be nice to try and think of it on the site that it is now with limited parking. But it also could be maybe the school district would consider one of their other properties since they want to build more football fields and track and soccer and everything else. But maybe there'd be a little bit bigger footprint that you could put a pool on with a plunge. Splash pool. I'm hoping that it still has water polo. I did water polo in that five foot pool. It's really hard to practice when you can't touch the bottom in a regulation pool. You sort of get fouled all the time. But I just really hope that we think outside the box on this. I think it's a wonderful thing that you're taking on and I hope it works. I'll be I'll be there helping. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Park. Okay. That's our only public speakers. So council discussion. So to look at what we're asked to do is we are asked to come up with some recommendations and these include short term options, appointing a working subcommittee. And as Councilmember Vela mentioned, I think we spoke about this last time this came up, and I do believe the vice mayor and I were agreeable to being a subcommittee. I will just add that I learned to swim in this pool and I told my waters the story when she took me to to tour the pool that I was that kid who was terrified to let go of the edge of the pool because the waves in the pool, you know, those waves or the sharks or whatever, we're just going to come get me. And I had the most patient instructors through the Red Cross Swim to Live program who is very patient and work with me. And lo and behold, one day she got me to trust her enough to hold her and paddle. And I swam all through college and law school. That was my form of exercise. And and I believe that a city like Alameda, we're an island, all of our kids should learn to swim for their own safety, but also just for their own health and enjoyment. And it isn't just kids. It's one of those sports activities from cradle to grave. I mean, Councilmember Vela, you're going to be doing some little tiny, tight swim lessons, I bet you, before long. And for our seniors and everyone in between, as Dr. Parker said, I think it was Dr. Park, it's a low impact way to stay heart healthy and and exercise your muscles and and all those good things. So I think as a city, we can do better. I'm always a little chagrined when I'm in other cities and see these beautiful pools and think, Ooh, why not us? It's because of money. But I do believe we're ready to to move forward finding directions. So so the the long and short term options and I would say. But chime in folks when I call on you, it is probably we should consider everything on the table. I mean, I think with an eye toward keeping the pool open through May 2019 to get through the school year and then figure out what we're going to do to try to move forward with better swim facilities in Alameda . And I do understand that there's a short timeline because Ms. Wooldridge, when it's by May, the beginning of May 2019, there you are that we need to when you tell us when you need the. Speaker 6: Early open until May 31st, it will be closed after May 31st. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Thank you so okay. That's those are my thoughts. Chime in starting with okay counselor Avila. Yeah. Speaker 8: So so I was a swim kid. I learned to swim at Franklin Park, not at Emma Hood, but I was a swim kid and I grew up spending my summers going to the pool. And I used to give Dr. Parker the updates on my swim times, every orthodontics appointment that I had with him and I swam through college. I did club water polo, I taught swimming lessons, was a junior lifeguard, all of that stuff. And I think we are an island and we are a water community and there's a lot of families. I think those numbers aren't really full numbers because you have to think about all the families that are involved in addition to those individuals that have signed up for the different classes or teams. Because the one thing about swimming is that it's it really is a family sport and your whole family goes and you spend the whole day there. And I think it's just a great opportunity. And I want to expand what we do for our kids and what we offer to our kids. It's a little bit selfish because I have a kid on the way, but I, I do want to make sure that there aren't you know, I think one of the hard things for me is that we're having swim lessons only in the summertime and we should be having an ability to offer swim lessons before the summertime so that when it's summer, we can have all of our kids enjoying our pools. So I'm fully ready to support the, the request to to have the subcommittee work and to work on all the short term things. I think we need to do it sooner rather than later so that we can buy time working with the county on what those fixes are. I think we need to get a handle on what the current expenses are for the current repairs and then identify kind of second tier repairs that could could happen in year, you know , a year from now or six months from now and then and then even after that, because I think the long term goal, at least from my end, is I think we do need an indoor facility. I think that's what gets us year round swimming programs and water programs. I'm swimming right now. I'm pregnant. It's a great exercise for for when you're pregnant, there's a lot of things you can't do. But swimming is one of the things you can do. And I think it's also great exercise. I have grandparents who have used it, you know, aquatic programs as part of their physical therapy. They've had to travel in order to do that. I think we're doing a disservice to our aging community by not being able to offer those programs, and I think you need an indoor facility for that. I think we need to look at multiple locations. But I also think that I would like to develop a five year plan or a four year plan because I think it's a long road to actually getting the funding. And so I would like us to have a more robust conversation about what those milestones are, where we can get the money for that, and how we can go about partnering with different private partners, community partners, the school district. And I also understand that the city is going to need to put funds into that. But I also think it's very worthwhile. And I think it's it's counted in the lives we save by making sure people are water safe, as well as having an opportunity to stay healthy. And I think oftentimes we we end up treating acute illnesses. You go to the hospital because you have heart disease or diabetes. And we need to really be thinking about lifestyle changes. And I think an indoor facility would do that and it would allow people to really participate. We could increase those numbers. I also want to make sure that when we look at the short term, we're looking at both pools because we do have a robust and growing water polo program. And I want to make sure that, you know, we have a number of other programs. We need both of those pools. So I would want to make sure that the subcommittee is looking at the repairs to the decks, the the dove pool and also to the locker rooms. They're not to call out the locker rooms, but they're really bad. And and I think that that's the last thing you want to be thinking about when you're coming out of the pool is how gross the locker room is. I don't think we need to have a $43 million facility like Dublin, but I do think we need to think about a little more, a little bigger, a little more creative. I think splash pads are good things to get people, especially younger kids, comfortable with water. So I'm really open to all the suggestions, but I do want to have a report back so that we know from a counsel standpoint if there are going to be budget expenditures, that sort of things and we can plan on it . I would also I also think that it's important to have the subcommittee and keep it small. But I do think we need to have a work session on this at some point. Perhaps the summer would be a good time to have it so that we can actually have a robust conversation about what this big vision might look like and then kind of refine it a little bit so that the subcommittee can stay focused and do the deep dove. And one other pun. You know, I know we're going to be busy keeping our head above water, but but I do I do think that it doesn't mean that we ignore the long term. And that's why I would like to have kind of a five year plan. So I think it counts. Speaker 0: Everyone gets one person per speaker. I see is one of mine. So that didn't count. And now just in the locker room, I was trying counsel before when when I did do the tour of the locker room, I walked in and it was like I never left it. It just pathetically it looks the way it did when I learned to swim. So we just go down the line. Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 9: Thank you. So and as one of the members of the school subcommittee, I think I was I'll just reflect for those who weren't at that meeting or many of you, especially in that corner, were, I think we're in a very unique place where the school district, the city and the community are all in the same place. We all agree that things are not good now. We all acknowledge that maybe we could have done better over the last ten years and that county health is now calling us on that. And I think we're now all committed to two to working together. So I've been speaking with people in the swim community kind of about how we can move forward. I think this subcommittee is a really important way to do that. I think it's likely going to have to probably meet weekly or so. And I think just putting a standing item on the council agenda, because I don't think that the work of this subcommittee is for two members to go off and just do whatever they want. I think it's really for a way to get input from the council, from the full council every two weeks and move forward on what is going to have to be a really quick six week plan of action at the end of the six weeks. We're not going to know where the pool is going to be exactly. We're not going to know what the pool looks like, etc.. But we are going to need to know that the council and the school around the same place. And, you know, I guess I think if if there are concerns that that folks have right now around the idea of the city pass, I think something I'd like to look at is the city running the pool, taking over the pool, as it were, and building and building that pool. And so if I think if there are concerns about that, you know, now is a great time to time to talk about that. Yeah. Sorry. Speaker 0: Okay. And then before I go to Councilmember, decide something for the council to just think about. So as far as the two members of the public and I'm thinking it should be two rather than three, because then each entity is represented equally. So would we just put it back out? To the pool users swim groups to designate their representatives. What do you think? Vice Mayor, you're a little closer to those groups. Speaker 9: So last last week, I, I met with members of just about every swim group together, including school sports masters, special ed club and club teams, parents, etc.. And the goal of that meeting was to start to help support them in organizing themselves to identify a leadership structure that that that can communicate among themselves and then identify some folks who could participate. I think that the right way to do that would be allow that group to identify a couple of people. Speaker 0: That's what I said. Okay, great. You'll keep in touch with them and can communicate back to your subcommittee member. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Desai. Speaker 10: Great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much to HPD director Amy Warwick for her presentation and for the staff report. Very much and very much appreciated when the topic was brought before the School District City of Alameda Subcommittee, we meet regularly. I found this topic to be very exciting, not just exciting in terms of, you know, trying to fix something that the Alameda High School is having to deal with. But exciting in the sense that I think this is something that's really a community, potentially a community wide benefit. So even though I am a member of the city council, a U.S. board subcommittee for purposes of this item, that I do think that the mayor of Alameda should be involved because this is going to be a signature citywide kind of project. So I so I think in the short term, we do need to move forward in terms of dealing with the county issues and to figure out, you know, how best we might deal with it. You know, the plastering issue that that director wore, Richard talked about. But also I think that the subcommittee that we come up with, we should also let them be in a position to kind of help us in the long term. So I would expect them to be participating in the long term visioning. My largest contribution to this right now would be to say that we really will need to involve the community in this because this is really a community wide project and it's something about which so many of us, whether on the West End or the East End, can be quite proud of and like in a similar way that many years ago, in 1955, Dr. Parker, who shared with us a photo of him as a youngster in the newspaper touting the 1955 1956 bond measure. Maybe there will be young youngsters today, the will who will also be touting this. So we need to involve a lot of people in this. So I don't have much else to say, except I thank you very much, Director Woolridge, for your presentation. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm not going to add too much more than my colleagues have already added, except to say I mean, I agree that we should we should work on the the three items in the short term and the three items on the long term. I'd like to, you know, hear back sooner rather than later on the cost estimate of of getting the repairs that county health thinks we can do at that's something we can do before May 31st in order to keep the pool open through the summer and not have to have any closures. I think that would be be the better idea. I do agree that we do need to have a robust community process because I think we kind of fell down as a city on this, you know, eight years ago when everyone identified this as a problem and we took care of one and we didn't take care of the other. And I think we knew this was going to happen. And the reason I asked the question about the budget is because, you know, we are in a period now and maybe it's ending. I'm not sure of, you know, we're going we're having excess reserves over what we what we agreed we should have in 25%. And we're having, you know, what I think are really significant surpluses of one time money. And I mean, to me, what better thing to do with one time money than to spend it on one time projects? And a new pool is a one time project. And I do think it's important and I brought this up earlier, but I do think it's important that we are honest with the public and what we're going to ask if we think we're going. The public thinks they're going to pay for a new pool. We better be damn sure we're giving them a new pool and we better not leave any ambiguity and we better not leave any wiggle room and any opportunity for anybody to welch out of that deal. So I think that's supercritical. I don't know how we do it. We'll go through that. You know, and as far as the Working Subcommittee and I was a little disappointed because I thought that was an item we were going to discuss in open session, because I really like to be a part of it. I mean, it was disappointing to hear that that had been decided in closed doors, not transparently and not here with the five of us having a discussion about it. But I'd still like to be a part of it, so if that's possible, I'd be interested in doing that. Speaker 0: That in mind. Thank you. Speaker 5: All. Is that a decision that the council makes or is a decision that's unilaterally made by one member? Speaker 0: I seem to recall that we came to consensus in open session. Right here in this dais. Speaker 9: I'm not sure we came to consensus. I think it was proposed and there was nobody who spoke against it at the time. But I don't know that there was ever a decision that was made. I think the vice mayor opposed it at that point in time. But I don't know that I would stop short of saying that we all voted to agree on that. Speaker 5: Because I also know that, you know, I think, John, Vice Mayor, next, what you did an amazing job running that meeting. And, you know, the subcommittee we have with the USDA, you know, also is pretty well versed in this. So, you know, I would just like to be a part of this. And, you know, I would hope that, you know, we would consider who's going to be on this man. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor? Speaker 0: Councilmember Avila. Speaker 8: Um, perhaps if we have the agenda item coming back to us and we schedule a work session, I mean, I think all of us are interested in and have been hearing about it. So I think the purpose of the subcommittee is to get an expeditious resolution to get us through this year. And then I think after that, if we can find a way to to really include the full council and have that robust conversation, I think we all would appreciate it. Speaker 0: I agree. All right. Speaker 5: That's all I had. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. So does this give you sufficient direction staff to direction to to move forward? This. Speaker 6: Yeah. In general, yes. I was hoping to have a group identified in terms of who I am, still not clear. Speaker 0: Who it is. The two of us vice the mayor and vice mayor. Speaker 6: Just sort of expeditious. Speaker 0: And able to move quickly. And we are going to and I'm going to delegate to the vice mayor to reach out to the poor committee that he is conversant with and and get to representatives from that community. And then I will get the scheduling done ASAP. Speaker 9: The school board will be it has scheduled appointing two members next week, I believe. I just wanted to thank Shak for coming. He obviously you didn't have a role in the presentation. We knew that when you came. But, you know, I really appreciate the show of commitment that we are working together. And I also just want to recognize, beyond Amy's great PowerPoint, the amount of work she has done in the last two weeks to get up to speed on this, to fix help fix the existing poor already, and then also to start meeting with the county health care. Mental health has been really awesome. And thank you so much. Speaker 5: Appreciate it. Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Speaker 6: And I wanted to clear one quick question clarification. I will do my best to come back every two weeks given our staff report process, that's a little bit challenging, but I will absolutely do my best to provide some kind of report each couple of weeks. If anything, a written report or some sort of report. Speaker 0: And I'm not sure my colleagues were asking for a written staff report every two weeks. Speaker 8: I was I was more asking that it be basically placed on the agenda as a rolling item so that if we if we need to have a conversation, we can if we need to make a vote on something, we can amend the agenda item to include whatever the specifics would be, and we could attach whatever supporting documentation . But I also think that Councilmember Otis point, I think because all of us are getting questions from the community, and rightfully so, that any new information that comes down, if it can be provided to all council members, even though we're not necessarily weighing in, that would be helpful and appreciate it. Speaker 0: Absolutely. And I was thinking that that would also be an opportunity for the subcommittee to report to the full council and every meeting and a vice. Did you ever hear it? Speaker 9: No. Yes. Sorry. I was going to say. Speaker 0: It wasn't really the question. It was, do you want to speak? Speaker 3: Sorry. Speaker 9: I just want to say I don't know if you all want it. I don't think we are asking for a staff report. No, I think this is supposed to be quick, quick and fast. And I think we agree with our legal counsel to find an adequately noticed agenda line that will allow us to talk about the things that were heard in those meetings. And agenda as anything. Agenda is decisions that need to be made in time. Speaker 6: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Because the rest of the audience might not know. In addition to being an amazing recreation parks director, Mortgage's also our acting assistant city manager right now, and she's just given up eating and sleeping, just put everything in. But we don't want to do that for too long. Okay, we are completed. Thanks, everyone. Good discussion. That ends item six B. We are going to take a brief break and I do mean 5 minutes and we will be back to hear item six eight on the rest of the agenda. It's not a lot to stick around. When to take your place, please. Counsel, I have a question for you. We have not too much more on our agenda, but. But the next one is meaty, sexy. But then we also have a council referral that has a number of high school students of tender age here past their bedtime . Now, I know you guys stay up late, but you shouldn't. Anyway, I'm just wondering, and it's not both council referrals, but I'm just wondering what the council's pleasure is. On nine A This is to consider approving a resolution of support for HB 31, the No Tampon Tax bill. What? Where do people think we could bump it up ahead of the agenda of the next agenda item? I don't think to take too long, but I'm only one person. How many speakers are there, Madam Clerk? 515.

Regular Agenda Item

Discussion on the Status of the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School and Provide Direction as to Options for Swim Facilities in Alameda. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03052019_2019-6592

Speaker 0: What? Where do people think we could bump it up ahead of the agenda of the next agenda item? I don't think to take too long, but I'm only one person. How many speakers are there, Madam Clerk? 515. Speaker 2: So our high school students. Speaker 0: Or high school students equal right now anyway. So you have 3 minutes to speak. Speaker 8: I mean, we. Speaker 0: Could reduce the image. I know we have a bunch of staff. I get that. But anyway, it's up to you. And I don't spend too much time discussing it because that would defeat the purpose of moving fast. What do you think? I have a sure. Let's do it. I need one more. And then we could call it a majority. Speaker 5: I think the is narrows we need for right. And I think the proper time to do this was that item two agenda changes. But I'd be in favor of it without limiting the time. Speaker 0: Okay. Oh, I see. Limiting the time for this. Speaker 5: Without limiting the time. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. So if I could propose we go ahead and take item nine A now and speakers, I would just ask you to limit yourselves. Don't feel that you have to repeat the same thoughts that the person did before. But we love hearing from our high school students and their teachers and parents, whoever are here. So, okay, let's do that with minor apologies to our fire personnel there. But I just, um, I feel bad sometimes when we get to the end of an evening in either parents with children or the kids themselves are still waiting. So. Oh, do we need to vote to do that or. I think I think we reached consensus. I kind of think it was unanimous, wasn't it? Okay. So with that item nine A. That's Rosemary Knox, a member of L.A. mayor. Speaker 7: Maybe. Maybe you guys should take a vote on it in my motion, and that's good. Speaker 0: I didn't want you just sitting there observing. All right. Okay, let's have a motion. He's going to move that. Speaker 9: We have to amend the amended agenda to move. Speaker 0: Second O favor. Okay. Passes unanimous. Thank you. You. Okay. Speaker 2: Consider approving a resolution of support for Assembly Bill 31. The No Tampon. Speaker 3: Tax. The. Speaker 0: Councilmember. Are you doing this for honor? Speaker 8: I will. I will start. This bill has a new it might have a new number, but it is not a new concept. And I think the purpose of it is pretty clear. It's the no tampon tax bill, HB 31. And this bill has come forward a couple of times unsuccessfully, and we're hoping to see it come through. You know, tampons, menstrual products are essential items. There's no reason they should be taxed. There's a lot of things that are essentially exempt from from various sales taxes. And these aren't luxury items. These are essential. I'm wearing a shirt right now that says equality, period. It's really about menstrual equity throughout the world. And while we are doing pretty well in terms of making sure that women don't have to stay at home or be isolated and confined while they're on their period, we could do a hell of a lot more for a first world country, and I think that starts with taking a step at not taxing items that are necessary for women to go about and continue their lives. It's part of overall equity equity relative to access to schools, to learning to work, all of those different things. So I'm proud to be carrying this tonight with Vice Mayor Knox White. And what we are asking is that the city council pass the attached resolution in support of this legislation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there further council comments or shall we hear speakers? Speaker 5: Two quick comment, quick. I just want to note that the four primary authors includes our Assembly member, Assembly Member Rob Bonta, who has prioritized this as one of his top items of justice this year. Speaker 0: It's rather dismaying to know that the. Sign this, but. Okay. So we're going to go on to. And they are and you see a stick Ellison followed by. It's not just. Yes. Sorry to say so. Speaker 1: Mayor and council members. My name is. Mayor and council members. My name is Joe Synergize Blue and I'm a freshman and Snow High School and I'd like to say items like condoms, Viagra, hard liquor and men's razors are not taxes items that are luxury. Then why are necessary hygiene products? Tampons and pads are taxes luxury items with an extra 5% tax for every box when around 46% of students from and still qualify for free and reduced lunch. It is unfair to expect those kids and their families to pay an extra tax for something uncontrollable. The pink tax is the only sex specific tax in the country and perpetuates institutionalized misogyny reflecting outdated sexist views. The average woman menstruate for around 40 years. Let's say the average period is six days long and use three pads a day. A single box costs $7 without tax and comes with 36 pads. A single period would use 18 pads, which would mean that every two months you would need to buy another box. It costs $42 a year without tax to just buy pads. It is $1,680 for a lifetime. With tax, it is $1,800. That's almost $200 more because of an unfair tax. Pads and tampons are health necessities and should not be taxed as luxury items because periods are not a luxury. Please vote to endorse AB 31 a bill that will end this unjust tax. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, my my rule. Everybody in my classroom, we don't applaud. We don't cheer. No matter how persuasive the argument is, it just helps make the meeting go more smoothly. And for some public speakers, it's really intimidating because they don't know if they're going to get booed or cheered. So you didn't know that, but now you do. Our next speaker is Zoe Erickson, followed by Lilly Carnival. Zoe, hi. Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Zoe Erikson, and I'm a sophomore at Antonella High School. I'd like to say that putting a tax on products women need as a direct consequence of their biology is fundamentally sexist and unjust. And in the tampon tax will help ensure that all people who need menstrual products can afford them. This tax unfairly penalizes women, and considering nearly half of the students at my school qualify for free and reduced lunch, the tax penalizes those struggling financially, which directly and greatly impacts my peers and many people in the Alameda community and around the world and in our state. Okay. Uh. Sorry. Uh. The first time I had to buy my own menstrual products was when my parents were out of town. They had only left me with a certain amount of money, and paying for these menstrual products cost over half of what they had left me. They were only gone for a night or two, but I remember being absolutely devastated that I couldn't order in pizza or garlic bread that night. Since then, I have heard complaints and I have seen directly how unjust the tampon tax is. I urge you all to support this resolution. Speaker 0: Followed by Red. Speaker 1: Hello. Members of the City Council. Mayor Ashcroft. My name is Lily Carnival, and I'm a senior at Onslow Junior and Senior High School in my sophomore year. My friends at Nicolosi Allison, who is here tonight, Sarah Scarth and I organized a period products drive for the existing legislation to end the tampon. We worked very hard and had some incredible conversations along the way. When I think about the possibility of AB 31 on a statewide level, I'm incredibly excited. I think about the many girls around the state of California who will no longer have to worry so intensely about affording necessary period products. I especially think about the young. Speaker 3: Tax on period products is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Those of us working to advocate for what we call menstrual equity call for safe, sustainable, convenient and affordable products in all schools, jails, shelters, and other public places like this building. Ending shame and stigma at school and at work. Period. Education for everybody as part of a healthy approach to learning about what it is to be a human being. Now I recognize that we have a climate emergency, a devastating housing crisis. We've heard again about tonight a fragile, malfunctioning health care system and a democracy best described as under siege. We also have our local issues to grapple with, including how to reflect our values in our city's budget and how to be the community of kind and loving people that we want to be. I'll work alongside all of you on those issues, too. But I ask tonight that you do one thing. Speaker 6: Through this resolution. Speaker 3: Tell the women and girls of Alameda and our legislators that your allies, that you understand that gender equality can only be achieved when girls and women can be free of the burden of discrimination and stigma. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks for all your remarks, everybody. I'm just going to lead off and say that I think this is just kind of like a no brainer. I don't really know why it hasn't been done yet, but I'm completely behind us endorsing the measure. And I think the resolution there is three great points in the resolution, while many but three that leapt out at me. One is and it was raised by the speakers, a disparate, disproportionate negative impact on women, which largely impacts women in low income brackets for whom sales tax constitutes a larger proportion of their income. And several states have already taken this step, including Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Jersey. I also think Ms.. Jordan just raised that. It's something I've read about lately. There is really shameful treatment of women prisoners in terms of making menstrual products available to them. So when all of you in political and proud out there as an ally want to take on yet another issue, look into that one. Just my suggestion. But anyway, any comments and then a motion because we we are waiting for our next item to so comments. A vice mayor in Knoxville because you were the coauthor. Speaker 9: So just quickly, I'm glad I didn't speak before the speakers because they couldn't have done a better job. So I just wanted to encourage our vote. One of the reasons I wanted to coauthor this is that allow me to just enacted its own five cent or a half cent sales tax. Yeah, locally. And we have no control over what is taxed within that. Only through a 31 can we change that. But I think that we actually are in a place to to show leadership on something that we've actually our community has already taken action. And I think it's important for us to show the way. So I think all of these fantastic people who have contributed to the resolution, that's before you written it and encouraged us to move it forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: You know, just check in with the acting city attorney. You would agree, would you not, that this item has been sufficiently an agenda to consider approving a resolution of this work for AB 31 that we could take a vote tonight? Yes, I would agree. Yes. Okay. Um. Speaker 5: Councilman Brody, think you had some quick comments. Thank you. For all of the speakers that came out. You know, Rosemary, you've been emailing me for a while on this, so I'm glad that, you know this bill, hopefully this is the year it gets across the finish line. But, you know, it's just a start. I mean, we do provide some of these products to low income students. But, you know, we need to provide these to all students. You know, we said apparently passed a resolution today, but yet we don't do anything in our restrooms in city hall, which I think is something we need to do. And, you know, you mentioned the impact on on low income families. And, you know, that's something that that that's the next step in this battle is to make sure that these products are provided to all low income families and people that do have, you know, federal aid are able to spend that money on these products. And, you know, I think it's also important that we, you know, consider the disparate impacts on our LGBT families, because if you have two women in a family, you know, you're both, you know, family members are paying. So I think this is a great step and I appreciate and applaud the activism of these young ladies. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de so great. Speaker 10: Well, I just want to be brief in saying, you know, tonight was a very exciting night in the sense that young adults from Alameda High School had pushed helped push the pool issue. And to see young adults coming from Encino High School I myself graduated from. It's in our class of 1984. Right. It's good to see that, you know, young adults from Imperial High School also pushing this very important issue. So I'm happy to support this. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Do we have a motion? Speaker 8: So moved. Speaker 0: Do we have a second? Speaker 9: Second? Speaker 0: All in favor. I ask the motion to endorse AB 31 passes unanimously, and you will see to it that that information makes its way to Sacramento. All right. Perfect. Thank you. All right. Speaker 9: I'm just going to pass this along. We have some buttons about AB 31, if anybody would like to take one. They are more than welcome today. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice work, ladies. Okay, we are moving on to six C. Thank you for your patience on this. And Chief Reggie Rodriguez, you're presenting. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 11: We're going to say similar. Speaker 2: Oh, I was going to read it. But then I did a resolution amending Master P resolution 122191 to add new and revise existing for our department fees and a resolution approving a workforce change and a resolution amending the budget. Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you, Mary. Members of the council and members of the public. Before we get started tonight, if I can draw your attention to our staff report, I do want to make one clarification for the notification of the Council on the Staff report. I'm looking at the top of page four. I don't know if you have a printed copy or an electronic copy, but if everyone's on page four at the very top, you'll see the top bullet points and then the sentence that begins with the current annual cost. Everyone there. Okay. So I know this has come up in a number of questions that I've received from the council, and I'll read it as follows. The current annual cost of adding a fire marshal at the division chief level is estimated at 300.

Council Referral

Consider Approving a Resolution of Support for AB31 - “The No Tampon Tax Bill” (Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03052019_2019-6608

Speaker 2: Briefly discuss as a council the logistics, goals and vision surrounding the March 16, 2019 priority setting workshop. And this item was placed on the agenda through Custom Councilmember Odie. Speaker 0: Councilman Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you. First, Joe, it's good to see you up and around and back in public, so it's good to see you. I just put this in because I really was not informed a lot about how this workshop is going to play out. The logistics. I think I had heard that staff was not going to be there, which, you know, that was a little concerning because I think it's important for staff to hear our thought processes and our priorities and then that this was not going to be videotaped. So if somebody wasn't there, they couldn't watch a video, they'd have to listen to an audio. So I just thought since it's a council priority setting workshop, the council should have a little input in the organization and planning of it. And to date, you know, I really haven't been asked to do that. So I thought maybe all of us could kind of brainstorm and figure out how we want this to to play out. Because I remember last time, you know, four of us wanted to do something regarding, you know, team building and and working together and, you know, that kind of got nixed. So I just want to make sure that we know what we're expecting. And, you know, all of us have some input in how it how it flows so we can have the most productive priority setting workshop that we have that we could have. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. District. Clarification. I hope you received an email today that was sent to us by Sarah Henry for reading the email from Management Partners and specifically I think Cynthia KURTZ and of Management Partners in it does note that it talks about what will what will happen and also says in preparation for the workshop, Cynthia KURTZ of Management Partners met with each of you to hear what you believe is an important priority for the city. And this survey, which we're asked to complete online before March the eighth, I think the end of this week, seeks to identify broad areas of shared interest by asking you to rank the topics for discussion. The results of the short survey will inform the preparation of the workshop agenda, but I know a number of us have had the opportunity to meet with someone from management partners. Speaker 5: Yeah, I've met with her too, and shared my priorities. But you know, we haven't discussed whether it's appropriate for staff to be there. I know our new city manager is going to be there, but technically he's not on the payroll yet. So, I mean, are we going to rely on him to relay everything? I mean, and the fact that we're having this not here in the council chambers, you know, I don't know who made that decision. We didn't have any input in that decision. I don't know if any of my colleagues had any input in the decision. You know, setting the agenda. We haven't had any. And I think last time, you know, we kind of were pretty clear and we had some input. So I just want to have the council discuss it. And, you know, if. Speaker 0: It's. Speaker 5: Because I. Speaker 0: Only I'm happy to discuss it, I think we have a lot of input as to what we want to have discussed and how we want to run. But let's let's hear from others. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 10: Well, I think the idea of a priority setting meeting is absolutely fantastic. Not that I ever want to use this phrase, but I'm going to use it right now. You know, I've been on council previously going on 14 years and we've never had a priority setting type of powwow. I mean, I know that there was one when I was not on council, but, um, so, so I look forward to it. If council member Odie has some suggestions that he would like us to consider, because I think the issue isn't so much what we're going to discuss, but how we're going to go about, you know, interacting with each other. You know, I'm hoping so. Speaker 0: And I'll just chime in about the staff part. So bear in mind, we ask a lot of our staff. This is their Saturday. We will definitely have them there for our budget workshops. But the way this was envisioned was, is from my meeting with Miss KURTZ was to, to give this council a chance to talk among themselves and really flesh out what our concerns are and and our desires moving forward. And so we certainly would factor staff into the equation when we're, say, talking about the budgets, but we also need to be sensitive about asking them to come in on their Saturdays. And right now, as we all know, a number of our staff are our department heads are stretching themselves to cover more than one position. So I and, you know, I've said this more than once, I am really pleased to be working with this council. I think we've accomplished a lot already in our two and a half months on the job together, but by all means, it will be a better workshop if you put your input, you know, to the to the facilitators because they're, you know, they're the ones who just want to do what we want. And they've done a lot of these sorts of things before. Speaker 5: Yeah, I know that. And I mean, just the fact that you brought up that it was envisioned, you know, I was given that same report back from the from the facilitator. And I thought that the envisioning process is something that the council as a whole should, should be part of. And I don't feel like we were a part of it. I mean, I don't know who did it. You know, I don't know who chose the facilitator. I don't know who decided that staff shouldn't be attending. I don't know who decided it should be at the library where it's not going to be on video for the public to be able to review in a transparent manner like all of our other meetings. I know I was not involved in that decision making process. I don't know if any of my colleagues were. I don't know. It was a subcommittee. And I think for all of us to be working together, we have to actually work together and collaborate and, you know, not just be told this is how it's going to happen. Speaker 0: Well, I think that that's the opportunity we have this Saturday. And I did have a meeting with one of the members from management partners because because they asked me to to sit and give some overview. And I said, I really don't have much experience. Certainly not with a successfully run a priority setting workshop, because we didn't have complete buying last time and and last time. I think my feeling was I was open to just working with the facilitator. I feel like it's always you should be open to new ideas that people who have done these things before, you know, just help us communicate with each other and bring out what we want our priorities to be for the year going forward. I mean, ideally, you would probably do this in the very beginning of the year, but I think we can all reflect back over the last couple of months and realize we were pretty busy. And yes, our new city manager will not be our new city manager yet, but he does want to attend and just sit in the audience to hear us and hear, you know, get to know our concerns and ideas better. And I think that's great. Other council members, Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I think. You know, I think. I think that there's a lot of things that this council, this current council is doing different from certain. I've only been on two councils, but that's doing very different from my years of experience. I do have two. So I can see years at this point. I do think, though, that. You know, I think that in for transparency sake, I think that there is it is helpful for us to kind of talk through why we're doing the priority session workshop, what we're hoping to get out of it. And I appreciate that the individual interviews with management partners and kind of them getting our feedback was interesting. Just to look through the survey today to see what other people had suggested and also how she processed what she thought. I said my priorities were because one of my priorities was not listed. So it was it was kind of interesting, too. I mean, I think we all think that we're communicating. But what people hear and what we think we said could sometimes be different. And I think also it's Councilmember Otis point. I think even to just have a brief conversation right now about how do we think the meeting's going to run? You know, I got the sense I mean, I kind of reading into the survey of what was there, what was, you know, what the day might look like. But I also think that, you know, this is one of the detriments of not having and not being a full time council and being the part time council that we are is that we don't really get to spend a lot of time together as a body and we don't get to have these really kind of. Esoteric conversations about what our priorities are. And I'm really looking forward to hearing from all of you not necessarily about the referral list or the budget process. I think we'll have those discussions, but what are your actual priorities? And I think that there's a lot of things that we get asked on the campaign trail. But at the end of the day, a lot of the kind of key topics of discussion sometimes politically are not the key issues facing the city that people don't necessarily want to talk about, people take for granted. And so so I think, you know, at least from my perspective, I think we we owe it to each other to have that conversation. But I also kind of I get that and I don't want it to be a staff dominated conversation in that I don't want to get I personally don't want to have staff presentations on on everything. But I do feel like it might be helpful to have staff present or available to provide some context and background information. Since when we have this conversation, like let's say we discuss this specific issue and say this is this is a priority and this is why to kind of understand how we've gotten there and, you know, or to for them to at least know that that's what we. So I guess my my question is, if we're not going to have staff there to kind of take notes and get that feedback, is is this the first of a couple workshops where we get to have these conversations or and it since it's not going to be taped, how are we going to relay it to staff if they're not going to be there? Can we can we discuss that a little bit right now? Speaker 0: Yeah. So my understanding is that there will be a product, a final product put together by the management partners who are doing this. And one of the other reasons not to have staff there was to have just that conversation among the council without, you know, referring out. And also, we should be able to put out what our priorities, our hopes, our aspirations are without even worrying about the cost of it. We'll get you know, we have our priorities and then we'll go to the budget hearing. And with our priorities in mind, we'll figure out what we can afford. But it's not a matter of, okay, we'd like to do this, but we can't afford it. It's, it's that'll help us fashion. Speaker 8: So the. Speaker 3: Framework can you. Speaker 8: Kind of give me an example of that? Like I, I get how maybe if we say, okay, the swimming pool is our priority, but if we say something like housing is our priority, I guess my question is, how does that factor into like the budget conversation or in your mind, how does that affect the budget conversation? Speaker 0: So staying with the topic of the council referral, I guess I could go I mean, and again, remember, this is our workshop and you can speak up and say, you know, I think we need to spend more time doing this when we're there. But for instance, on the housing. One of the things that I and interim city attorney just cut me off if you think I'm going too far off script. But one of the things that I think we need to consider is possibly doing an affordable housing bond like some of our neighboring cities have done. So that, you know, might be something to get out in the conversation. And then we'll back that around with, well, what other possible measures might we be bringing to voters? There's there's lots of possibilities we have. Speaker 8: So so what I'm hearing this is the first time I've had this conversation. So I'm just for the members of the public. This is the first time I've had this conversation with any of you. And I think that so I do think Councilmember O.T. for for bringing the referral in, that I think it's given us an opportunity to actually have this conversation with each other, because I don't get to spend that much time with all of you chatting. But so so it will be a little freeform then in your mind that everyone will kind of get it'll be a conversation. And then when management partners comes back with like this final work product, if there's something that, let's say Councilmember Ody or Councilmember Desai or any of us feel doesn't quite capture the essence of the conversation or what they intended, is there an opportunity for us to review it and comment back? Is there an opportunity for us. Speaker 0: To repress a panic button? I'm so sorry. Speaker 3: We're good. We are. Speaker 0: So sorry. Speaker 3: Okay. We keep on. Speaker 0: Is it where. Speaker 3: In. Speaker 9: Everybody's need. Speaker 0: We have? Yeah. So anybody who's working so sorry to our two wonderful offices. Nice to see you. Speaker 9: And I'll say hi. Thank you for. Speaker 4: Responding. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we need to, officer? Do we need to somehow? Speaker 9: I just told you about this, right, Jane? Speaker 1: I am not really cleared. Speaker 0: Is will you clear? Okay. And then what? What? Speaker 8: I will release for the false alarm. Speaker 0: Now stop. She's talking. Let's hear what she's saying. Speaker 3: Okay. If this happens, then we'll just come and kind of poker head. Okay. All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And then I think what we probably need all of us up here is a little. Thank you. A little tutorial on how to avoid doing that. Because I have to say, when Mary Gilmore was mayor, there was a time when we had a speaker and he was a little scary. And I was sitting next to her there and I'm whispering, Press your panic button, press your panic button. And she's hissing. I can't find it. But then about a day or two later, I was giving a group of second and third graders a tour of accounts, and I was letting them do a mock council meeting. And I was there. And pretty soon this big officer showed the doorway. And I said, You just said, now you're in. One of my second or third graders managed to find it, but. Speaker 9: I don't know what that says about me. But when I was on the transportation chair during do time, they installed new buttons after that incident. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: So we'll assume it. Speaker 8: Was a John has the. Speaker 3: Record. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 9: Yeah, there used to be only one. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 8: So. So if there is there an opportunity for feedback, correction and. And will, that will be so. Speaker 0: And could I just throw in a suggestion? Did you all get Ms.. KURTZ a business card after you email her now? I mean, well, not now, but, you know, your first opportunity and it raises questions because, again, I have only sort of a vague understanding, but it's very much there will be some facilitation because that's how you get the conversation and the structure going. But. This is our workshop. And. Speaker 8: And then will the will there be an audio recording of it? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: That's all we have over there as audio. Speaker 8: So there'll be an audio recording and then. Speaker 0: You go where. Speaker 8: It is. Meeting, meeting minutes. Speaker 0: Yeah. So there is a re there's a recording meeting. Yeah. It's a process. Speaker 2: But for workshops we typically don't do extensive white capture. We just get the highlights and the report out from that. Speaker 8: Okay. And then if there's, if there's a topic where we all go, okay, yes, I'm I'm interested in this or I'm interested in having a follow up workshop on, say, funding measures or whatever. Um, we could, the process would be what do we have to vote on that as a council? Do we give direction to come back? How, how would this work? Speaker 0: Well, that's the sort of thing I would think we can just arrange to have agenda is to approve another another process. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And again, bear in mind, I am speaking about this having never attended one that, uh, that I felt was really, you know, you were there. I mean. Speaker 5: Yeah. And, you know, I think we missed an opportunity with the team building and communication portion, and I'd like to make sure we do that, because I do think there are this referral, you know, kind of an example. I think there are ways we can improve that and I would like to have that. And as far as Melissa's comment about, you know, I don't want staff talking, but I would like somebody, you know, if possible, voluntary, you know, not banning them. But if they want to come, they could come in and hear what they what they say. Hear what? Speaker 0: Somebody from your office be president. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah. But so so to Councilmember Cody's point, could we invite staff? We could say option having this if you would like. I mean. Speaker 5: The public is invited. Speaker 0: Public. They can certainly come, but. Oh. Okay. Mr. Rudy, did you want to say something? Speaker 4: I was going to say we had them standing by, but after direction, I excused him for the weekend. You could ask them, but I told them. You don't have to hold that day open. Weeks ago. Speaker 0: Yeah. And my understanding is that a council retreat is a council retreat. And it is, of course, open to the public. But it's not a check in with staff, and I'm not sure which staff we would choose, but what what are our thoughts? Vice Mayor, you haven't said too much or anything yet. Okay. Speaker 3: So, so even so. Speaker 8: If there is so if there is follow up, then the way I guess to to my earlier question, we would get it to the impacted staff and say, here's the portion of the meeting. We discussed it at around the 35 minute mark or the 60 minute mark, if you want to hear council conversation. And there's a way for them to hear our our discussion. Speaker 0: And well, there are 30 minutes or how is that worth? Yeah, I. Speaker 2: Mean, I can capture the basic overviews. Typically we make a workshop like less detailed minutes, but if you guys want to request it for that. Speaker 8: Meeting, I will. So you said there's also an audio recording. Right. So if they wanted to hear the discussion, we could point them to and say around this, Marcus, when we discussed it. Speaker 5: And the facilitator is going to do a report as well. Is that. Speaker 0: Okay? Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, those are those are good things. And I'm glad we I feel better. Yeah. Speaker 8: And then and then I also I think my other concern is just the public, because last time we had a lot of members of the public show up and and I would assume that there's going to be members of the public showing up. So can we. I think part of this conversation is also for their benefit about what they could expect. Speaker 0: 15 minutes of public comment in the beginning. And then we launch into the workshop and it's a council workshop after that. Speaker 8: And there isn't going to be specifically agendas talking points. We're just going to it's going to be a free form dialog about priorities in general. Speaker 0: I'm sure that the facilitators will have some way to tease that out of this. Not that this is a terribly reticent group, but, you know, it's because early on honest that I. Speaker 8: Think I think the way that it went before for for the benefit of the new council members was essentially we went through our referral list and it was a very kind of stunted conversation at times. And then we had members of the public who wanted to comment on specific priorities because they thought we were referrals, because they thought we were making specific decisions that day. So what I'm hearing is, is that we're not making any specific decisions, really. We're just kind of directing where we might find broader conversation points, either to agendas on as a regular agenda item or to create another work session or something like that. Speaker 0: And there were two that sometimes get kind of conflated. We did do this council well before it. Council member D.C. and vice mayor joined it. We did do a budget workshop and certainly we had all the staff and we had members of the public and kind of lobbying for their their projects. This one. No, it's that's not the way it's intended to go. And I will also say that I think one major difference is, presumably we have five people just willing to give it a try. And I you know, you don't always have a script going in and know everything that's going to happen. But I think that it's worth doing. And just think of we're at the beginning of a new term. We're about to embark with a new city manager. And I think it's it's a good time to do something like this. And again, without really knowing exactly what it is, I think it's going to be a positive experience. But vice mayor. Speaker 9: So a few things I was going to ask about the recordings. I'm glad. I'm glad it'll be recorded. I think this referral and our conversation earlier about subcommittees and it came up at our last meeting. I'm hoping that a good chunk, a quarter to a third of the beginning of our workshop, can be to us talking about how we want to work together. The last council, you know, had issues and there were lots of referrals, some of which were put forward and not not adopted because people didn't want to change the change rules. And, you know, but it didn't work. Right. I think we all know that. I mean, I'm sorry. I shouldn't say that. I know some of us here. You should take it. I want to be careful. I would really like to spend some time talking about how we want to work as a body, how we want to work with staff, and how we want to work with our boards and commissions. Because I think that we have a lot of tradition and history in the way that we work. That is just things just were done that way and they have been done that way for 15 years and it doesn't work like an example. I think it's odd that I have no idea what the Transportation Commission is doing unless I choose to listen to the meeting. Right. Just. Just, you know. Right. So. So I think we could talk about that a little bit. And I think we could talk about, you know, standing committees and ad hoc committees and that kind of stuff. So I would like to throw that out there. I haven't looked at the surveys, so maybe that's there. Yeah, I would also like to. Speaker 0: Say, yeah. Speaker 9: I talked I did talk a little bit to the, to the, the, uh, consultants who I thought were fabulous about the agenda. And I, I think the referrals point to the more that we can just basically say whatever agenda you think is the right agenda after listening to the five of us is probably the best way to set the agenda at this point in time. I just just that that would be my recommendation. And then I think we should also to to council member fellow's point about the public, because I have met with a number of them, whether it be the swim community or etc., asking who should come to this and what should we be focusing on? Right. Not telling us what to say, but should we be coming in asking for the five things we want in know? Or is it, you know, don't forget to be renters. We never forget about renters. Just to be clear, I think I think making sure that our agenda is really clear about what level of detail are we going to talk about a housing bond and get into a discussion about housing bonds? Are we going to say, hey, we think, you know, finding funding for housing is good ideas. Our housing bond tax, you know, let's let's tell staff, you know, figure out how to pay for housing. Right. Or figure out, you know, come up with an affordable housing plan that has a funding mechanism, that kind of that kind of stuff. But I think. Really making sure that our agenda transmits to the people who are going to read it from act, right? There are going to be lots of people who are interested. We've already said we're going to talk about the Sunshine Ordinance and give some direction on that. But but so that people know what to expect, I think will be really important. And I'm worried a little bit that if we we're going to want it to be nice and vague so we can talk broadly, but we also want to kind of, you know, set a tone of like this and and then kind of hold each other to that level a little bit as well. So those are my things. I agree. I want this to be a team building. I want this to be all of us just talking and comfortably and freely about what we would like to see. Finding common ground. Also finding places where we might disagree, but we can support moving forward in a conversation, even if it's not the one we. So that. Yeah, those are my comments. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I'm also a little concerned because I think, again, we really haven't spent that much time chatting about these things. And even when we do spend time together, it's very limited to what the agenda is and before us. And we don't get to have these bigger conversations that there's a lot that we're packing in to one day. And so, you know, is there an opportunity and one thing, we don't have to decide it now, but at the meeting, perhaps. Is there going to be some sort of follow up to this where we can kind of have another workshop or that sort of thing? And what's that process going to look like? Speaker 0: So what I will say is that these two women come very highly recommended and they've done this with another number of other cities and organizations. So I have faith in them leading this process. I would say that if you're right, it's a lot to pack into a day, but this is our opportunity to have that time with each other. And I think they know how to get bodies talking and focus. I mean, again, it's a you know, it is the unknown out there. And we can you know, we can be cynical going into it or we can just be open and say, let's, you know, give it our best shot. If we feel that we need more time and to continue the process, we can do that. We're the city council. We can we can do that. So I would say let's take it the first step at a time, see how it goes. The I'm thinking back, I probably shouldn't even bring this up. But I think the first time ever that we did one of these, I almost feel like the facilitator maybe didn't quite run screaming from the room, but said, Don't ever call me again or something. This is not what it's not going to be this experience. First of all, I'm just really impressed with these facilities when I've seen them. They have experience working with other with other cities. The one of them is the former both public works director and city manager of I want to say, Pasadena, California. And so let's see what we see. Let's get our surveys filled out and email them if you have even more you want to say. And then by the end of the session Saturday, I'm sure there must be a next steps. And you know what? But but we'll you know, we'll make sure that it's not just leaving us hanging. Speaker 5: I guess that I mean, I'm actually excited about it. I mean, not cynical. I think it's going to be a great, great time for us to talk and get to know each other better and find out ways we could work together and collaborate. And, you know, collaboration is a two way street. I mean, it's not just, you know, one way. So I hope we can explore those things. And I do think this is something we should do every year. I mean, it just doesn't make sense that we don't do this because it needs staff, needs that guidance. I think the council needs to, you know, set our priorities. Some cities, you know, when they have agendas, they say, well, what a priority of the council that's been pre-approved this support. So we're all kind of rowing the same boat in the same direction and working towards the same goals that we ourselves had set. So I'm excited about it. I think it's going to be really good. The last one was not so valuable, but I mean, I hope this one is a lot better. And, you know, I'd just like to see us be able to find ways to work together and, you know, have those those conversations that, you know, we can't really have on a Tuesday night at 11. Speaker 0: Okay. Anyone else can follow. Speaker 10: So I just want to and you know, what kind of intrigues me about this process is it's an opportunity to talk about higher level qualitative concerns about the direction of our city, as well as higher level quantitative concerns, and to somehow to convey that, but then also to kind of encourage operationalizing those concerns and in ways that perhaps our policies or programs. But but usually as a council we usually just get nitty gritty right into the subject matter, you know, because that's what that's what matters at the end of the day, you know, does the police car have enough gas to to to go out and do their job or, you know, to the library have enough books in the library? I mean, that's what matters the most. But a lot of the actual services that we delivered come from a perspective of philosophy about how we organize, you know, what is important and, and i.e., prioritize. So, so for me, I see this. That March 16th as an opportunity to talk about these higher level concerns and how I might operationalize those higher level concerns. So like, for example, I'm the one who had raised the issue of, you know, strengthening what I call public trust. What does that mean? Well, this is an opportunity to talk about why I think it's important and ways in which I think we as a city might might operationalize that or not. But at least it's an opportunity to talk about that at a higher level first and then move on or not. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 9: Vice Mayor I just wanted to Councilmember Phyllis Point, I just want to make sure I think at the end of the I had actually had the idea. I think we should probably consider having a half day workshop, whether it's quarterly or every every six months or something like that. And you know why? Because I don't think we're going to be able to get halfway through all that stuff we want to get through. But I'd just like to make sure that the agenda at the end of it, somewhere in the in the things we're talking about, just has a next steps. And what do we want to do based on how do we feel things got? Speaker 8: So. And I would second that because I also think full for weekend days. Well efficient can also be inefficient and that we they can be very draining and perhaps at our next one, there'll be a baby at it. Speaker 0: Will take care of holding babies. Okay. All right. Speaker 5: So one thing I want to thank everyone for this conversation. This is how I envision this going. So I appreciate the the discussion. Speaker 0: And I will commit to sending you all. Feel free to contact Ms.. KURTZ directly, but I will do my best to summarize this discussion that I've been taking notes in and make sure that your thoughts are incorporated. So thank you all. Okay. Moving on. Our next item is Council Communications. And I have one that I hope you will indulge me. This is actually because it came to me a little bit late. But it's important for the RAC, the rent review advisory committee, to feel they've got a couple of vacancies.

Council Referral

Briefly Discuss as a Council, the Logistics, Goals, and Vision Surrounding the March 16, 2019 Priority Setting Workshop. (Councilmember Oddie)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02052019_2019-6448

Speaker 0: Thank you. Rodriguez. All right. And now we're moving on to our regular agenda, and we have only one item, but it's a big one. So this is the the review of the 172 room hotel development located at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park. STAFF Is Mr. Thomas, are you are you going to address this first? All right. Speaker 7: You are. Speaker 0: Your act. Yes. Thank you. Speaker 7: I think. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 1: My God. Speaker 3: Actually, we've got to fix think. Speaker 12: We're just having a momentary. Speaker 0: Are we having a moment? Okay. Speaker 12: We're having a moment. There we go. Speaker 7: Click it. Speaker 12: Thank you. The panic was just starting to set. Speaker 7: In. Speaker 12: The evening, Mayor. Marilyn as he Ashcraft and vice mayor knox white and members of the council. Good evening. My name's Sandra Thomas. I'm your planning director. I will be presenting the staff recommendation tonight. And what I recommend that we do, since you have a lot of speakers, is I recommend that I move through my nine slides relatively quickly. I'm just going to give a sort of a quick overview of the situation and the staff recommendation. I myself, the city attorney's office, a number of other staff people are here to help me answer questions if and when the Council has any. The project applicant would like a couple of minutes to speak on behalf of his project, and then you have to appellants tonight. So I recommend that you give the applicant, I think three or 4 minutes is going to be more than enough for him and then 5 minutes for each of the appellants. But obviously, it's your meeting that's just a staff sort of suggestion on how to proceed. Once the then let everyone else speak who's come here to speak tonight, then you can close the public hearing. I know you know, this is for the benefit of everyone here who this is tonight, then that's your time to has a council to deliberate on your decision tonight. And your decision tonight is a decision as to is to answer a question. And the question is, did your planning board make a mistake when they unanimously approved this project two months ago? And I will describe the the process under which they underwent to make their decision. But that is the question that you will need to deliberate at the end of the hearing tonight after you've heard from everyone else. The appellants, there's two of them essentially are making two basic arguments. They are saying that your planning board and the city made a mistake on the environmental review of this project, that the environmental review was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act. So that's sort of concern, number one, from the appellants. And the second concern that is essentially, and I'm summarizing is that the project is just too big and doesn't meet our development standards for this site. It's probably no surprise, as the staff are recommending, that you uphold the planning board because we believe they actually did their job correctly and followed all the state and local rules and regulations. Just a little history on this. And I won't go through all this these words, but. The Planning Board in the city. We we do need to follow rules when we review development applications. We cannot and your planning board cannot make up those rules as they go along. So what your planning board did is they followed the existing rules that were in place for the review of these types of projects. And there's two big sort of agreements that really everybody should understand. And that is, first of all, there is an agreement between the city and the property owners of Harbor Bay. Harbor Bay, as probably everybody knows, was designed as one large master plan community. The business park shown on the lower right of the slide here is was, as you can see in the top. Slide it. This is manmade land. This is land that was made. For the purpose of developing it. And this was a approach. The development agreements were many originally approved in 1974. There were all sorts of disputes that were playing out. And eventually the city and that developed meant that the property owners entered into what's called the development agreement. This is a basically a contract, and it lays out the rules, the rules and obligations for both the developer and for the city, for this master plan community. And in this 100 page document, I'm going to summarize it in two bullet points. It basically says, look, the city is going to get a 22 acre shoreline park that surrounds the entire project. We're going to get a firehouse. We're going to get a school site. We're going to get a ferry terminal. We're going to get all the roads necessary to support this place. And the developer is going to build all of them and they are going to build it right on day one, just at the beginning of the project. And in return, the city is going to allow the land owners to develop 3000 housing units, which they did, and up to 5.2 million square feet of commercial development in the business park. And that's the basic deal, and that's the basic deal that has been followed for the last 30 years. And in the review, the developer agreement talks about in the review of this of new development will be done in consistent with the existing zoning and development standards, which are all documented in the development agreement. So we can't vary from those standards when we review these developments as they come forward. There was also a second agreement that really governs how this how Harbor Bay has developed over the years. Late seventies, the city of Alameda is proposing to fill the bay for Harbor Bay development as we know it today. A new agency is created in the state of California called the Bay Conservation Development Commission. It's almost happening simultaneously. Of course, this new agency gets created for the San Francisco Bay and says, Well, you're filling the bay, so we're going to have a permitting authority over every single building you built. Of course, that immediately sets up another lawsuit, and what is called legal settlement agreement is enacted between Bccdc and the property owners. And it basically says, well, since the purpose of Bccdc is to. Ensure maximum feasible public access to the shoreline. That agreement says while you build a 22 acre shoreline park all the way around the perimeter of this development, and we will call that maximum feasible public access for the entire development. That's essentially what the settlement agreement says. And therefore, every project that you can build doesn't need to come for a separate permit to determine whether maximum feasible public access is being provided with that individual project. Because we've agreed that it is the 22 acre Shoreline Park, which the developer will build on day one, which they did. And that agreement has has governed how the city and bccdc process all development at harbor Bay residential and commercial. Of course, those agreements are designed to keep us all out of trouble and avoid further lawsuits. And they've worked pretty well. But there has been some problem sites this I would call this one of them not maybe not a problem separate difficult site. It's it's zoned for commercial manufacturing and it's part of the business park, but it's immediately adjacent to the park. It's immediately adjacent to some to the neighborhood and it's immediately adjacent to the ferry terminal. So it's been a little difficult over the years, a little controversial. We originally approved an office development with ten two storey office buildings and 26 on this site. That project was approved by the planning board and then appealed. The Council upheld the Planning Board's decision to develop the site, but it was just before the recession and as a result, only two of the ten buildings were built. Stacy went back and Maguire and Hester, the two office buildings you see out there today, 2014, there was a proposal to do assisted living on this site. It was also approved. It was then appealed by the neighborhood. That appeal was not upheld at the time, but the project applicants were proposing to come back with a revised application . And then for reasons that had nothing to do with the city, they dropped that application. We now have a hotel proposal that has been approved by the planning board and is being appealed by the neighborhood and the other appellant the labor union, three or four. I think once again there's this issue of sort of following the rules. I'm sure there's many people tonight who will argue that this should be a park. It can't. It's never been planned for a park. If we want to take private land for a public purpose like a park, we do have to buy it. The planning board and the city cannot use your regulatory process, your planning and zoning process to essentially create open space by denying projects. So let's just get to the major issues before you did your planning board make a mistake when they reviewed the adequacy of the environmental analysis? I think the appellant and staff and everybody playing board all agree, yes, this project requires an air. That's not the question before us. We all know we did in the air. The question is, and what the applicant is saying is that the Planning Board should have required us know an additional EMR for the development of this site . A little background on this. The city did in the air in 1974 for the original development plan. Then in 1989, when they did the draft, when we did the development agreement, there was a major overhaul of that air to address the development agreement and the plan development of the business park, which was then documented one year later in the general plan as well. So two year, 1989, 1990, all supporting and evaluating the environmental impacts of 5.2 million square feet of commercial development in the business park, 17,300 employees in the business park and ten excuse me, 100 foot buildings in the business park. Just for reference, and this is important today, we have about 2.75 million square feet built in the business park, and we have a somewhere between five and 6000 employees in the business park. So we haven't come close to hitting what we had projected in the prior year. The California Environmental Quality Act says you will not require property owners to do a second air. Unless there's evidence that there is the potential for new environmental impacts that were not covered in those original areas. And that's the process the city went through to look at. Well, are there any new impacts that might be result from this project that we didn't anticipate that when we did the prior year and those prior year in 1989 and 1990, assumed the 5.2 million square feet and the 17,000 employees. So we do look at those issues and we look at with every single project the council knows the planning board is very familiar with this. What people may not understand is every single staff report we do an environmental analysis and we look at this. So these issues were talked about. And so really the question and we do this with every witness is now the third project on this site in the last ten years that we've evaluated. And so obviously the first question that always comes up, you know, what about traffic? There must be traffic impacts from developing this vacant land. And every traffic study we've done in the three in the last ten years for this site specifically. Looks at this. And remember, the question is not, oh, are there going to be impacts from developing a vacant site? Of course there's going to be more cars. It's a vacant site. So yes, there will be more cars, but that's not the question under the California Environmental Quality Act. The question is, were those cars not anticipated when you did your air before? And would this generate additional cars or more cars or more traffic than you originally anticipated in your prior air? If it does, then you need to do an update or a new air. But if you're already analyzed it, then you don't and you shall not require a new way. As I said, you know, the traffic analysis and that's been the same for all three of them for the last three years, first for the office project and for the assisted living project, and now for the hotel project. The conclusion is from our traffic consultants who reanalyzed this in 2018. No, there is no evidence that there is going to be additional traffic generated by this project that is up and beyond what the prior air projected. Because remember the prior year a projected of traffic from 5.2 million square feet and 17,000 employees. You only have about 6000 employees out there today, so we're not even close. Of course, hotels generate less daily trips than office and R&D development, which is what was projected in those prior year. So if you just compare, well, the prior year assumed a certain amount of deployment on that site and it was at that type of development. The hotel does even less than that. It generates less peak hour trips even in the 2006 office project and is providing shuttle services. So when you look at all the record that the planning board looked at, they were absolutely right. There is no evidence that a new EMR is needed for traffic. Next question that we look at all the time, because this could change over 20 years between the last year and this year is the biological impacts. You know, maybe there were no endangered species on the site in 1989, but there are today that could happen that could generate new impacts we don't know about. So every project we send out, biologists, trained biologists, not only by the city, independent biologists. And they walk this site. They did it in 2006. They did it again in 2014, not 2016. And then they did it again in 2018 to look for endangered species or any kinds of. Potential biological impacts and every single time they come back with the same conclusion. No, you do not have any endangered species. And once again, people it's this issue of are there any impacts that you didn't forecast? I've I've been told. But the rabbits have moved out there. That's true. And the rabbits are super cute. We do love the rabbits, but they are not an endangered species. And that is not a new environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. We also I think the appellants weren't fully aware of the fact that we have a bird safe window ordinance and there are conditions of approval on the project. So they the bird strike concern is is not evidence for the need for an air obviously construction materials. We put a lot about that in our staff report. This is all governed by state and federal regulations EPA, OSHA, CARB and a number of facilities so that the use of certain types of construction materials is not a new environmental impact requiring any air. And of course, as you know from the packet, we have review and sign off from the Airport Land Use Commission, the Oakland Airport. These are not new impacts. There is no new impact. And of course, noise is also not a new environmental impact from the cause of building this hotel. So on this CEQA findings, we are recommending that you uphold your planning board. They they interpreted and implemented sequel correctly, and there is no evidence of any new impacts or more severe impacts that would cause them what you already projected. Next issue that's been raised in the appeals is it's just too big. The project is too big. What they approved is too massive for the site. Well, we have zoning regulations which establish what you can do on the site. So that's how we measure whether it's too massive or not. If it complies with the regulations and it's not too massive, if it exceeds the regulations and it is too massive. The main restriction on this site is what's called the floor area ratio. It's 0.5, which is relatively low for an urban area, but not uncommon in a business park. When you translate, it's a relationship of how much floor area you can have in relation to the amount of land you have. In this case, when you do the maps, the project's about 119,900 square feet in floor area. That's the maximum amount of floor area you can build on this site. The Westmont Project a few years ago, same basic size floor area. And this project meets that floor area. The other issue that has come up a lot is, oh, it's the buildings too high. Well, the building is 63 feet to the top of the parapet. The height limit is 100 feet. That is documented very clearly in the development agreement that I talked about in the CMS zoning, which is what this site is zoned, as well as our 1990 general plan, which made it very clear that high rise is a, quote, high rise buildings, 100 feet as of right. That means by right and up to 156 feet, subject to discretionary review, can be built at the business park. So the planning board was absolutely correct when they determined that the that the projects not too massive for the site. It complies with those regulations. Setbacks, same situation. There's a setback requirement all included in the development agreement and in the zoning for this site. It's for this type of restaurant retail, commercial, recreational use, which is what a hotel falls into. It's 25 feet from the edge of the park. This building a setback, 35 feet from the edge of the park. If you want to if you if you measure all the way to the water's edge, it's 75 feet. So it meets the setbacks. It also meets the parking requirements, the parking requirement for this project with the restaurant and cafe that's also being added next to the ferry terminal, which is we think is going to be a great asset for the business park. It's something that the business park has been looking for for a very long time, which is another restaurant, waterfront restaurant. This they are providing two hour and 75 vehicle parking spaces to meet the zoning requirement. The parking demand study basically said that's way too many. You will never need 275 parking spaces for this hotel. So what the planning board did is put a condition of approval on the project, that they have to provide the vacant spaces to ferry parkers or ferry riders who can then park there during the day. They're required to advertise it with signs and provide a mobile app so that people can check their phones and see if there's parking available at the hotel when they're heading down to the ferry. There's accusations the city and the planning board didn't do the public noticing, right? We did. We worked consistent with all state and city requirements for public notification for all the hearings we had. That's includes newspaper ads, postings and letters to all property owners within 300 feet. And that's all been documented for the record. Finally, the planning board did approve it with some conditions. I think we all agree that if we're going to do a hotel here next to our ferry terminal as sort of a gateway into Harbor Bay, it's got to be awfully nice looking. The planning board said this is. Speaker 7: Not and. Speaker 0: I'm going to just interrupt Mr. Thomas for a minute and ask that the audience be respectful to all of our speakers. And the reason for that is Mr. Thomas is a veteran. He's used to this. We will we may have some people here today who are speaking in public for the first time. It is very intimidating for them to have people laugh or cheer or jeer. So I'm just asking what I like to say is make the podium a safe place where anyone feels welcome to get up because I want all of your input and you will have a chance. But please do your best to be respectful to the speakers. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Thomas. Speaker 12: And the person who was laughing at that last statement, I think we all agree with her. We didn't think that this was a good enough architectural design. The planning board said this is not good enough. We you meet our height limits, you meet our size limitations. But from an architectural standpoint, we're not happy. So they did not approve this architectural design. And they said, before you pull building permits, you need to come back to us with the final elevations, because these aren't good enough for this pride, for this site, which is such a visible site. They also want to see that public art plan. They suggest using public art to really make this a signature building. And then, of course, the other thing that they said was we want to see revisions to the landscaping lighting plan and we want you to do that with the surrounding neighborhood, because we think a lot of the issues in terms of creating a good neighbor, particularly with the residential on the back side, can be addressed through smart landscaping and lighting design. So with that, I'll wrap up. Staff is recommending that you uphold your planning board's unanimous decision on this project. The environmental analysis is adequate. The project is consistent with standards and agreements that have been put in place to avoid problems and misinterpretations. And there is no evidence that the planning board erred in its unanimous decision to conditionally approve this project. So that I'll wrap up my comments. I'm available to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Does anyone have any clarifying questions they want to ask Mr. Thomas? If not, not from the audience. This is a lively group. Okay. What we are going to do now is I believe the sequence is we will hear from the applicant and then we will hear from our two appellants, and then we will take public comment. And we have speakers subsidiary. I'm just guessing a. Speaker 3: Very large stack. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 8: Information. Speaker 0: All right. So. Oh, I'm sorry. One minute, Councilmember. Speaker 8: Point of information. Do we have, like, a time limit on either the or any of these? Speaker 0: Well, I so I heard and and Mr. Leach, this is the applicant. Mr. Leach, Mr. Thomas kind of spoke on your behalf and said, you want 3 minutes to speak. Do you feel that's adequate due to it? Well, you can have three. And then he indicated that the appellants could each have 5 minutes. I will check with the appellants and I will just say whatever one gets, the other gets. I'm a mother of twins. That's the way we do it. So anyway, so with that, any further clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Leach. Come on up and be sure to speak into the microphone. Speaker 4: My name's Robert Leach. I'm the lead developer for the project. I wanted to basically, I think I'm sure most of you probably know by now that I grew up in town. I was born and raised here. I grew up in town, went to high school, elementary school here. The only reason that that's important is because it gives me a historical perspective about what's been in the city for the last 50 years in terms of commercial development and hotels. And, you know, we set out a year ago really looking at this project and saying, hey, how could we build the nicest hotel in Alameda? And that really has been our goal. And we basically, you know, looked at the site and felt that it had so many great potential to it because of the the location, the waterfront, the ferry terminal next door. It makes it really an excellent hotel site. It's 5 minutes from the terminals at the airport. We noticed that I've always known, even when I was a policeman out here, that we didn't have really many good restaurants out of Harbor Bay. And so we wanted to make sure that we added a nice restaurant and. And it's funny that we have a pizza transportation center, a nearby, but no coffee stores nearby. So we wanted to add coffee station as well. And pizza is one of the groups that we're talking to. Great restaurant, great hotel. I can tell you that what we've designed and and I would agree with Mr. Thomas that there's things we can do to try to enhance the exterior. But the shape and size was built deliberately on the idea that we wanted to maintain an open view for the residents. And if you look at the site plan in the photographs, you see half of the site is open. And that open creates a great corridor for for everyone to look out towards the water. If we lower the building down, all it would have done is made the building wider and block more of the view. As we started this journey, we met with staff. We've had three community meetings. A lot of folks are here today, and I think that we listened as much as we could. In fact, we made 37 changes to the project based on input from the community and from the staff trying to address everybody's concerns. One of the things I wanted to do after, you know, I read Miami to newspapers quite often and saw some of the controversy on on another hotel site out there. And so our goal was not to come in and ask for variances or can we have a favor or do this or that? We basically said, let's take a look at what the rules are. Let's make sure the reapply to it. We do everything for the rules 100%. Don't ask for variances. It's I know it's controversial. I know that there's a lot of people that would prefer it's open space and not to have any commercial development at that part of the business park. So we did everything we could to comply. We think that we have a really nice project, far and away, and I've been building hotels for 30 years. I can tell you this would be the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. And and it's a top of the line product. You know, it's a marriott hotel, the largest hotel company in the world. But the owners of the hotel or a family owned business, they're not a big, giant corporation. They're a small family. And they've done everything they can to comply with the regulations that are in. Appreciate your review tonight and hope that we can have your support. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Leach. Okay. I know we have to appellant's staff. Can you help me out with who's going to go first? Speaker 12: Either one. Speaker 0: Okay, listen. Come on up and introduce yourself. Thank you. Speaker 3: All right. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 1: Speaker three Go. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Mike lOSO. I'm here for the appellant Laborers International Union of North America Local 304. Our concern is about the seeker compliance with this particular project. And I'm going to break it down into three general categories. The first is we don't think. I don't think anyone who reads the 1974 EIA can think that that air addresses this hotel project. There's nothing in there that talks about a hotel project. There's nothing remotely related to a hotel project. It hardly even resembles it doesn't resemble the current business park. It was just a conceptual notion. It was a zoning decision to make it commercial, a concept floated about a business park much smaller than what exists today. And there's nothing in there to help you with any informational value about whether this proposed hotel is going to have any significant impacts or indeed relevant to whether this hotel has any significant impacts. The city prepared a report from Environmental Science Associates attempting to rebut the points that we made. First, there's a I think Mr. Thomas did this as well. And they try to add on all of these addendum addenda that have come since the 1974. Yeah, those don't count in terms of looking at whether this project requires in the air. You can only look to the 74. Yeah. You don't get to look at addenda that weren't subject to any kind of hearing or comment process under seek what they might have come up before the board, the design board or to develop the planning board. I mean, but they weren't subject to under a sequel to any kind of hearings. Second, if you look through that 74, yeah, again, there's just nothing in there about a hotel project and there's really nothing in there even about the office park. So it's only the conceptual idea. It was limited in size and and certainly nothing about a proposed hotel. So the first problem with it was going back that far, 44 years is that simply doesn't help you with any relevant information to evaluate this project. I suspect no one's looked at that 74 year to evaluate whether this hotel is going to have impacts on bird strikes or GHG emissions, certainly which weren't addressed that back then, of course, or for that matter, the issues that we've raised about indoor air pollution, formaldehyde emissions. So the second category, and this is the the Environmental Science Report notes that this was a programmatic air and therefore we agree it was a programmatic PR, it was a step back, didn't even have any details about a business park. And that leads to a tearing analysis under Sequoia. And in terms of tearing, it's a fair argument standard. We've shown that there are issues with bird strikes, as the city acknowledges with its most recent. Was that as a concern? We had an expert and I think Mr. Thomas makes light of the fact of the quality of the experts that we had. Look at this. Dr. Smallwood looked at the city's ordinance. He's still concerned. He doesn't think there's enough there's any evidence, really, of whether the glazing that's required is going to actually work? He hopes it does. But still, there's still a possibility that birds are going to keep running into that building for the formaldehyde issues. We had one of the preeminent experts on that issue look at the project and he calculates a cancer risk of 18 and a million for the workers in the building from formaldehyde emissions into the air. And the fact that there's some requirements from the Air Resources Board, he assumed compliance with those when he did his analysis and just looking to other agency regs, that's not a sufficient analysis. We can't just simply point to some requirements and say it's done in terms of GHG emissions. The report, prepared in response to our appeal actually acknowledges this GHG emissions and comes up with a number that's above the air quality management district's thresholds of significance and then tries to put that back in the bottle by claiming taking credit for emissions from a project that wasn't built and that's just not allowed. And to see if we have to look at reality, which is 1500 metric tons of GHG from this project. The third category is that even assuming this was covered in the 1974 air, there's no substantial information or significant information that requires major revisions that because it doesn't cover any of the things we're talking about. The same with those three issues GHG birds and GHG and formaldehyde emissions. None of that, of course, was covered or even known about back then. You have to look at those afresh in order to make that EIA work. And there have been major revisions out there, obviously, for the overall. We have an office park that's much larger than anything that was even conceptually noticed in 1974. And also, in addition, the circumstances have changed quite a bit. So we go through this in detail in our letters. I don't think the planning board got into the details like this. They thought they were barred from doing anything or square by the development agreement, which says that nothing's going to happen under Sequoia again. So I don't think they actually consider this the evidence that they were present. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Raza. And our next appellant is. If you can introduce yourself, please. Speaker 4: I was just wondering if my PowerPoint presentation could be put up before my time starts. Speaker 7: Oh, sure. Speaker 0: And if you tell us your name, I won't count it against your time. Speaker 7: What's your name? Speaker 4: My name is Brian, shrimper with. And I'm the president of the Freeport Homeowners Association. Um. It's the one that looks like this. It looks like. Yeah, the colors are different. Sorry. Yes, that's it. Exactly. Just do I have. I'm sorry. Also need a little help on the technology. Just the arrow. Just perfect if your head is there. Okay, so as an appellant, we're asking for several things. One, to rescind the decision of the planning board and if not, place the project on hold until a decision from the BCD on the full permit process is taken . We think we have a good chance there. We're getting good reports back and that you should return it to the planning board to address critical project deficiencies and conduct an authentic community based design process. I'm just going to leave that up. These are the points that I'm going through. It's in your pamphlet. Does this blend into the shoreline? We believe it does not went into the shoreline. It's a massive right next to the commercial development. As you'll see, the original project is on the top. The project now is on the bottom. And what a big difference that it has. You know, your setback is a minimum setback. Doesn't mean you can't put it further back. So why are we going with minimums? I don't understand that. Nothing in there says a hotel. It has a restaurant. I've never seen a five story restaurant. As we can see in this, it says restaurants, retail, commercial entertainment. Sorry about this. We don't think it's compatible with your zoning organ. 30 Dash 37.5 which says that it must be compatible with adjacent or neighborhood buildings and surroundings. It's not even compatible with the commercial, so it's much less the homes that are right there that you're supposed to promote harmony, harmonious transition in scale and character between different designated land uses. We believe it doesn't do it and visually compatible with the surrounding development. And it's not it's not even visually compatible with the commercial area. Your other zoning 30 Dash 5.2 talking about minimum looks at public safety, health and general welfare haven't been done. Your project design the resolution 1203 dated in December of 1981, where prominent buildings should be placed on the Harbor Bay Parkway spine and not on this little outlet that's there. Protection of hills to bay, continuity. When we're walking on our wonderful park, we're going to have a massive over pressing wall of a building between us and the hills. And it's going to stop. The enjoyment of our park designed should be minimize or mitigate architectural bulk. It does not do that. It's entirely out of scale with everything else. I think we've already talked about the environmental concerns, but it's in your packet. I don't think climate change was even envisioned when that E.R. was done. We've just spent a lot of money on that. And yet we're going to say, oh, does it matter in this area? Inadequate traffic study. They keep talking about traffic study. Well, a traffic study is all done in the commercial area. None is done in the community. How do they know that it's not going to impact the community? They haven't studied it. They haven't looked at it. And I think that that's a very important part. They need to look at that very critically and very in-depth. There's other landscape issues that somebody else will be planned. Pay various creating hit. We're creating free parking when city policy is to encourage transportation by bicycle and ride share. What's going to happen is you're going to have people who used to ride there say, man, I could take 15, 20 more minutes in the morning and snooze that alarm one more time and park there instead of taking my bike or rideshare or something of that nature. That's what's going to happen. There was strong opposition from residents in the public in planning board meetings, Harbor Bay Isle Association Resolution, which represents over 20 homeowners association and 3500 homes, came out against it. We don't believe that most of our concerns are are done. They haven't talked about design mitigation, how we can, you know, redesign that building to make it look, softening the project BCD commercial only applies to the original developer and not to accessories. And we believe that we have a point there and that we will make that at bccdc. You should wait until that decision has been made there. Is it really for everybody in perpetuity? Whoever buys that project, 20 people down the line. So again, we're asking you to rescind or place it on hold until the bccdc process can be determined and whether it's going to go home. And I want to thank you for your time and attention. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr.. I know that. Remember how we went over this? No applause, no cheers. New Jersey. And we'll get out of here sooner. So thank you to our two appellants and our applicant. And we now come to our public speaker's slips, which are 33 and I think growing. So when we have normally a speaker, we get 3 minutes over a certain number of speakers, you get 2 minutes, we're over that. So what's council's pleasure on on this Vice Mayor do you have any thoughts Socratic to me? I decided to take Councilmember Ody off the hook for a moment. Any suggestions on how to proceed? You know, I hear from all of you. Speaker 11: No, I don't have any. No. Speaker 0: Okay. A council member decides. Speaker 5: I have a question. Desert hall. Maybe this is a legal question. Does it hold water to have speakers speak at 2 minutes? But then if we feel like it's going long, we change it and then and then make it one minute. Or if we set a time, it doesn't have to be. Speaker 0: I could even answer that. No, no. I remember what I said about mothers of twins. Everyone gets. You know, that wouldn't be fair if the first few speakers got 2 minutes and others got one, so. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: My suggestion would be unless somebody wants to make it, make a suggestion. Is it we give all speakers one minute and one minute, if you're cogent and prepared, is really quite a bit of time. And that's more you know, I'm sure it'll be more than 33 minutes just because it takes time for people to come and go . But we can we can do something different. We can do 2 minutes. Speaker 5: Maybe. Speaker 0: Four, but let's not spend all our time deciding how many minutes and give the time to the speakers instead. Speaker 3: How where do. Speaker 0: I hear two? Speaker 8: I mean, we can vote on that. And if it doesn't pass, I can propose 90 seconds, but. Speaker 0: Oh, that's Councilmember Vela. Speaker 10: I was going to say 90 seconds. Speaker 0: 90 seconds councilmember or vice mayor, 90 seconds. So we take a vote of 90 seconds all in favor of 90 seconds, say I, I. How many was that for? And Councilmember Desai is No. Speaker 7: 3 minutes. Speaker 0: Okay, so that's. I'm sorry. Democracy still prevails. So we have a minute and a half. So here we go. Let me call the first three speakers and try to remember to keep doing that. I have first Patricia Gannon, followed by George Humphreys, followed by Chan. Just one name, Chan. Okay, Miss Gannon. Speaker 3: I believe they were scrapped in city council council members. I'm Patricia again on Bay Farm Island, and I am here to strongly urge the council to either rescind the Planning Board's decision or make them or make it very or to send it back for serious revision. And I do commend the developer for having community meetings. And I was at these two of those, and 90% of the people there were totally opposed to the project. They raised their hands and very few people were in favor of it. So I just would like to point point that out that this massive and I'm not opposed to the hotel on Bay Form Island, not on the excuse me, the business park. Surely they can find another location which would not totally destroy that beautiful, pristine piece of piece of land that it so enjoy, but not only to the citizens of Alameda, but also all of the animals. As a member, active member of Golden Gate Audubon, former board member, I am concerned about the impact. It's not only the hotels itself, but it's all of those. The traffic, the garbage trucks, the people and all of that is going to have a very negative effect on the peace and serenity of the entire neighborhood. And also that agreement that was signed was with HIPAA and not their successor and the Oak. And I thank you. I totally agree with the two. Appellants. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And Mr. Humphries. And as Mr. Humphries is approaching and after Chen speaks, we will have Ed sing. Speaker 12: Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft. Speaker 4: And the members of the Council. I agree with the the appellant's points that they raised because of the brevity of time here. I won't say why. I am. Speaker 12: Urging that you rescind. Speaker 4: The action of the of the Planning Board. However, I would like to say this if you feel compelled to approve the project that you might consider a what I would call a mitigated project. For example, you could downsize it to 4 to 3 stories from five stories. You could reduce it from 172 rooms to 100 and use a. Speaker 12: 100 foot. Speaker 4: Setback. Speaker 12: Which I think is really. Speaker 4: Required by the table 44 in resolution 1203, the park and parking would also be reduced if you have a 100 room hotel and then you'd have room for a 1 to 2 acre open space, which would allow for a wildlife area or wetland. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Singh? I'm sorry, Chen. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor, and the city council member or everybody who is sitting here actually can listen to the public. So I'm here representing my family. I'm a homeowner in Highbury Island and I'm also architectural designer. So I opposed to this my our residents in proposed 2902 Hopper Bay Parkway. First of all, for my understanding, the 2900 Harper Bay Parkway is a commercial manufacture song. So per the Code of Ordinances, 34 point what? 34.10. See, the uses permitted for this parcel doesn't even. Speaker 7: Include a hotel. Speaker 3: Neither the restaurant or the ballroom. So per the zoning ordinance, the Mario residents in is not even allowed for this parcel. That's my first question. And the second of all, there was another hotel proposed actually just one mile away from this site. And the CDC didn't even permitted scale wise or height or functions very similar. If we compare apples to apples. And what is said is quite simple, that project is too large for the parcel, significantly obstructed views of the bay and a radius access to the shoreline. That's how they didn't get a permit for that hotel. And I run out of time. But I just want to finish because I want to. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Ed Singh. And after Mr. Singh, we have Emma Khan, followed by Charles Hodgkins. Good evening. Speaker 4: Much. City Council Gong, Haifaa Choi. Speaker 0: Happy New Year to you as well. Speaker 4: I want to talk a little bit about the zoning for this particular piece of land at Sea Dash MWP, which the developer and the city staff have repeatedly told us are permits any developer to develop up to 100 feet high and including hotel and you know doesn't matter whose next door to them you know they can build . Well, what about the rights of the residents behind this hotel? And I just want to re-emphasize something that Brian Trimper said a few minutes ago, that this project does violate the planning board resolution number 1203, which says you must pay design attention to minimize or mitigate architectural balk. I've been in four meetings on this project and each time I see the architectural rendering, nothing has changed. It's a big rectangular 73 foot high box. So where is our input into this? Regarding the setback, I just want to re-emphasize that under Planning Board Resolution 1203, Table 45, there is no classification for hotels. If you look at the offices up to 50 feet and 100 feet, the setback from the Bay Edge Park, not the shoreline is 50 to 100 feet. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Ms.. Ms.. Can. McCann, followed by Charles Hodgkins, followed by Pat Lamborn. Speaker 3: Hello. I'm a homeowner. I've lived in Harbor Bay for 15 years. I originally wanted to come and let the city council know how much the small, narrow strip of Bay Trail has meant to my family, my children, and how the project is going to really affect our access to the bay. I still plan to do that at the Bccdc meeting. I think that is more their concern and I just ask that you please can we delay the decision until we have a chance to hear their decision once we present our our position as homeowners and users of the park, how this is going to be a different feel than offices with our access, it's going to change the public access and implied private property of a hotel that we don't see with the office buildings. So I just ask that we wait, take it slow, make the right decision. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. City Council. My name is Charles Hodgkins. I'm the president of the Community. Speaker 4: Of Harbor Bay Owners Association. And we did. Speaker 2: Pass on the exact date we passed at our last board meeting. We passed a resolution opposing this project. We actually sent you a copy of it, so I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but it lists out more or less all that. The reasons have been passed by to you, by the appellants as to why we feel this is a project that is incompatible with our community. Speaker 4: So we we do strongly. Speaker 2: Oppose that and stand in. Speaker 4: Opposition of the hotel. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Pat Lamborn and Ms.. Lamborn is followed by Donna Fletcher, followed by Dan Reidy, followed by Blair Scully. Good evening. Speaker 3: Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft and council members. I'm Pat Lamborn. I'm a fish with feathers. I'm a unionist and an environmentalist. I'm a 40 year union organizer. I retired. Now I'm in. And I've always been an environmentalist. But yeah, now I count the endangered list. Turns out at the point and, you know, my husband and I pick up trash, including syringes, and there are still plastic straws. So I'm speaking to you as environmentalist. I would be more polite, but I only have a minute. Three of you were endorsed by the Sierra Club. Councilmember Vela, Councilmember Knox. Right. And Councilmember Odie, if you approve this project tonight, based on the Environmental Science Associates 31 page memoranda, you are repeating that nothing has changed since 1974. You have asked our entire community. I've gone to them. I've seen Council member John Knox and Councilmember Tony de Suck at our climate action workshops. Okay. What did they say? We've paid for a whole nother consultant by 2063, 36 inches of sea level rise. That will wipe out Crown Beach. It will flood shoreline drive and it potentially will wipe out the LC Romer Bird Sanctuary setback. You're talking about setting this building back 35 feet from the only natural shoreline path. There is just no way you can defend that, folks. Please set it back. He's check the box as a unionist. We've got some union deals here. Let's check the environmental box. Send it back to the planning board. Push the building back further. Look at the design. Do an environmental impact report. Speaker 0: Thank you, Donna Fletcher. And Dan Reed's after Ms.. Fletcher. Speaker 3: Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft. Members of the council and staff. Speaker 7: The cities. Can you hear me? Okay? Speaker 0: I'm okay. Stay. Stay about there. Speaker 3: The city's right. The rules have been followed. The problem is, we still have a mediocre project. And we want to know what can you do to help us change that? We think that if we saw that the the project is going back to the planning board for some design changes, we would like to be involved meaningfully and significantly to make a significant difference in this project. So far, everything that's been done has been done for the city excuse me, for the developer. And I'm not sure that the city has involved the community in a good faith, meaningful way. And you hear tonight that that's what they're asking for. The result is that we have a project which. Really fits more on a freeway than it does on one of the last beautiful, primo, buildable lots on the bay in the Bay Area. Can we not do better? Can Alameda not do better than this? I believe we can with community input. So we're asking you to please do what other communities do, recognize what our amenities are, value our amenities, take steps to protect and preserve them. This is a neighborhood, a community. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Fletcher. Speaker 7: This is. Speaker 0: Dan Reidy. And after Mr. Reidy, we have Blaire Skelly, followed by Cathy Liang. Speaker 4: Thank you. I do have a letter in to you, but I just wanted to comment on a little bit about the environmental important events that happened in the environment. And some of the comments that came here triggered a few thoughts. One is that when the 1989 addendum was done, which is three inches thick, it was very seriously reviewed at the planning board level and by the city council. And then they the they looked at it's filled with a number of explanations of how the project from 74 had been revised, many times ways downsized, and therefore different mitigations were improved. What's interesting is that after that was done, we went forward like the extended stay hotel is built, the Hampton Inn is built, Hampton Inn building another building next to it right now today. And other buildings were built in the business park. We didn't have to do all of those new revisions of environmental thinking. The build out of the business park there was already 1.1 million built at that time. The rest of it was built out without discovering a lot of new environmental problems. These are brought out sometime to stop a project and not in our static sequel analysis. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Blair Skelly. Followed by Kathy Liang. Followed by someone. Gilmore. Debbie. Deborah. Okay. Thank you. Hello. Speaker 7: Oh, good. Speaker 3: Evening. I live have lived in the. Speaker 7: Bay Farm Island for 25 years, and I do not support the proposed Marriott Hotel. You know, I clearly understand why the city needs more tax revenues and that a hotel can generate significant revenues. But I really the question, the need for another hotel in the area, if there really is a demand for that, the hotel belongs at the other end of the parkway where the businesses are. I really don't believe I've ever seen a big hotel like this, right. Bumping up right next to residential properties. This very large, standard looking hotel will definitely impact the residential area near it, as well as all the people who enjoy the use of the trail. Um, you know, the five stories. There isn't even a five story hotel at the other end of the parkway. The hotel also impact our property values and will affect our wonderful quality of life because of the increase in crime, traffic and noise. As has been mentioned, the traffic study that's been done is inadequate as it doesn't address traffic is going to run through the residential areas. I I'm not a NIMBY and I was fine with the nursing home going in on that property, but I just can't support the hotel going in. So I would ask that you please rescind the planning board approval of the project. Speaker 0: Thank you. Kathie Lee on. Speaker 3: Honorable mayor and council members. Thanks for this evening. It's my understanding I agree with all the appellant comments. You sent my voice, my letter. You can read that. I'm just going to cut to the chase. And it's my understanding that there's a BCD meeting this Thursday in two days to review the existing permitting for this land. It's also my understanding that there's a current permit with the BCCDC that expires in April. That leads me to the concern of why is this being rushed through? Or that certainly the feeling that is created. It seems the right thing to do would be to respect the process by allowing the BCCDC to perform their review first, then bring this project back to the Council and subsequently the Planning Board to work with the community. It's as simple as that. Thanks for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Deborah Gilmer. And Miss Gilmore is followed by Helen Simpson. Speaker 7: Hi. Hi. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. Excuse me. That's the first time I spoke this large of a group. Speaker 0: See, this is why we don't share. Go ahead. Speaker 7: I appreciate everyone that's brought really good information, and I'm really happy that my board voted against. Speaker 3: And, um, just please think about this. You know, I love Alameda. I've been here since 99. Speaker 7: And I would really be sad if you don't fall in the right way. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Simpson, followed by Gary Thompson, followed by not Charles Hodgkins. Unless there's a different Charles Hodgkins, then followed by Carrie Thompson. Hi, Miss. Sorry, Miss Simpson. Yes, yes. Speaker 3: Good morning. Good afternoon. Speaker 0: It's not really. Speaker 3: Going. Speaker 0: To work as. Speaker 3: It was. I lived in Alameda for 25 years. Speaker 10: 24 of those years have been out on Harbor Bay or Bay Farm. And when we decided to buy a house and raise our family, we never envisioned a five storey 172 room hotel being built in our backyard in a residential area. I ride the ferry every day. I ride my bike to the ferry. Speaker 3: The parking issue. Speaker 10: Is another can of worms for the ferry, and having shared parking with the. Speaker 3: Hotel is not the answer. It's not a guarantee of spots. It's first come. Speaker 10: First serve at the cost of 7 to $10 a day for ferry riders to park their. Speaker 3: I also understand there's two other hotels going up in Harbor Bay Parkway. So that makes it four plus the addition to the Hampton Inn. I also understand that the developer is developing something on Ballina Bay, the Westin. As for his website and also the hotel being built on Park Street, why all of a sudden we need all these hotels in Alameda? I hope you rescind this and not go forward with the hotel and protect our neighborhood in Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Gary Thompson. Speaker 8: Greetings City Council and thank you for Dark Sky. I would like to. I would like to see this sent back to planning. And I'm not here to impugn the planning commission, but I believe a 1990 study did not take into account today's environment and the use of these pieces. Now, I was I have a shop that since be home in Harbor Bay. Every down and every day I take Runcorn Parkway 98th and down and get off one day, not a year or two ago, I started coming home and I turned on my GPS to see what it would do and it put me off on Fruitvale . Then it dumped me off into Fern's side, and I was shocked at the traffic that was lined up on Fern's side all the way the bridge all the way down Island Drive. This was during when everyone was going to work, and I couldn't believe it. The traffic studies come back saying there will be no impact. It's made a huge impact. I've lived there 20 years now. And and the difference of traffic moving through the neighborhoods has changed dramatically. And a huge part of it is coming right down. MCCARTNEY And coming right down. Davey Drive, where the schools are. And because people who live out of the area taking the ferry and working at the park now out where we are, Google is dumping them off before sending them the fast way. The cinema short way. Speaker 4: But not the fast way. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Our next speaker is Carey Thompson. Ms.. Thompson is followed by Robert Doud, followed by Tai Hudson. Good evening. Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. My name is Carey Thompson. I'm the chairperson for the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee for the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And we support this project. We think that it is a good project and that it will bring local jobs, it will bring much more revenue to the city, and it does add parking to the ferry. Yes, there are people that will drive to the ferry, but that doesn't deter those that are not willing to drive. There are people that are willing to get out of their cars and take their bike every day that they do that or take the bus. So I don't think that that is necessarily a true statement. It people are people and those that are really environmentally conscious will do the right thing. And I think that that's a good thing. So anyways, we do support this project and thank you for your consideration and listening to everyone's opinion. Speaker 0: Thank you. Robert Dow. Tie Hudson and Bassett about after that. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. City Council. I've been a resident for. Speaker 4: Over 25 years and now a business owner in Alameda. I think everyone voicing concern tonight is correct in their feeling that this location is very special and it should and I believe has been vetted thoughtfully. I'm in favor of this hotel. I think it's I think it's a great location for private and public to use. You get it, you get to be able to use the restaurant, the hotel, the coffee shop. There's more places to sit. As far as the view that was brought up as a concern, I don't think people look east to the mountains. I think they look west to the bay and the mountains across the other side of the bay. I think this this hotel suits the needs of the Harbor Bay businesses and the Alameda residents. I don't understand the traffic and the traffic concern, which I believe is would be minor, especially when many of the patrons of the hotel would use a ferry when they're visiting San Francisco. In addition, the hotel has given up 100 spaces for the ferry. This, on day one, may not guarantee the hotel one room, but it will guarantee traffic and parking reductions in the local. Speaker 2: Resident residential streets. Speaker 4: Earlier I said this. This should be and has been vetted thoughtfully. I think this developer has done a great a great job in taking in design concerns and bringing them up. I but I wish the city would move forward and maintain a critical eye on the design and ensure the quality. Speaker 0: Yeah, the next speaker is in. Good evening. Hello, Mr. Hudson. Come on up. Speaker 5: Good evening, mayor. As the trapped and members of the city council. I'm Ty Hudson with unite here local 2850 the hotel and food service workers union in the East Bay. And I'm here to express our support for this project and to urge you to. Speaker 4: Uphold the Planning Board's. Speaker 5: Decision. As you know, I don't come we don't come here. Speaker 4: To support. Speaker 5: Just every hotel project. We're here to support this one because this project is doing. Speaker 4: Exactly what we need. Speaker 5: A growing hospitality industry in Alameda and in the East Bay to do. It's taking the high road with respect to good jobs and workers rights. And as the hospitality industry grows in in the city of Alameda and in the East Bay as a whole, this is exactly what we need developers and hotel employers to do to ensure that a growing hospitality industry and a growing economy spread prosperity throughout our community. So again. Speaker 4: Please uphold the Planning. Speaker 5: Board's decision and approve this project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And next, just about followed by Adrian Alexander and Michael McDonough. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor, as the Ashcroft and city council members. My name is Bassey. I've been Alameda resident for 18 years and have lived on Bay Farm since my wife and I moved there in 2001. I currently work in San Francisco as a police officer and have done so for more than 23 years. I'm here tonight to urge the Council to affirm the Planning Board's approval of this project and deny the appeal. I ride the Harbor Bay Ferry on weekdays going to work, and while I walk to the ferry, I've noticed many ferry riders have an extremely difficult, difficult time finding parking. I believe the additional parking that this project will provide is sorely needed. My family and I look forward to having a restaurant and coffee shop within walking distance and meeting conference space that can be used by schools on Harbor Bay. We frequently exercise along the Bay Trail and would welcome the upgrade to the path along the water. This developer has agreed to make these upgrades and I think it's worthwhile. Many of my neighbors support fully the project and it's my understanding that the hotel will have security on site, adding to the safety already adding another layer of safety to the safety already provided by harbor security and our own Alameda Police Department. I've heard people voiced concern about increase in crime, but in my opinion, the hotel would make their neighborhood in the area safer, not less so. So I hope you will allow this project to move forward tonight. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: Adrian Alexander, Miss Alexander's followed by Michael McDonagh. Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Adrian Shakes Alexander. Speaker 3: I've been born and raised in Alameda. Speaker 10: My mother is 92 years old who was. Speaker 3: Born and raised in Alameda. And she's with me tonight, too. So I'm speaking for her also. My husband and I have both lived on Harbor Bay for over 30 years. We are in favor of this project. We're looking forward to a nice hotel that we can invite our family and friends to stay out when they're in town . I'm looking forward to another food option out on Harbor Bay. Those are very limited. I know this developer has worked hard within the community and held community meetings and been fully vetted. I sat through the entire planning board meeting with Mr. Thomas and listened to all of the planning board members and their comments and every one of them was for this project. I knew they had to vote for it unanimously. So I ask that you uphold their position. They're qualified. Speaker 10: People. They did their homework. And at the next school. Speaker 3: Teacher, I know that's important. And doing their homework, they did. And listen, if you had a chance to listen to their comments, you would know the positive aspects of this. I hope that you will continue to vote and vote for this project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks for bringing your mom, Michael McDonough, followed by David Rice, followed by Lily and Tamir or Tammin. But Mr. McDonough high. Speaker 4: And good evening, mayor and council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and a resident of Alameda for, I think, 28 years, 25 of those on Harbor Bay. And two perspectives here. As a resident, I think this is an awesome project. Not only does it give better access to the shore for the public, but the comments about the restaurant are very needed over there. There's there's hardly a place to eat when you're living in Harbor Bay and the coffee shop and the extra parking. All this is has been said. But from the council standpoint, we hear all the time that we need more hotels, especially in Harbor Bay. And I know that I get that feedback. A lot of the residents here don't get that feedback, but we have a lot of businesses there that they have to send their visiting staff, salespeople and customers to San Francisco or Oakland for hotel needs. And that means we are losing revenue. And I don't have to remind you, but maybe the public that in the coming years we're going to have a terrible budget deficit if we don't bring in extra sources of revenue and a hotel is the best source of revenue we can get the total tax as 100% goes to our general fund. And this hotel, the Park Street Hotel, the other Harbor Bay hotels, hopefully we'll get one on Ballina Bay and out at the point eventually. These are all very important revenue sources for the city. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McDonough. David Ross. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. Council staff. Thank everybody here for participating in this reasonably checkered process called democracy. The question for the people behind me, how many of you showed up at the planning board meetings? Who followed this process? I represent labor. I've lived in Alameda for 40 years. I've been part of organized labor. It has made me who I am today. In 2 hours and 54 minutes, approximately, I'll be 65 years old. I'm the only person that brought a bike here tonight. We hear about traffic litigation. Speaker 7: You hear about people. Speaker 4: Complaining. Speaker 0: About how your time is going. Keep going. Yeah. Speaker 7: How? Speaker 0: 7 seconds. 45 seconds. Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross, it's your time to speak in public. You can debate with the. Speaker 4: I'm in favor of this project. It represents jobs. It represents a unique opportunity in terms of apprenticeships. At any given time, there will be between seven and ten crafts. Everybody's looking for workers. Opportunities consist of apprenticeships. It's not a toehold. It's the full body through the door. Not everybody in this room is foolish enough to think that everybody that graduates from high school in Alameda is college bound. This project affords the opportunity for people to make a good living, provide for their families insurance, maybe even be able to live in Alameda. I thank you for your time. I encourage you to move this project forward. Speaker 0: Thank you and happy birthday. Lillian. Lillian, help me with your last name. Is it? That wasn't her. Okay, so I'm after Ms.. Tamir. We have Dennis SAC, Ervin Gonzalez and Joe Ernst. Speaker 3: Thank you. My concern is specifically with the increase in traffic on McCartney Boulevard. I believe when the Business Parkway was developed in 74, there was an assumption that traffic for the business park would flow from the airport down the Harbor Bay Parkway to the business park. Today, with our enhanced technologies, with Google Maps, etc., instead of using the safest route, traffic goes through the quickest route, which is through through my residential area, right down McCartney. So even if the traffic was anticipated, the traffic patterns that exist today likely were not anticipated in 1974. Many of us have children that attend Bay Farm Elementary or Bay Farm Middle School. There are many, many children who Cross McCartney Boulevard twice daily to get to school and back. It's becoming a busier and busier streets, and I'm concerned about their safety. So as you discuss this development, my request is that we also consider these traffic concerns and find ways such as a traffic stoplight or a lighted crosswalk that will increase the safety of the pedestrians crossing. McCartney Particularly at the intersection of McCartney and Algoma. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Let's see. Did a sack. Speaker 4: Mayor Ashcraft, thank you for your letter yesterday. I am here representing Raila Graber, who I. Speaker 0: Recognize you. Speaker 4: Knew fighting for a life in the hospital. As you know, she's been a huge donor and contributor to your community for many years, both generous with her, with her generosity and with her activism in protecting your city. You know, the the Lehman Brothers hijacking at the point the attempt to take over part of the golf course for housing. And she can't be here. You suggested I contact the developer. I can't contact the developer because I'm the lawyer who sued Mr. Leach for his failed project in Sacramento. We sued him for fraud. He never did pay off on the entire judgment. It was one of several lawsuits that led to his bankruptcy. When we discovered it was the same Robert Leach here, we discovered his his last project in Palm Desert has left $3 million in unpaid bills, which are subject to a current arbitration in this project. As you heard at the beginning, Mr. Thomas is not representing the interests of the city and the community. He's representing the interests of the developer. You're plant you did not get input from your planning board and it needs to be sent back to them because he told them that they had no choice. You all know that setbacks and height limits and failures aren't something you have is right. That's the maximum. And projects are always smaller than those maximum setbacks of maximum heights of maximum failures. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Sacco. We wish Ms.. Graber all the best. My next speaker is Irving Gonzalez, followed by Jurist. Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft. And council members and staff. I'll keep it brief. I'm Ervin Gonzales. Been a 30 year resident of Harbor Bay Isle, having lived in Oakland in an urban environment, working in San Francisco of much of the same. One of the things that we, my wife and I and our daughter who went to school here, really appreciate the fact that that this is a community that is very charming and very characteristic. That is one of the reasons why I simply feel that the building in and of itself, with its setback so close to the path and the shore and its height of of 72 feet is just inappropriate and out of scale for the environment. I think a picture is worth a thousand words. It really does stand out as being a an overly scaled building. I think that despite the fact that it has checked off all the boxes, as the gentleman before me just said, I think you can tailor the project to be set back a little bit further, have less parking, and be able to create a building that is either terraced back or otherwise addressed. Speaker 5: And it's nice to hear. Speaker 8: That there is encouragement here that that prevented revisions are pending and there will be a more neighborhood participation, which I will be involved. Speaker 5: In. So thank you very much. And we look forward to. Speaker 8: Mitigating some of the. Speaker 0: Concerns. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Instruments and Mr. Ernst is followed by Daniel Greg, followed by Sean Lavelle. Hello. Speaker 5: My name is Joe Ernst. I am here tonight speaking as president of the Harbor Bay Business Park have been in that role for nearly 15 years. I'm also speaking as an active developer in the business park since the late nineties. Both perspectives give me a lot of history and understanding of the various controls and requirements there. I'm here to request that you deny the appeal. I do think this is a good project, one that is highly sought after by the businesses in the business park. From the many years I've worked there, I know the hotel, the setbacks, the heights are all within their requirements. We've had a number of attorneys over the years financial institutions, both for Australians. Our buyers review these documents. The EIA has standing from previous projects we've approved. I know the traffic for this project will be less than the one we approved back in 2007. The BCD there, there's an extensive track record there, Documented, which led the BCCDC attorneys recently to recommend to the commission no permit be required. So if Bccdc Commission changes course on that, that will be strictly political. It won't be based on the legal merits, I believe. But that aside, you know, we want more good businesses. We want more jobs in Alameda. We can't keep asking good companies to come to the business park without amenities, without hotels. They want this hotel and the business park approves. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr.. Mr.. Daniel Gregg. Father Sommerville. Hi. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council. My name is Daniel Craig and the Leadville Field Representative. Speaker 0: A I just stop for a minute. I would ask. Well, we have. Speaker 4: The speaker should have disclosed that he owns the property. Speaker 8: Isn't there an issue with someone coming this close? Speaker 0: Yeah. And also, we don't normally have people up on the dais. Thank you. So we reset the timer for Mr. Greg, please. Speaker 5: Uh, again, I'm a lead field representative of Carpenters Local. Speaker 4: 713 covering Alameda County. I represent approximately 38,000 carpenters in Northern California. Many of them live and work here in Alameda. As many of you know, the construction industry when it comes to hotels is a is pretty tough for union workers to get into. We think this is a unique opportunity here, both having union carpenters build the project on site and. Speaker 5: Have staff also. Speaker 4: Represented once the hotel is finished. Speaker 5: It might be the first of its kind in Alameda. Speaker 4: As far as I can tell. A commitment by the developer to his union. Carpenters on this project is an opportunity for local residents to get training. Speaker 5: Apprenticeship and the payment of area standard wages and benefits. The staff report suggests and I know this was. Speaker 4: Said earlier, but I want to mention a real quick. Speaker 8: The appellants failed to demonstrate that the planning board's actions, findings and conclusions. Speaker 4: Including but not limited to actions. Speaker 8: Findings and conclusions suing to secure were not supported by. Speaker 4: Substantial evidence. Speaker 5: I've been hearing this a lot lately, lately in cities all over Alameda County, Northern California and. Speaker 4: Beyond. It's a tactic by many organizations to challenge Square to get what they want out of a developer or out of a project. We don't think it's ethical, and it's probably not legal. And I just wanted to make that known. Speaker 8: In conclusion, the Carpenters Union fully supports staff's recommendation to affirm the Planning Board's decision to approve the project. And we ask that the Council. Speaker 4: Support the recommendation as well. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Sean Lavelle is followed by Jay Harris and then Karen Bey. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name's Sean Lavelle. I'm a union carpenter and Alameda resident. US carpenters have to be up early in the morning, so I'm gonna make. Speaker 2: This short and sweet. Speaker 4: As Mr. Greg said before, this can be built with union labor. And considering the costs of living in the Bay Area, I think it's going to be a huge boon to working people in Alameda. So I suggest that you deny the appeal and go forward with the project. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Then Jay Harris, followed by Karen Bass. Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and city council members. Speaker 5: My name is Jay Harris. I'm an environmental attorney on behalf of the applicant. Speaker 2: I reserve this time. Speaker 5: In case I heard any. Speaker 1: New CEQA issues come up. That wasn't a part of the DB documentation. Speaker 5: That's been going back and forth. And I didn't hear any and name of the gaming environmental laws thoroughness and I want to. Speaker 1: Thank the city staff are being thorough in this. Speaker 5: Project and thank the. Speaker 4: Developer. Speaker 5: The applicant for being thorough in their work. I also would point out that the Planning Board. Speaker 12: Was. Speaker 2: Very thorough and reviewing. Speaker 5: Consistency on this project and seeing that it was. Speaker 4: Within the scope of the earlier. Speaker 5: Development agreement in the city zoning and general plan, and it was very thorough in their review of the design elements. Speaker 2: And in fact part of the conditions was that they would return with some of the further. Speaker 5: Design elements of this project. Speaker 2: Before final approval. Speaker 5: Just thank you. And I just see my time on. Speaker 4: Recognition that it is late. Speaker 0: Thank you. We don't see time, but thank you for your comments. Karen Bey and Ms.. Bears, followed by Doug Dargan, followed by Amelia Foose. Speaker 7: Good evening. Good. So I just want to remind everybody that this is a business park. It's anchored by Penumbra, which has over 1700 jobs, Abbott Labs, who is expanding, and many other biotech companies that are expanding. So and it's part of our economic development strategy. The business park and the goals of the economic development strategies are to increase jobs, to increase our tax base, and to add value to our parks by adding amenities such as restaurants and parks. This project checks all the boxes. And so in closing, this project will add tremendous value to our business. The Harbor Bay Business Park, a waterfront hotel with restaurants and cafes right close very near to the ferry terminal. This is just the kind of project that we want to see in Harbor Bay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. David Hunt, former councilmember, former vice mayor, even Lou. Speaker 7: All right. Speaker 4: Thank you for the introduction. When we were about seven years ago, this came before us a different council altogether. And we were going to. We were asked to subdivided into five parcels. It was originally one parcel. In doing so, George came forward and representative his company and what during that presentation was presented as a two story opportunity . It was strictly a lot. Speaker 12: Of discussions of. Speaker 4: What took place on that. I'm not too sure if you guys read those things, but that your council made a decision at that point in time. Furthermore, I know that you've been struggling with parking and the ferry and talking about transportation in general. If you want the ferry to be a viable situation, you need to really do address it. What is happening out there is that it was short on parking then and these little tokens of 100 more spaces is not going to solve your problem. Your residents have not grown and Harbor Bay and Alameda in general, but your parking demand has spilled over throughout Harbor Bay residents. Speaker 12: And I think that's a. Speaker 4: Concerning issue with you guys and doing so. I would say that the vast, vast majority of the additional people that are using the ferry are off island, off Alameda coming in. That's a a something is a total different generation. Speaker 0: The other thing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. We've got speakers to go. I am, too. Our next speaker is Amelia Firth, and Ms.. Foose is followed by Zack Boling, followed by Steven Gertler and Brian McGuire. Good evening. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Amelia Foose. I'm a homeowner in Harbor Bay, adjacent to Freeport Development, adjacent to this lot. I'm here representing dozens of my fellow neighbors who are not able to be here due to Chinese New Year, as well as many a lot of young families, families with young children who they were not able to be here this late tonight. Our community is strongly opposed to this business, and this proposal in its current form is simply too tall. We chose Alameda because of its small town feel. I've lived in Manhattan, in New York and San Francisco, and I chose Alameda because I don't want to raise my family in the shadow of a high rise. It's not about losing bay views. I don't really have a baby to lose, but I will lose view of the sky because of the height of the structure. I can appreciate the desire for more jobs and supporting our unions and to obtain more tax revenue for the city. But we do not need a 72 foot, 40 foot tall building to achieve this dream. Secondly, I am very concerned about the issue of traffic, as numerous people have said before me. Mr. Thomas from the Planning Board asserts that no evidence, there is no evidence of new impacts. However, I want to point out this is not a sufficient analysis to my knowledge. What I found there was one study that was provided by the developer that was part of this public hearing with the planning board, and that was an insufficient study that really just looked at the Harbor Bay Parkway. And of four out of seven of those data points received a score of an F, and that's hardly reassuring. This. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Okay. Zack Bowling is our next speaker, followed by Steven Gertler and Brian McGuire. And I think you've all got that down now. Good evening. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Yeah, I will. I'll keep this brief. I don't want to parrot things have already been said over and over. I fully support this project as both a very writer, as somebody that works in the business park, occasionally working with clients as someone that state and all the hotels that we currently have and that space, it's something that is desperately needed is more hotels and it's great tax revenue for the city. I, I absolutely think it's the easiest way to fill our coffers and help our underfunded projects in this city. So I fully support any hotel efforts in the city generally to supplements. But in this case, I think this project is really good for Alameda and that's all I really have. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Steven Cortland. I'm a resident of Alameda. I sat here and listened as your planning director advocated for this project with more zeal than the developer did. He loves this project, and he wants you to love this project. But your job is to make an informed decision. Speaker 12: And I don't see how that's possible when your own staff. Speaker 4: Is feeding you a bill of goods and giving no credence to any arguments. To the other side of the question. Speaker 12: They want you to approve this. Speaker 4: Project and they don't want to give you any information that might cause you to doubt that conclusion. They are doing you a grave disservice. Speaker 0: Thank you, Brian Maguire. I've said that more than once. Speaker 4: Good evening again, everyone. Brian Maguire, just want to provide a little perspective here. A planning board that was 100% made up of Mayor Spencer appointees unanimously approved. This project found that it met our objective standards and rightfully honored a decades long commitment made by your predecessors. Predecessors, probably. There's lots of good reasons articulated for it to support the project, and I won't go into all those again. But just a couple other comments. The project will be built, able to withstand a lot more sea level rise than most of the homes of the people that are asking you to deny this project. This isn't like, yeah, you know, it's it's just a little confusing for me. Also, a two storey building blocks the views of the bay just as much as a five storey building does. And going a little bit higher allows us to get things like the parking for the ferry and more view corridors, etc. So it's time for us to start setting the right example. Things like the square and Bccdc process should not be abused by homeowners who want to freeze the city and amber or even even our union allies who want to get labor concessions. Sometimes it's time to let those processes work the way they're supposed to for genuine environmental concerns. But in the middle of a urbanized, dense environment, the best thing we can do is dense urban infill, so should not uphold an appeal. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We've come to the end of our public speakers. And by the way. Well, well, then everybody speakers you held to your 92nd level time limit and I think you helped inform the council. So again, nothing is easy that comes before this board rarely anyway. So who wants to who wants to lead the discussion? Speaker 7: We have to do this. Speaker 0: Councilmember They said, Oh. Speaker 5: Wait, hold on. Speaker 0: I'm sorry you. Speaker 8: Needed a bathroom break. Speaker 7: But. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Yes. Wicked. Sorry. Yes, 5 minutes. Seriously, 5 minutes, people. Okay. We could take a look back at 940. It's it's 932. We'll be back for you. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 4: Thanks. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 0: Too much laughter for. Speaker 7: Advice of concern. Speaker 0: All right. So, everyone, if you if you would like to continue your conversation, feel free to move out into the hallway. If you would like to stay for the meeting, please sit down and come to order for you are really okay. You staff you. We just want. We want to start the meeting again. Speaker 7: He has a gavel. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So the first thing we're going to do is we are going to close the public hearing because we just heard from, I want to say 34, 35 speakers. So the public hearing is closed. Excuse me. And we are now going to do council deliberation. So do we have any clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas before we get into our deliberations? I know I do. You do, too. Do you want to go first? A can take it away. I call. I call on you when you try to avoid me. So you might as well go and you might have me. Speaker 8: Just a couple quick questions, Mr. Thomas. And first of all, thank you to everyone who came out and spoke. I just want to get that out on the record. So just some clarifying questions on some things. I heard there was an allegation made that the business part of the ER was approved for a much smaller business park and I thought the slide maybe had a different take on that. Can you kind of describe and tell me who's right? Speaker 12: There is there was a 1974 EMR that er was comprehensively revised and updated in 1989 that it was done for the development agreement which specifies very specifically a 5.2 million square foot er the contention or the statement that was made earlier that oh you can't even consider that revision as legitimate is, is wrong. We absolutely disagree with that. An addendum is a revision to an area and it was approved by planning board and City Council in 1989. Speaker 8: Okay. And then I remember doing the bird strike ordinance because I think it was one of my referrals with then Vice Mayor Melissa Avella. I mean, if my memory is correct and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong, then the Audubon Society gave us a model ordinance for that and we adopt in their model ordinance Speaker 12: . That's absolutely correct. And they were here supporting our ordinance when you adopted it. Speaker 8: Okay. So can you just kind of briefly tell us what the applicant is entitled to as far as my right and what our, you know, what we're allowed to do when there's a buy right project? Speaker 12: Yeah, the issue, the buy right terminology is in our general plan. It's also in the development agreements. It's the 100 foot height limit, it's 100 feet. And they are well within that height limit, the parapets, 62 feet. The project is also entitled Under our development agreements with the developer for a floor area ratio of up to 0.5 , that's 120,000 square feet. So the idea that we can as a city just sort of start arbitrarily hopping that down runs us afoul of those agreements. Speaker 8: And then I think there was an allegation that a hotel is not allowed and C MPD, can you trust that? Speaker 12: Construe the CMP. Speaker 0: And can you tell us what that stands for? Speaker 12: Thank you. Commercial manufacturing zone. That's the same zoning district for the entire business park. As we've heard several times, there's already two hotels in the CRM. So this issue has been debated and discussed several times before, and the council's approved hotels in the CRM, essentially, hotels are allowed in the CRM district, both at Harbor Bay as well as other CRM districts in Alameda. Speaker 8: There are two last quick questions and it's been sent back to the planning board for some design considerations. You know, what opportunity at all will the public have to have input in those design modifications? Speaker 12: What the planning board felt? They they they put a conditional approval that they wanted to see a final architectural design and a final landscaping lighting design before the project pulled building permits. And they were very clear that they wanted that to be a public process, a process with the community and neighbors, whoever interested I know the chair of the Planning Commissioner of the Planning Commission has reached out to me since that hearing, said, look, if that if this project moves forward, she wanted to personally be involved in making sure that that public process occurred and that she wanted to and that we invited the public to work on the design of the building and the landscaping lighting. I want to make it clear, though, you know, and I think the problem the council with the planning boards was struggling with here was we can't get to that level of detail if we as a community are still having an argument about whether the hotel should even exist. So that's why the planning board took this two step process. Speaker 8: And then lastly and thank you for your answers. This is an appeal from planning board decision. So can you kind of describe what our role is as the council? And normally we're a policymaking body, but can you explain our role when there's an appeal. Speaker 12: Under under the zoning code? The planning board has the is the final decider on projects like this unless and they make the decision for the city. However, there is an appeal process and the point of the appeal. Is. It's an operating for you as the elected officials to determine whether your you believe your planning board made a mistake and what we essentially require a sort of substantial evidence standard for that. Like, is there any evidence have you heard anything tonight that makes you feel that they erred in the interpretation of the zoning code and the interpretation of any of the development agreements? Any of those things in the interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act? Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Speaker 0: Any other Claire? Speaker 5: Just to. Speaker 0: Claire. Okay, so we are. We are conducting a meeting at this time, so just to clarify. Excuse me. You could. You do need to wait to be called on. And I haven't called on you. So do any other council members have a question for Mr. Thomas? Mr. Desai. Speaker 5: Just to clarify, the the nature of this hearing is that it's a de novo hearing, meaning that we can evaluate anything under the sun with regard to this project. Not just we're not just limited to the. Speaker 12: You have the ability to change the project. Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly. It's a de novo hearing, so we're not limited to the planning board. Speaker 12: You would change the project. We find. Speaker 5: Whatever, whatever it is. Speaker 12: Because you felt the planning board made a mistake and so you wanted to change what they did. Speaker 5: That would be an aspect of the de novo. Speaker 12: Exactly, yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Do you get your question answered? Okay. Speaker 5: I have I have follow up questions, too, but I can wait. Speaker 0: Well, you've got. Okay, go ahead. Speaker 5: Great. So the thing that really caught my attention when in listening to the planning board was when one of the planning board members said the following, and I believe this is a. Speaker 0: Word for Mr.. DE So just to clarify, you were going to ask a clarifying question of. Mr. THOMAS. Speaker 5: Yeah, the clarifying question is about the nature of of combining parcels. Okay. Okay. Let me ask the question. Speaker 8: Preface questions a. Speaker 0: Little bit. Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I could just get to the question then. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 5: So, Cliff, did we correctly combine the three parcels that constitute the project? Because there is one parcel. About 30% of which is in the water and can never be built on. And then combining the three parcels that achieved a certain amount of square footage, building square footage, which is of the roughly 120,000 building square feet. But that's a that's a function of combining the three parcels. The question I have is it's also a legal question. Did we follow California subdivision map or with regard to combining parcels? Did we follow state law with regard to combining parcels? Because I saw one thing that said that anything less than five, four, 5000 square feet can up that parcel cannot be combined. So let me put it let me ask that. Speaker 12: Yeah, no, William. Speaker 0: And I'll just say that I'm sure Mr. Thomas can ably answer that. And we have our assistant city attorney, Selena Chan of Land Use Matters. So feel free to. Speaker 12: Yes, please. Speaker 7: Let me just one quick answer. Speaker 12: There are three contiguous parcels, all owned by the property owner. What the planning board said is because you are we are you have development potential on all three of them and you want to basically treat them as one parcel, one large parcel. Then the condition is that the applicant merge the three parcels into one parcel prior to any issuance of any building permits. The reason the Planning Board made that specifically is because we want to make very, very clear. You're building this hotel at one end of the site. There's this other end of the site that's being used for a parking lot. They did not want a separate parcel there because they didn't want any miss understandings. You know, ten, 15, 20 years with somebody comes along, goes, oh, I've I've bought a parcel, I want to develop it at point zero. As far as I know, you're using the development potential for all three parcels with this one building and therefore we want this treated as one contiguous person. Speaker 5: So I still want to ask it's still a legal question. Did we follow the California subdivision map if there was any provisions regarding combining parcels or did we follow existing state laws? What about that 5000 square feet or less? Speaker 0: This is Chen. Do you want to help with that answer? Speaker 3: Good evening. Celina Chen from the city attorney's office. And to answer your question, we conditioned the planning board, conditioned its approval of the design review and development plan application on the subsequent merger of the three parcels. So that is something that will happen subsequently. Speaker 5: So you're basically saying it pass legal muster? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That follow up question, either staff or legal. Is that in the ordinance? It's written that all parking, whether required or in excess of all parking, shall be provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand. Is this. Now we've got two different parking places. We got one parcel, we got the primary parcel, which is roughly 4.6 acres. And the other parcel which is roughly, I don't know, point six acres. It doesn't seem to be. I mean, you've got parking for this project on that 0.6 acre parcel. So that doesn't seem to satisfy this requirement that that park that all parking off street parking be provided on the parcels that is generating the demand. Speaker 12: Hence the need to merge the parcels into one parcel. And that's why that is. I mean, that is why that is a condition of approval. We wanted to make sure that we didn't have a misunderstanding in the future with somebody saying, Oh, I just bought a parcel with a parking lot on. I want to build a building on it. No. If we approve this project at this size, you're using up the development potential for all three parcels. Therefore, we want them merged into a single parcel before we issue the first building permit. Speaker 5: And was that it just was that an. Speaker 12: It also resolved that? Speaker 5: Was that a discussion that the planning board? Speaker 12: Yes, absolutely. We discussed that at the planning board. The need for the merger to occur prior to any building permits being issued. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Anything else, Mr. Dess? Speaker 3: Thank you for now. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Vela and then Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 10: Mr. Thomas, there is a question or an issue raised earlier about the safety of schoolchildren crossing at McCartney and Audubon. Speaker 3: My question is. Speaker 10: You know, can we look at that separately or does that have to be part of a traffic study relative to this project? Speaker 12: We can totally look at it separately. I actually spoke to the woman briefly and unfortunately I don't have it, but I'm I told her to check in with us tomorrow. But I'm like 75% sure that the city has already budgeted and is planning to put in a signal at that intersection this next fiscal year. I might have my intersections mixed up, but I'm pretty sure we've already got we've already programed and I funded a new signal. Speaker 8: That island. Speaker 10: And I think it's I think it's one one spot over but. Speaker 3: Is. Speaker 12: It. Speaker 8: It's island. Speaker 7: Right? Right. Speaker 10: But but again, the question is, could we look at it separately? Okay. And. What would we do in that in that respect if we were looking at it. Speaker 12: Would direct I mean to very simply direct staff to look at it tonight. It's a great time to look at it. We are working on our transportation projects for the next fiscal year. The budget will be coming to the Council for the next two fiscal years in the spring of the next couple of months. Speaker 10: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Both. Both way. Speaker 11: Thank you. I have a few questions and comments, but I wanted to start first just by saying that there was a comment by Mr. SAC about you and your coworkers and where your loyalties lie. And I thought it was completely out of bounds. And, well, I will allow Mr. Leach to stand up and address the other part of your character assassination, which seemed to be the point. You were here. It was completely inappropriate. And I'm not going to sit here and let people stand up and impugn the integrity of the people who work for the city of Alameda, who are good people, who work really hard to just have people stand up and just claim that they don't care. I disagree with Andrew often. We have lots of passionate conversations. I never once think that he does not have the best interests of this city. You should be ashamed. Speaker 4: All right? Not at all. Speaker 0: You can take this off line after the meeting. Let's get back to the. Speaker 7: Topic at hand. Speaker 11: We've addressed a lot of the issues that that have come up. I want to I wanted to ask about the traffic and then I have some kind of boundaries of what we can talk about the issue and you kind of said this in your presentation, but the issue is not that the city does not think that there will not be traffic impacts, but that for the balance of how we can make a determination, a significant impact is actually and this is in the essay report has to be a 3% increase in traffic at a specific intersection and that when staff looked at the traffic studies, that 3% threshold could not possibly be met by the amount of even the whole. If all the traffic went through one intersection, it still would not be and therefore it is not possible for the way in which we can make decisions tonight for there to be an impact. But that's not to say that there isn't going to be more traffic from where it is today and staff wasn't making, is that. Speaker 12: That's absolutely correct. Okay. Speaker 11: I just I think it's important tonight for, you know, this is a difficult issue. You know, I know I'll say that for someone just to go back again, it's not that we are discretionary to decide to do an environmental review or not because it has been approved in the past. We are not allowed to write legally. We cannot just do more environmental analysis and hold the developer that. Speaker 12: That's correct. Has specific language that says if you already have any air in this case, it's the 1989 amended air. You cannot require another one just because you feel like it. You need to have evidence that there's a significant impact that you that's not been. Speaker 11: Covered in a city of impact would be like the traffic that we. Speaker 12: Just like where the 3% threshold or we found endangered species on the site or one of those issues. Speaker 11: Okay. And. And and just. Go with me for 2 seconds. But the reason for that is because, as you said in your presentation, they built the parks, the shoreline, the schools, all the public amenities that Harvard got built under the development agreement and the environmental clearance. And it would be completely what would be illegal. But the reason is because it would not be fair to then go back and say, okay, now you gave us everything you promised. Now we're going to change the rules for you and make it harder for you to recoup those costs as you were. Speaker 12: That's that's right. In terms of the development agreement, that was absolutely the intent. But, you know, totally separate from the development agreement is the California Environmental Quality Act, the law. And that's this issue of you can't be requiring another year just because you feel like it is. That's a standard set in that law. Speaker 11: But the development agreement is where some of these height limits and the U.S.. Exactly. Stuff is set. And that's why we can't make changes there. Okay. Speaker 0: And in a phrase that into a question, right. Speaker 11: Yeah. So I just clarifying. Speaker 7: Clarifying. Speaker 11: And then for Sequoia, is it fair to say that it's not the sequel wasn't done. It's that when doing Sequoia, a new environmental report was not. But we did this analysis. It just didn't trigger the need for a new exactly. Impact report, which legally we can't do. Is that correct? Speaker 12: Our obligation is to determine whether another air was required. Sequel lays out the threshold for acquiring a new E.R.. We had to do environmental studies to determine whether those thresholds were triggered and those studies were done and those thresholds were not triggered. Therefore, we did not require a new E.R.. Speaker 11: And then something else that came up a number of times. Two part question, but the Bccdc permit, is that something that they are deciding whether to do or is there an agreement that says that they don't have to be done? Speaker 12: The hearing in two days or three days at Bccdc, as I understand it, from reading the materials and talking to Bccdc staff, is that they're board wanted to have a discussion about whether a separate permit would be required or not. Under the settlement agreement, it would not be required, but the board wanted to have a conversation about that because a lot of the residents had been going to the board, as you heard, to try to petition them to require a permit. It's important for everyone to understand, though. Even if the board says on Thursday, the BCCI board, oh, we want to require a permit for this project, meaning we won't have a separate hearing about it. They're not going to have that hearing until this board makes a decision on the project. They won't even be deemed the application complete until this board, the Salame, the city council makes a decision about this project. Speaker 11: Thank you. That is my only question for now. Thanks. Speaker 0: So I don't know. I have a couple. Did you say a rumor? Okay. So thank you, Mr. Thomas, for all your time and information. So my question. A couple of them. One is there was reference more than once to the 1974 E.R. and perhaps subsequent documents never contemplated a hotel. Can you talk about that? Speaker 12: Yeah, this is this. A number of the speakers were sort of saying you did it in 1974 and it's totally old. Didn't it doesn't reflect what you have now. And there was this passing, like complete sort of discounting of what the city did in 1989. What the city did in 1989 is incredibly important for this conversation. That was the update to the 1974 E.R. That's when the city said, you're right, this E.R. needs to be updated because our plans for the business park have changed. And that 1989 revision to the 1974 E.R. was where the city very consciously and very specifically said our plans for the business park are the 5.2 million square feet, 100 foot buildings, the f they are. It's all documented in those agreements in 1989. And that's why the city did, as Mr. Readdy describes, a three inch environmental document that was reviewed by the planning board and the council and the community to update that E.R.. So what we have is an IIR that is very specifically designed for this zoning and this this development as envisioned. And it allows hotels and it talks about hotels in the business park. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And then there was also some discussion in the conversation about the bccdc in going back before the board that there's a B CDC agreement that expires in April. What's that? Speaker 12: Well, I don't believe it. I don't know what they're referring to expiring in April. I think somebody was confused. And what they're talking about is that the city's development agreements expire in April. The settlement agreement with Harbor Bay does not expire, as far as I know, in April. And that that runs. Speaker 0: The city's development agreement with the Harbor Bay Islands. Yes, that's come before this summer. Before. Okay. And then lastly, there was some assertion that the development agreement doesn't. Apply to subsequent owners that only the parties who negotiated or executed that agreement are or are bound by it. Speaker 12: What that speaker was describing her, I guess it was the appellant was describing, was not our development agreement that what they were describing, I believe, was the Bccdc settlement agreement, which and that's what the debate is on Thursday. And you know what? Essentially, you know, that's their basic argument for why Bccdc should have a separate hearing for the site. Speaker 0: I think I might not be phrasing that clearly enough, but is there is an agreement with the city right now, notwithstanding that it expires this April? Does that agreement apply to subsequent owners, for instance, someone who buys a parcel at the at the business park, even though. Speaker 12: We have always as a city. Taken the attitude that the development agreement and this is true of all of our agreements apply to the land. These are entitlements for land, not to people to land. So when you apply a development agreement and give it certain entitlements through the land use process and then and then contractually establish those with a debarment agreement, you are basically first making those contractual agreements. It gives value to land. So if you're the owner of that property now, you have a more valuable asset. Of course, you can pass it on and sell it. Those those entitlements don't just expire once you sell your property, if you like. And this is true of the homeowners. I mean, under that theory, they could sell their house and then we'd say, oh, I'm sorry, we don't want to let you have a house on that property anymore because we've decided to change our mind. And you don't get the rights to have a house on this property anymore. I mean, that's essentially what we would be saying to the commercial developer now. Oh, we've changed our mind. We don't actually want you to build anything on this because you're not the original owner. Speaker 0: I got that. Thank you. And then I do have one last minor question. So you've said that the planning board president made it clear that she wants the subsequent design review to be have community participation. So is there a way that some of our speakers I'm looking at, Mr. Gonzalez, Irving Gonzalez, sitting in the front row, is a former president of the San Francisco chapter of the AIAA. And and then my friend down the road, Donna Fletcher, didn't seem to be objecting to the project overall, but definitely wanted more community input. Maybe she is. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but is there a way that, for instance, those interested individuals can be tapped? Speaker 12: Absolutely. They can always. First of all, we have to find out. Speaker 0: Thank you for volunteering, people. Speaker 12: This is we're only going to do this if this project moves forward. That's why we haven't been sending out invitations yet. If the project does get approved, gets through the Bccdc discussion and is then moving forward, this will be the very first thing that we start to schedule. What we'll do is we'll send out notices through the homeowners associations. Anybody can always contact the planning department. Just ask for Andrew and I'll get you on the list. Speaker 0: Well, I know how. Speaker 12: Much I want to do this with the neighborhood in the community, because we do think with the architectural design, landscape design, we can make it. Speaker 4: Work. Better. Speaker 0: Good. I. I don't anticipate anything, but I would suggest you get in touch with those individuals where you have them in the room. Okay. I think unless anybody else has clarifying questions, let's let's get into our discussion. So who wants to lead? Speaker 7: I could start. Speaker 0: Who is that? Councilmember Diaz. Speaker 5: I think the biggest concern that I have about this project and looking over the record has to do with the combining of the parcels. I could understand why the now, just by way of background, there are three parcels and one parcel is 4.4 acres. Another parcel is 0.5 acres and a third parcel is 8.6 acres. The point six acres parcel is the parcel that is between the Maguire Hester building and where this project is going to be. I could understand why those two parcels would be combined, because the municipal code at at the time, the municipal code back in 1988, which was adopted in March 1988, not only said that parking generated by a project has to be met on the parcel of that project. Not only did the municipal code at the time in March 1988 say that, but it also said that if you're going to have shared parking that. Any use is that the parking is trying to satisfy any the demand that it's trying to satisfy. It has to be within 400 feet. Now, the hotel project is certainly within 400 feet of of where the where the wheat I'm going to call it the wheat parking. The hotel project is certainly within the 400 feet of the wheat, a project which is required by the 1980 1988 ordinance. But it's not within 400 feet of the ferry terminal. So I could see why there is a reason to combine the parcels between the main parcel of 4.6 acres and the smaller parcel of 0.6 acres. But I'm not convinced that there is any argument that says that that by right, we have to satisfy the project proponents efforts to combine the point five acre parcels, because if you just go to the Alameda County assessor viewer and you'll see the parcel, the parcel is of 8.5 acres, but it's a thin strip. 30% of it is 30 to 40% of it is in the lagoon that you all know. That's right there. And the other balance is basically on the on the. It's on this off the street, but towards on the green area. You couldn't build on it, in other words. So it is incorrect to combine that parcel with the larger four acre parcel, in my opinion. And in combining the parcels, the effort in combining the parcels, as indicated in the record, was to increase the air, the floor, the amount of building space. Because when you combine more parcels, you can by by definition, you can then have more building space. Right. And and it was a matter of the record that the discussion was focused on combining the parcels for purposes of increasing the FA because this is a direct quote from the planning board meeting. One of the planning board members said, quote, The three parcels joining as one is absolutely required. Otherwise these do not meet the FAA are and we would have to deny it out. Right. I can see to summarize, I can see a case for combining the parcels. The big parcel, 4.6 acres and the what I call the half wider parcel 5.5 acres. But I believe, though, that the wrong decision was made with regard to combining the third parcel, the point five acres. The implication of all this, though, is simply that the project would still continue. But rather than being 120,000 square foot project, it would be roughly 108,000 square feet. But at least it would, in my opinion, give us wiggle room to negotiate something where we have a project that perhaps covers. This is a technical term, a project that covers a wider building coverage because income and having a wider building coverage, we would have we could potentially have a lower built in. I would flatten it. You'd still have 108,000, but it would be flattened, hopefully two, three floors on. So I believe that, you know, based upon the de novo abilities of council to make a decision, I believe a wrong decision was made by the planning board when it comes to the environmental analyzes with regard to the combining of the parcels. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Who's next? Sure. Okay. Mr. Brody. Councilmember. Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And again, I do want to give another thanks to everyone who came out. This is probably the one thing we've gotten the most letters on in a long time. So I'm going to be brief. I think there was a point made early in the presentation by Andrew that this was land made for the purpose of developing. So when we take a look at that, I mean, and somebody wants to build something on it. I mean, we're not asking somebody to build on Walden Pond or turn out a redwood grove or, you know, a virgin prairie or, you know, any of those type of things, you know, a battlefield from the Civil War or anything. This is land that was built to be developed. And I think the vice mayor said it earlier in another meeting, you know, and I'll kind of repeat it and paraphrase it. I mean, just because it's a vacant space doesn't turn it into an open space. So I think when you consider that in conjunction with the fact that this land was made for the purpose of developing developing it, I mean, that kind of informs my decision making. You know, the reason why I'm not going to say much is because I didn't really see any evidence of any new impacts or more severe impacts . I mean, that wasn't presented to me. And that's what we're here to look at. And I do feel that the project complies with our standards. And, you know, Mr. McGuire made the comment about the composition of the planning board. And I mean, that was I was going to mention that. And it was critical to me because, you know, I sat through the last four years when all of the planning board members were appointed, and I remember the previous mayor had appointed every single one of those. And, you know, I think a fair assessment of those appointees is that they were not ones that would rubber stamp development projects without, you know, doing their due diligence. I think that's a fair, fair assessment of them. And the fact that they agreed to this unanimously, I think says volumes to the project and and where we shouldn't fall as a council on it. So I plan on denying the appeal and supporting the Planning Board's decision. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember O.D. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 10: Um, I'm going to actually go ahead and I know that there's going to be more council deliberation and discussion, but I'm going to make a motion to, to actually two separate motions. So one to direct staff to look at the intersection, McCartney and Arden BLOCK in terms of safe routes to school and pedestrian safety at that intersection . And I'm also going to make a motion to deny the appeals filed by Brian Trimper and Labor's International Union of North America. I'm putting that out there to, to narrow the discussion down and I'm going to comment on why I'm making both of those motions, if that's okay. Speaker 0: It is fine. I would. My preference would be to give staff direction on the traffic implications because I think it gives them a little more latitude if they. Speaker 10: Have happy to amend it. Okay. To give them direction. Speaker 0: Okay. To. So it's just that it doesn't need to be a motion perhaps to just give it. Speaker 10: So the motion is withdrawn and I'm just. Thank you. Giving direction. I think that, you know, there was a comment made earlier about the the use or the misuse of secure. And I find it disingenuous when there's 17 or 18 school challenges throughout California made on the behalf. Speaker 3: Of of. Speaker 10: Of one group. And there was that was just in by one law firm that has filed the appeal here. And that's just in 2018. And, you know, one of them was withdrawn in Sacramento where an agreement was reached. So I'm not really interested in negotiating through threats of lawsuits that are really not, I don't think, justly founded and the principles of secure and what it's meant to do in terms of the other challenge. You know, I think that a lot of the concerns that were raised are really not necessarily sequel concerns. In terms of what I heard from the community, I heard some concerns about pedestrian safety. I think that that's an absolute valid concern. I would like us to look at that through other means, because I think that there's it's not just related to this project. And certainly the city is committed to Vision Zero and it's something that we need to be doing anyways. With regards to why do we need hotels? We're right next to the Oakland airport and there's a lot of people that come in and out of that airport and they come here to our business park to do business. And we also have a need for space. We've got folks that have family visiting. I was talking with some Coast Guard families that were finding it very difficult to find places for their family members to stay when they were visiting. So, you know, and and we're in the San Francisco Bay area and there's a lot of different conventions that occur. And our hotels throughout the Bay Area are booked and it's very difficult to find hotel space. So it's something that we're seeing a lot of and that's why there's a lot of hotels going up. It's a it's a good time to do it. And it's something that we've looked into as a city in terms of, you know, is there a need and what can our city really, you know, make use of? And so it's something that from an economic development standpoint, we've looked at, you know, a lot of the design questions . I think our planning board made it very clear that they're they're planning to look at those design concerns as they come forward, and they want it to be a community based process. So I'm I'm sufficiently satisfied that that will happen. But again, those aren't secret concerns. I do want to thank Councilmember De Saag, who raised a question with staff earlier her articulately with regards to the 100 foot height limit. And it was disclosed that I think that the the contemplation of a building of of 100 feet, which was, I think, adopted prior to 1928. So it was something that was, you know, contemplated for quite some time. And so I think that there's certain things that that we've certainly been contemplating for a number of years in terms of what we're looking for in our community. And it was something that, you know, actually dates quite a far ways back. So I think this gives us latitude in making these design choices and these development choices as our community evolves and our need evolves. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks, Mary Knox. Speaker 11: If I could just quickly ask, I think it's answer the question, the issue of where we can we can make a finding to uphold the appeal without making a finding that there was inadequate, secure. Right. In the combining of the issue of whether or not combining the lots. That's not a square issue. That's just a. Procedural issue that one could one could run could raise up to. Speaker 5: You know, do that in a de novo approach. Speaker 11: I, I just want to clarify, because you said it was a violation of it. It made the second finding wrong. And I think they can do they can do both. So, again, I would like to I want to thank everybody who spoke as well as I started to say earlier. You know, I know that this is a very difficult issue for a lot of people, especially for some people that I know kind of well who are directly impacted and will have the the the the the view that they currently enjoy changed. I can say that as somebody who grew up in a family home that was on a ravine that was developed while we lived there, where places where we looked out and saw trees became a very, very large three car household and did change the nature of where we lived and. As in as I would say in this case, we didn't have any say. I believe very strongly that we have a fantastic legal staff. Ms.. Chen is phenomenal. We have a fantastic planning staff. Andrew Thomas does does us right. And it's one of the reasons why we have been as successful in moving forward without some of the legal challenges that our city with other cities around us have had in terms of approving things. They fight very hard for our community, but I also know that I can trust them when they say the school law is really rock solid on this and that in terms of discretion, we can't we cannot legally do it, do more environmental work. And we do not have discretion to talk about the height of the building, etc.. One place that in terms of the de novo as that question as well that I would like to look at, I have heard from a lot of people about concerns about the impact on the water and the 35 foot. The planning board talked a little bit about this and I would like us to consider including removing up to 25 parking spaces. The parking study says that this place is over parked and pull the building back 15 more feet back from the water. That is something we could do that would address some of the concerns about that, creating a more human space along the water, as some people have indicated, without actually sending this back or upholding the appeal. So as we move forward, I'd like to to look at that, but also as a part of our denial of the appeal, which I plan to deny, simply because, as Mr. already this Council member already mentioned, I have not heard any facts that were not mentioned in the planning board meeting that I listened to that were not addressed and have not been addressed by staff tonight as adequate. Speaker 0: So Councilmember Vella. Speaker 10: I have a question. So that's separate from the whether or not there's a motion to deny. Are you proposing that that's something that we have a planning board look at? Or is that something where you're asking to give direction? Can you clarify a little bit? Speaker 11: I would be asking to make as a part of our motion, upholding or denying the appeal, upholding the planning board's decision with direction to remove that parking, as was discussed at the planning board and bringing back the kind of the siting of the building. So back after that. Sit down as a part of the as a part of the design review. Speaker 0: I'd ask Mr. Thomas to come to the podium if you would. So, I mean, I I'm not in disagreement with that proposal. However, I am not sure I want the City Council to redesign this project, but rather to give direction for what it is we're trying to achieve. But Mr. Thomas, can you help us with when this goes back and we already know that we're going to that we're going to request a more refined, improved design? I'm in complete agreement with that. What about this concept or question of removing some parking spots? How many where? Speaker 12: I think the planning board is already if if the council uphold upholds their decision, then the next step is talking. Speaker 0: To the Mike. Speaker 3: And Mary on. Speaker 12: The landscape, landscape plan and architectural design. The council tonight could certainly amend that and say, hey, when you're doing the architectural design and the landscape design with the community. Please do have this conversation as well. The conversation of pushing the building back an additional ten or 15 feet, it eliminates a row of parking. But as Councilmember Knox White said, it's we already have a parking space saying it's over park. Now, obviously, the tradeoff here and this came up a little bit of playing board as well, the way we really wanted the extra parking for the ferry issue. So that's going to be the trade off in the conversation, which you could ask the planning board to revisit. Speaker 0: So a question for you, Mr. Thomas. I did see that the statement that the hotel was over parked is currently configured, but by how many spaces was it over parked was given. So, so starting with the number of spaces required for those rooms and then the 100 spots that have been offered up for the ferry were there more. Speaker 12: So let me clarify here. So our code required a lot of parking for every hotel room, 1.25 for hotel room. So that's a lot of cars for one room like that assumes that a lot of people come to one hotel room with two cars in. Speaker 0: Does that assume 100% occupancy? Speaker 12: No, no, that's that's just what you when you build the hotel. Well, so. Speaker 0: Well, no, but it's so 11.25 for every room. Speaker 12: Room. Right. Okay. So you to fill that parking lot, a lot of people would have to come with two cars for four. So they met the parking requirement per the code. So that's how many parking spaces they have. Our parking study says, well, that's a lot of parking, probably way more than you need, but you met the code, so the planning board then put this condition on or since we think you're going to have all this extra asphalt lying around that you're striping for parking, we want you to make it available to the ferry. Folks. What I think I'm hearing is suggestion that the council might amend the approval slightly to say, hey, planning board, when you go back and look at the landscaping plan on the architectural design, please look at with the community. The idea of moving the parking the building back 15 feet, if you do. I you know, we I don't remember the exact number, but just looking at the site plan, essentially, you you lose a row of parking. I think it's about 15 to 20 parking spaces. We already know we've got over 100 more than we probably need. So all it really does, it's a trade off between moving the building back a little further. Well, it just means fewer spaces on a daily basis available for ferry parkers. So I think at the end of the day, that's the trade off. Speaker 0: QUESTION Okay. QUESTION So. Question. Do you have a question? Speaker 8: I mean, just on this issue, since it was brought up, I mean, so how many spaces do we think the ferry parking is going to use, utilize? Speaker 12: Well, here's the way that's set up. They're building a parking lot with a whole bunch of extra parking. We don't know how many extra the parking space said. We think you've got about 100 more than you need. The way we've set it up with the mobile app and the conditions approval is we we understand there'll be some days where there's the hotels got a lot of people. Other days will be less. So we don't know what it will be every day. It's not we're not proposing to fence off a parking lot for the ferry. What we're proposing is a mobile app signage to so that there's a way for people to go, oh, hey, there's extra spaces at the hotel. I can park there today. Speaker 8: So how are we going to regulate that? I mean. Speaker 12: It's going to be it's a private parking lot. So they will regulate it. They will. Our conditions say you must have signage saying parking available. You must have the mobile app so that if you're in Harbor Bay at 9:00 in the morning and you're thinking about driving down, that you'll be able to check your phone and go , Oh yeah, there's three spaces at the hotel available right now. I'm heading down. If it says No, we're full. We've already sold off the spaces. They're booked for the whole day, then you don't drive down. So that's the way it was conceptually structured in the conditions of approval. Speaker 8: And then if you do drive down and park where you're not supposed to, you'll get ticketed and towed. Speaker 12: Well, that's that's true. Today, if you park in the neighborhood. Speaker 8: Well, I remember I have the scars from that. Speaker 12: So. Yeah, no, I mean, that's why we don't want people driving down in the hopes of getting a parking space in the hotel if there's none available or if other people have gotten there before them. Speaker 8: Okay. Thanks for. Speaker 0: Those questions. I would just comment that being a bit familiar with that free parking. First of all, we want to start charging in the in the weed a lot itself because that's that's just a way that we bring in some revenue that helps with shuttles or whatever we do. And also it might encourage folks who say drive from and circle and park there to not do that. But I would say that you could be assured that whatever available parking spaces are, whatever number of parking spaces are made available, they will they will be filled up. Councilmember Desai I. Speaker 5: Just want to close by saying this. So our planning director just said that the parking met the code, but bear in mind we also just had a conversation that the parking did not meet the code of March 1988. And that's why, as they say, they're going about me trying to combine the parcels. Right. So that's that's a contradiction. And the reason why this is important for me is because this discussion and analysis was not part of the planning board. Discussion is not part of the record. To be sure, this is not a school issue. This is a municipal code issue. But by the same token, it is also an issue that I am attempting to leverage in an effort to somehow wiggle away to make the project a little smaller. And so I think that's what council should be doing, is doing everything that it can to still have a hotel and still have hotel taxes, but also attempt to meet the needs of the residents concerned about a five storey monstrosity. Speaker 0: Mr. Thomas, you want to come up and provide some clarification? Speaker 12: I just want to I just want to address this. This issue of shared parking, sharing parking between two separate parcels is a provision in the code. It's intended for two different property owners, two different uses. We do allow for shared parking. That's where that 400 foot thing comes from. If you intend to meet your parking requirement on somebody else's property, our parking code allows that under certain conditions. One of the conditions is if you're going to share the park, you we tell you you need two spaces and you're like, Well, I've only got the space for six on my parcel, but I can lease some from my friend who's down the street and our code says it should be within 400 feet if you're gonna do that. This is a different situation. This is one property owner owns three parcels. Speaker 0: Got it. Thank you. And I also saw in that I think shared parking is something to be encouraged because otherwise you have just empty asphalt. Speaker 3: During. Speaker 0: Parts of the day and night. I'm going to jump in with my comments. And then we I know we have a motion that is pending. I'm not going to I don't have a lot because my colleagues all covered a lot of the points I would have. And thank you to all for your thoughtful deliberation. It is always lovely when you can just make everyone happy. I'm not sure I've ever had that experience, but it would be lovely. But we don't. But then at the end of the day, where I sit as an elected official, I have to look out and see what all the different needs of the community are including. And I very much appreciate all the neighbors and the residents who emailed and who showed up to speak, most especially the ones who spoke respectfully, which was the vast majority of you. But then there are other people who weren't able to come out and speak. But I I've met with them. And I'll tell you about a couple of our businesses that are out there at the Harvard Business Park. We as Alameda INS should be very proud of some of the work that is being done it at Harvard Business Park and in fact, around our city. But I met last week with an executive vice president from Exelixis, which is a company that moved over from South San Francisco. They'd outgrown their space. They needed more space. They're expanding. This is a company that is developing gene therapies, targeted gene therapies to treat a number of very serious cancers. And they have I mean, this company was started by a couple of Nobel Prize winners. They chose to be right here in our backyard. In your backyard. And what the gentleman I met with told me is that and I heard this also from the president and CEO of Penumbra, which is also out there at the Harbor Bay Business Park, which does this nanotechnology noninvasive device, if you're having a stroke, that blood clot in your brain, they can go in quickly and minimally invasive way and push it out, save lives. And they are a worldwide company headquartered at our Business Park at Harbor Bay Business Park. But they've both told me in recent months that they run out of space when they have visitors and clients coming and the hotels that are out there fill up. So they shuttle them over to San Francisco, sometimes are taking them to the Claremont, sometimes the Oakland Hilton. But apparently that's maybe getting a little run down. It's not as favorite as some of them are. What really bothers me about that is we're not being business friendly to our business park residents who are doing amazing things and bringing a lot of revenue into our city just from the sales of these devices and whatnot. And also that is transient occupancy tax TOTTY that is just flowing over our city limits into Oakland, San Francisco, Emeryville, Berkeley for the Claremont. One of the things I think Debbie Potter has left, but we had a discussion a week or two ago that we need to raise our transient occupancy tax. And don't worry, residents, you won't pay it. This is what people pay on their hotel rooms when they stay here. But right now it's 10% of your hotel room rate, whereas our neighbor San Leandro charges 14%. Really, are we not at least comparable to San Leandro? But that's money that is going straight into our general fund. So it's not that we do this just to have more money coming into our general fund, but the need is there . We want to support our businesses. Exelixis made the conscious choice to move from San Francisco and they looked in a radius of different places and they just settled on Alameda and they're here. They love it. They're growing and thriving. So we need to we need to support them, too. I am mindful of the concerns of neighbors that they don't want to look at just any old monolithic building, nor do I. And I will say we could still work on this design. And I want so I want this to be a robust project process of getting input from neighborhood representatives, especially those with some professional expertize to bring to the table. And we I think with the proposal about reducing parking spaces, we can pull back from the shoreline a bit. It's what compromise is. Neither side got everything they wanted, but at the end of the day, this is a good project for so many reasons, not least of which the jobs that will create the space for hotel rooms, for restaurant and cafe visitors. And I've also talked to Mr. Leach about having come back from the Conference of Mayors. There are some great internship and work to learn programs that hotels are doing. I'd like to see that in Alameda with that. Councilmember Vella, do you want to restate your motion and then I'm not sure we've got a second. Speaker 10: So I moved to. Pull it up again to deny the appeals filed by Bryan Trumper and Labor's International Union of North America. Local Union 304 In approving a final development plan and design review to allow the construction of a 172 room, hotel and restaurant on the Harbor Bay Business Park shoreline at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway. With the amendment to well while also directing staff to look at the intersection mentioned and then to. And I'm also amenable to taking the direction of the account of Vice Mayor Knox White that he proposed that we direct. Do you want to restate it that we direct? Speaker 11: I would just say that the direct the planning board to identify how to pull the project back from the shore and remove. Speaker 10: That's an option. Speaker 11: Well, we can make it an option or we can actually say it's something we want. I would personally I would say I've heard a lot about the shoreline. I would I would make the motion to direct them to do that as opposed to make that discussion. Speaker 0: I have and I want I'd like Mr. Thomas to help us word it in the way that's most effective. Speaker 12: It's completely you can do it either way. I think the the if you if you just have them if you put it if you tell them just do it. Yeah. Then what I'm a little worried about is if they then get a whole bunch of ferry parkers coming down, then they're sort of saying, don't do it. There's that conversation that they might want to entertain. If you say, Hey, we want you to entertain it, we want you to seriously look at it, then at least they can kind of balance that out and maybe, maybe approve it with a setback. Or maybe not. It's but it's completely if you say, hey, we want it pushed back. No ands, ifs or buts, then you can just do that tonight. And then I just lastly, it's just the issue of the traffic signal and the intersection. I think that should just be. Speaker 3: Clear that it's. Speaker 0: Separate. Speaker 12: Yes, that'll be part of. Speaker 0: Direction to staff. Speaker 12: Process. Speaker 0: Comment. Okay. So we have I'm sorry. Speaker 3: Just one more clarification of the motion. You'll be adopting a resolution, so. Speaker 0: Uh. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Odie. Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. Are we doing a mandatory set back, moving the set back, or are we doing a consideration? Because I do have some concerns about free parking and there never seems to be enough. And I understand we don't want these big CS of asphalt and you know, we want to get people out of their cars and everything. But by bringing people to the ferry, we are getting them out of their cars and they're not crossing the bridges and they're reducing congestion on the bridges and the bridge approaches. So I like the idea of like moving the set back in, but I'm not sure I want to do that at the cost of ferry parking, given that I think we're going to see expansion of ferries like we haven't gone to the South Bay yet and there's just going to be a greater demand. And I think we're kind of choking that demand if we if we mandate that we reduce ferry parking. I get the general ideas. And also I think Sharon Road also needs to be looked at. Sharon Road in McCartney, I think there's some complaints there. So not part of the motion, but. Speaker 0: The tourism. Speaker 8: Direction. Speaker 10: Councilmember Vela I'm fine with directing the planning board to look at alternatives on creating an additional setback through the elimination of parking spaces. And I think that that's the middle ground and it's it's not dictating the number of spaces. It's letting them know that that's what we're looking for them to do. So that's the direction that I would like to include. And I think ultimately we are adding ferry parking through this project. So I don't want to have us use terms like we're reducing it. We may end up reducing it by a handful of parking spaces in the end, depending on what the design looks like. So, um, is that, is that an acceptable direction? Okay. Speaker 8: So I guess I'll second that motion then. Speaker 0: Okay. So and then just to satisfy the request of the city I clerical. So we want to approve the draft resolution denying the appeals and affirm the planning board's decision to approve construction of the 172 room, hotel and restaurant at the given address with the additional direction given to staff. Correct. Okay. And we have a motion. Did I hear a second? Yeah. Yes. Okay. All in favor. Speaker 7: I, I. Speaker 0: Opposed. Okay, so the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone, and thank you for coming. Yes. Okay. Councilmember, no. So I am Vice Mayor. Sorry. Speaker 7: It's okay. Speaker 11: I answered any. So I would like that. I would like the council to consider directing staff to send a letter to BCD about the about this issue. I think that there's a big planning for everybody. Speaker 0: We had one more discussion going. If you could just go quietly and. Speaker 11: We can wait if we want. But I think I think there's a significant issue related to the change in which they are the way they are considering changing, the way they deal with this permit, this specific issue whereby they are putting our entire planning process, basically saying that we've spent a year and a half planning or year planning. So I'd like to I'd like to consider directing staff to write a letter on behalf of of of the city to address that issue. Speaker 0: And did you see the the letter from Cox and Castle and. Speaker 11: Yep, that's a private firm. I don't want to rely on a private, firm letter. I'd like the city to address the issues that we have, which is right now, the way in which Bccdc addresses planning is they will not take any action until they until a city has gone through all the way through. We've worked with them to make sure that we are aligned, as we always have been, around this negotiated settlement. And now after we are approving the project, they are saying, oh, we may change the process. And I just think that that is a very problematic thing to do. Speaker 0: I hear from the city attorney in our city, Mr. Roush. Speaker 4: While I don't disagree with Vice Mayor Knox White's comment, I'm a little concerned that that direction. Speaker 5: May not be within the four corners of what we have on our agenda. And I'm trying to be very sensitive to. Council taking action with. Speaker 2: Respect to matters. Speaker 4: That. Speaker 5: Are not are not defined fairly decently on the agenda title. So I would I would be a little reluctant. Speaker 4: To suggest. Speaker 5: That you take that action tonight. Notwithstanding that, it makes good sense. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So. Speaker 3: So I will perhaps withdraw my. Speaker 11: Yeah. Speaker 0: My suggestion. Suggestion? Yeah. All right. Okay. So then this item is completed and we'll move on to the next. Thanks, everybody. Okay, now we have two more. And is that right? We have seven. We have City Manager Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

Summary: Review of 172-Room Hotel Development located at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park. Public Hearing to Consider Two Appeals of a Final Development Plan Amendment and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway and Adoption of Related Resolution. (Community Development 209)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01152019_2019-6352

Speaker 1: Adoption resolution authorizing the interim city manager to execute a cooperation agreement and any amendments thereto between Eaton Housing and the City of Alameda for compliance with the requirements of a grant application under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Funding for the 70 Unit Affordable Housing Project on BLOCK eight within City and Alameda Point and Transportation Projects. Speaker 4: Good evening council. I'm I'm Debbie Potter, the city's space reuse and community development director and this item is requesting approval to submit a grant application in conjunction with Eden Housing for what we sometimes call the cap and trade money, which has the fancier HSC grant. And we set up the staff report in a way that provided some flexibility for for the Council because we were not sure which transportation projects would best fit within the grant application, and we were working on that. And one, we had two changes that we wanted to call to council's attention this evening prior to the Council's vote . One is that we are requesting lighting for the cross Alameda Trail that was value engineered out the first time around and we had the staff report reflect that cost of $800,000, that cost has actually gone up to $950,000. But fortunately, we can still be competitive under the grant with a $950,000 request. So we're asking that the resolution be modified or when you adopt the resolution to be modified to reflect the 950. And then we have determined that the Main Street project is the project we're going to move forward with. And depending on the budget, we would like to have the flexibility to add a new sidewalk on the east side of Main Street. And so we just want to call that to your attention to. And then the idea would be that we would ask that the Council adopt the resolution as amended to reflect the additional funding, the 950,000 for the lighting and the opportunity to potentially do the new sidewalk on the east side of Main Street. And I will say that these few changes that we're proposing do not affect the overall maximum grant amount. So it would still be happening within that cap. So that is the request. And then we have the representatives from Eden Housing here this evening. They are chomping at the bit. They are really anxious to give the council an update on where they are with the two housing projects because a lot of a lot of progress has been made since the last time we were before the council in October. And so I would like to ask Lewis Lis, who is the project manager for Eden, to come up and give a brief update on the senior as well as the family housing project. Speaker 0: I think I can speak for the council by saying that we love to hear about good progress, so come on up. Speaker 7: Hello and thank you for the. Speaker 2: Chance to make a. Speaker 6: Brief update. It's good to see some new faces and some less new faces. Speaker 0: And if you could get a little closer to the mic, we could even hear you. Speaker 2: Awesome. So I just wanted to update that. The Alameda Point Senior Project, thanks to our close work with the council, is ready to close and we'll be closing in mid-February and starting construction soon after. So that'll be up and ready to go in 2020. And then as well as this asset grant, we're taking a few other shots for funding on Alameda Point Family and we're excited to keep you updated on how everything goes. Speaker 0: That was brief. Okay. Thank you so much. All right, counsel, are there any questions or comments? Miss Potter, had you finished your remarks? Okay. So with that, we we need to approve this resolution as amended with the amendments suggested by Miss Potter. Do I have a motion so moved? Vice Mayor has moved. Councilmember Vela has seconded all in favor. I. I it passes unanimously. Thank you all. Okay. So moving on our. First Council item is six eight. Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide direction on the city's proposal for the Homeless Emergency Aid Program and authorize the Interim City manager to work with the Social Service Human Relations Board to finalize and implement the city's programs and services. Speaker 0: Thank you. When you get them. Speaker 4: As we go. Yes. Good evening, counsel. I would like to have the staff presentation be made this evening by Anabaptists, who is our community development analyst and who has been working tirelessly on this topic. And she has a brief PowerPoint presentation. I believe there are probably a number of speakers, and then we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I'd like to introduce Anna.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Cooperation Agreement and Any Amendments Thereto between Eden Housing, Inc., a California Corporation, and the City of Alameda for Compliance with the Requirements of a Grant Application Under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Funding Program for: A) the 70-Unit Family Affordable Housing Project on Block 8 within Site A at Alameda Point and B) Transportation Projects (a Segment of Main Street (West Side) between Pacific and Atlantic Avenues or a Segment of Central Avenue, and Lighting Along the Cross-Alameda Trail). (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01152019_2019-6384

Speaker 5: And so I'm trying to I'm trying to square what our action is doing, because I think it's important. The last time I listened to all the candidates, this is my first cannabis hearing. I was actually hopeful that this would be done before we got here. But from for all of our times. But I'm confused because there's confusion and also in the community about what these actions are doing as they relate to applicants. Speaker 0: And so I see Debbie Potter with you and introduce yourself and enlighten us. Speaker 4: We use in Development Director. So just to clarify, it is correct that there has been one applicant who has been given the right to pursue a land use permit as well as an operator's permit that that provider is pursuing their applications under the existing ordinance, because the ordinance that the council approved in November is actually effective this Thursday. So they have they have made application and they're pursuing their applications under the original ordinance. That ordinance was for medicinal dispensaries only. So in the event that either the ordinance is reintroduced today or nothing happens this evening and that the new ordinance goes into effect on Thursday, that ordinance will allow for adult use so the applicant could amend their application under the new ordinance and proposed to do adult use as well as medicinal. So it there is an indirect impact on the applicant who's going through the process. Speaker 5: And can I ask a quick question? Speaker 0: The floor member and our vice mayor knocks later. Speaker 5: Yeah. The so the successful applicant the RFP process has the ability that if changes are made in the future you can just amend it. It seems to me that that applicant would then need to reapply and that in under the new program we're making a you know, I would submit that this open government committee commission thing is about the fact that, you know, these changes are substantive. Right. It was unanimous twice that that, you know, public, publicly available dispensary. Speaker 0: It's why don't we hear the answer to your question? First, you posed the question of what would happen. And so the and then there's a time for discussion. But this is clarifying questions. Speaker 5: Trying to explain my question. But thank you. Speaker 4: So I believe that. We staff would permit then an amendment to the land use application as well as the regulatory permit application to permit the adult use sale. Because the new ordinance would then affect that. We would not we did not anticipate running that applicant through that the new RFP process. Speaker 0: And was there another part of your question? Speaker 5: Well, I guess my so still wasn't my question. My question was, is that how the RFP is stated? Does it state in the in the RFP that if if future changes are made, you can just amend your application? They've been selected, but they haven't even actually completed the process to be a successful applicant yet. Speaker 4: They have been they have been granted the right to apply. They have applied for both their land use permit and their regulator permit. Right. Has the RFP allowed? Does the RFP allow for that? I'm not sure. John, I'm going to ask him next. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: Madam Mayor, members of the council staff and members of the public. John Lay, assistant city attorney, is I want to make sure I understand the question is a question whether or not the person, the ALP, the successful applicant would have to resubmit because the RFP process has already gone through. Speaker 5: They applied under a process for medicinal use only. And now we're saying, oh, there's going to be a process for adult use or medicinal use or just adult use. I'm just curious how it is that somebody who applied under a past program can then just say, Oh, we want the other one. Speaker 6: Well, one. Speaker 2: Of the way to answer this is, um, and I've had a discussion with the. And we staff has had a discussion with the applicant about this, that many of the changes that happened before they reached the stage of receiving their land use entitlement would apply to them. So that would include the adult use provision that you're discussing now, but that would also include some of the other provisions that the applicant has actually expressed concern about, particularly certain sensitive uses that might be applicable to them. And they have expressed concern about the applicability of those definitions. And because of that, I think the the applicant is concerned that many of the requirements are going to apply to them. And as to your question about whether or not they can amend their application, we currently do not have, I don't believe, a specific provision that prohibits an applicant from amending their application. And that doesn't mean that we can't say that they can't do that, but we also don't have one that sort of freezes it in time. They've currently submitted an application, it's currently pending and staff is in the process of reviewing that application. And so I guess the answer to the question is in the instance in which we do have applications that are pending, whether or not an application can be sort of and resubmitted and if it has been done in other contexts, that might guide the analysis. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Did do that. That is the question. Okay. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I want to ask the inverse, which is if and you'd kind of hinted to this, which is if we had changed something that would have negatively impacted them, do they then lose the ability to apply after they've already invested? Speaker 6: Well, um. Speaker 2: It depends on the particular provision, but, um, that could be a possibility. Yes. And that's something that I believe was raised in a previous meeting as well. Um, and it was in the context of discussing the notion of vested rights. You may recall that discussion. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Any further questions? Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 5: Sorry. I don't remember the reinvestment, the investment rates, but. Sorry. The best. Thank you. I knew I was going to miss some of that. The event, the vested rights. So you're suggesting that because they applied under the old program, they have vested rights? Speaker 2: I don't know if it's actually the opposite. Is that because they've not actually the IRP process, the conclusion of the RFP process provides the applicant, the successful applicant, a conditional award letter that allows them. And the only thing it allows them to do is the ability to submit an application. And from there, it would it would sort of stand in the same shoes as an ordinary sort of copy. But it also has the additional layer of an operator's permit. So just as in operators excuse me, a copy applicant has not had their hearing, has not obtain their land use entitlements. There's also an additional process of getting the building permit. To the extent that there are any improvements that need to be made or any other construction related tasks that need to happen. So they're really starting at square one. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further clarifying questions? So then we're going to go ahead with our question, our public comment. We have nine speakers slip. So under the council rules, that means each speaker has 2 minutes. So I will and keep things moving because it's almost 9:00. I'll call the first three speakers and you can just be ready when it's your turn. I'm a bit of clarification. I've got a spruce up for Mark Kurzman and then I have a speaker slip for Nick Portolesi with a notation, give my time to Mark who's so suggests, you know, under the newest council rules, we don't cede time. But if you would like Mr. Kurzman to have your 2 minutes, he has your 2 minutes and his two. Is that okay? Okay. Then I will take Mr. Palacio out of the out of the queue. But we're still 2 minutes because we have eight speakers. All right, Mr. Holzman, Mark Kurzman, you're your first. Speaker 4: And we don't see time. Speaker 0: We don't see time. That's what I was telling him, that either one of them has 2 minutes, but one of them can't take two plus two. But, Mr. Blasi, I believe if I was reading his hand signals, you don't want to speak at all. Is that correct? No, no, no. You can have your 2 minutes if you wanted to. You're right here. I can put you back in. It's okay now. Okay. Hi. Speaker 6: Hi. Mayor Ashcraft and Council. Thank you. I am my business partners. And I sent a letter to you yesterday that we would like to read into the record tonight. As you're all aware, one of the final acts of the previous council was the finalization of the cannabis business ordinances. It's our understanding that the Open Government Commission has an objection to the nullification process leading to the passage of the ordinances, as discussed at the October 16th City Council meeting and finalized on November 7th. Specifically, the complaint focused on the change from the authorization of two storefront dispensaries and to delivery only dispensaries to the final decision allowing for storefront dispensaries with a minimum of two offering delivery services. Regarding the specific issue, we were attendees to that debate. I reviewed the video recently and we noted the following. The key issue debated was not the visual footprint on the city of having for storefront dispensaries. Primary concern was access to cannabis delivery for patients who are compromised in their mobility. Once council received guidance that they could require a minimum of two dispensaries to provide delivery services throughout Alameda City limits, the physical nature of these dispensaries, storefront versus warehouse, became irrelevant to that discussion. Further, it was noted that delivery only warehouse dispensaries would need to conform to the same regulations as storefront dispensary. And the city attorney gave guidance to the council that the change from warehouse delivery to storefront was not material enough to require a new first reading for public comment as witness to the council meeting in question. It's our opinion that the previous council acted in good faith and by requesting advice from the city, attorney was well aware and respectful of their obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance. Clearly, the LGC disagrees with the city attorney guidance, putting you the new city council in a very difficult position. While we understand that opening up this one issue for public comment is being done to satisfy the request, the LGC we respectfully request that your actions be limited to this one item regarding the public notice requirement concerning the nature of the approved dispensaries and not relitigate the balance of the cannabis. That's time. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Huseman. And the next speaker is Rosalind Fortuna. Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Rosa, Linda Fortuna, and I request that Tony Dyson be able to participate in this. It's not correct that he is admitted. He is a property owner. He's a neighbor. He knows the area. And for him to be recused from this is not right. When I heard that, it just didn't make any sense to me. He is a person that would know his neighbors and how they feel and how the families feel in that neighborhood about any cannabis coming, a storefront coming into that neighborhood. So I'm sorry that that's my opinion. Also, he is a citizen of Alameda. That doesn't make this this really doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, I you know, when I talked to some merchants on Webster Street, I was just shopping. And then. Speaker 1: The merchants said. Speaker 4: Oh, did you know the cannabis center is coming? And they were saying, We're so upset. And I said, Oh, I didn't know that. She said that she was told that when she went to City Hall. They said it was already approved and then nothing could be done. And then now you're saying, oh, it's subject to the land use permit. So she doesn't speak English very well. She was told that it's already done. Then I there was another merchant that I talked to. She's super upset. She said she doesn't want to see the long lines of people standing out waiting for their cannabis purchases or whatever they do to, you know, to interfere with her business. And she's very, very upset, just like in Oakland. Speaker 9: There's just long, long lines. Speaker 4: Having you in storefronts is not the right place. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Phil Read. I've got it. Speaker 6: Which I would like to remind people. When we voted for recreational marijuana by 68.9%, we already had medical use in medical businesses in our city. I believe we voted for legal cannabis because the real danger is not cannabis. We know that after five years of legalization, that is pretty benign. And what happens if you drink too much coffee, you get the jitters. If you smoke too much weed, you get high. Funny how we all treat cannabis as more dangerous than guns and alcohol in Alameda. Parents are expected to teach their kids how to be responsible around alcohol, cigarets and guns and sugar, fire and a million other worldly dangers. Why can't we just expect the same for cannabis? Statistics say legal cannabis decreases alcohol use, so you are literally killing people if you deny them this, right? The only difference between medical use and recreational use is the intent of the user. In no matter how you use it, it's always non-fatal. You know, the real danger is the danger is in the illegal supply chain. If back in the day, I used to buy weed from gangsters in high school and I've been robbed at gunpoint maybe a few times. It was an acceptable risk back in my day. Where there is a void. They will exploit it. If you take away a healthy legal market, you leave yourself more vulnerable to the illegal markets. And they've had two years to set up shop while you've been sitting on your hands. And the Wild West of cannabis is already here. Also, any changes to the ordinance undermines two years of hard work by the last council and speakers on both sides of this issue. This would also be a hard step away from current progressive values. Legal cannabis protects children, but you also have to look at the big picture to know that I know I don't have to explain to you again how safe a dispensary is. It's guarded and guarded and all that good stuff. Take away. Take it away. And it leaves too many more potential customers just sitting out in the dust looking for new sources. And organized crime will more than take it advantage because currently cannabis is a scofflaw. I'm sitting here with cannabis right here. Speaker 0: That's true, Red. Your time is up. And our next speaker is Tyler Chisholm, Champlain Heavyweight Champion. Champion. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. I'm here to speak in support of item six, be and encourage council to once again adopt this ordinance. As we all know, as we are all aware, there have been countless hours staff, council stakeholders and members of the community have put into this ordinance, given the multiple public meetings that have already taken place and yet another staff recommendation to adopt. I would hope this would be an easy vote for council, as noted in the executive summary provided by staff along with their recommendation. Staff notes that 68% of Alameda voters voters supported the ballot initiative to allow recreational use and sale of care and the sale of cannabis. The citizens want this. We we have a solid ordinance that staff the previous council and stakeholders all are all in support of stakeholders, have secured locations and are incurring costs and are prepared to submit applications now. Again, I am in full support of this ordinance and encourage Council to approve the first reading and move for a second reading on February 5th meeting in anticipation of opening the RFP as soon as possible. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Spencer. Evening Council. Speaker 4: City manager. City attorney. Speaker 0: But I wanted to speak to and I appreciate all the earlier comments. Speaker 4: First of all, I want to. Speaker 8: Thank member Odie for. Speaker 4: Bringing the first referral on this. Speaker 8: Item over two years ago. Speaker 0: I want to remind Council that every step of the way we did in fact. Speaker 8: Ask our city attorney. Speaker 0: If it was appropriate for us. Speaker 8: To proceed, especially after the. Speaker 0: Complaint. Speaker 8: Was brought to the Open Government Commission. Speaker 4: And so we I believe we. Speaker 0: Were advised. Speaker 8: By three city attorneys that it was appropriate, including our current acting interim city attorney. Speaker 4: In regards to what happens if you make it null and void. Speaker 0: What I didn't see. Speaker 4: Discussed was there's always. Speaker 0: That 30 day period. Speaker 4: After the second vote. Speaker 8: When someone can bring. Speaker 0: A referendum. And we've just gone through that and you. Speaker 8: Know how long it can tie up an item. And I don't know what would happen if we, in. Speaker 4: Fact, had. Speaker 0: A. Speaker 8: Referendum brought during. Speaker 0: That 30 day period. That did. Speaker 4: Not happen. Speaker 8: When we brought our did our final vote on November 7th. Speaker 0: Which made it. Speaker 8: Effective December. Speaker 4: 7th. And if you all. Speaker 0: Decide to open it up again. What happens if a. Speaker 8: Referendum is brought? Speaker 4: And we all know it's. Speaker 0: Critical that we allow. Speaker 4: Cannabis businesses to open and know that they have that. Speaker 8: They can count on this. Speaker 4: Council to. Speaker 0: Allow them to do. Speaker 4: Their business. I strongly encourage you all to give the green light to cannabis business. Speaker 0: Let them know that we do. Speaker 4: Support medicinal and recreational and that. Speaker 8: We all know we've been trying to. Speaker 0: Provide safe legal. Speaker 8: Cannabis. Speaker 4: That has been the cause. Speaker 0: We've worked really, really hard. However, that's my why I. Speaker 4: Decided to come tonight. What happens then. Speaker 0: If we do get a referendum? My guess is that. Speaker 8: Everything gets tied up in. Who knows where we are. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker is John Sherritt. Speaker 6: Well, good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the city council. Here we go again. Confusion, staff responsibilities that probably have not been met. And I'd hate to say it. What are we voting on or what are we fooling with here tonight? Let me go ahead with what I had prepared. I would like to thank Serena Chen for formatting the cannabis issue and maybe staff should talk to her about how to put something together on the agenda. That makes sense. She has facts from day one and a council member of John Knox wife or at least being open for a dialog on the issue. Where am I coming from? I'm coming from 38 years as an educator with the scene. Too many kids use marijuana as a starter drug. I'm not saying stop all this. I'm saying take time and start something, but start it right and monitor it right. I'm not against American medical marijuana. Dispensary is not in a place where kids have activities such as preschool, parks, etc.. And it is regulated. So since December 19th, 2017, when the original ordinance regulating cannabis in Alameda passed the highly organized cannabis industry and I give them a lot of credit has pulled strings on the acting city manager and some of the council members and has chipped away at many of the protections for kids that were listed in the original ordinance. The changes proposed are examples making again more moves to chip away. I have to cut my whole thing in about half and I just want to end it with a comment made. There is a group formed and a group formed is called Pot Watch to Protect Alameda Kids. And I'm going to say they're going to be monitoring. Everything that goes on with this from start one and I'll end with a comment by a retired. School teacher Candice Good Lehman, a retired, a U.S. city and community member. When she says that's time. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is your time. But you can submit your comments in writing to the city clerk if you'd like to do that. Speaker 6: And I come back next time and say that. Speaker 0: You certainly can. Do you have is it like one sentence that you have? Okay. And we did get the letter from Ms. even. Speaker 6: I'm just trying to figure out who's on first. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker coming from. Thank you. Our next speaker is Deborah mendoza. And our last speaker after Ms.. Mendoza is Richard Paulson. Good evening. Nice to see everyone in the new year. Welcome, John Knox White. And I didn't prepare my statement tonight. I came here and I kind of learned some more information as I went along. But some of you may know that I was involved in. Speaker 4: Advocating for cannabis to be permitted here in Alameda. Speaker 0: Back in November. I put together a petition for allowing. Speaker 4: The delivery only. So one thing I'm a. Speaker 0: Little disappointed is it. Speaker 4: Went that four. Speaker 0: Of the storefronts can have two deliveries, but that. Speaker 7: Doesn't. Speaker 0: Address that delivery only is are. Speaker 4: A way that people most. Speaker 0: With the least amount of perhaps wealth, access to resources, equity can enter into this industry. And I and I agree with my neighbor. Speaker 4: Who spoke earlier. Speaker 0: About, you know. Speaker 4: Criminalization. Speaker 0: So when we do not, you know, allow people to operate, you know, legally, it does push it does push the underground market, which we don't want to see. Speaker 4: That's not what public safety looks like. Speaker 0: So I would just I'm also I also. Speaker 4: Believe that that we should be able. Speaker 0: To transfer medicinal to adult use, because that was the whole you know, that's the whole. Speaker 4: The point. Speaker 0: Of this new legislation is to allow cannabis to be consumed recreationally. We don't you know, the medical model is from years prior. So it doesn't make sense to me. With businesses moving forward, should that should be. Speaker 4: Easy to make. Speaker 0: That transfer. Thanks for your consideration and I'll see. Speaker 4: You later on. Speaker 0: Thank you. Richard Paulson. Speaker 6: Ashcroft City Council. My name's Rich Polson. I'm a local attorney here on the island, and I have two children that are school age emerging. The Council to move forward with opening Alameda to cannabis businesses. I've been following this issue and seen firsthand how much time and effort has been put in by the City Staff Council. Long hearings, a lot of public comment, a lot of opportunity for people to raise their issues. And I think there's still seems to be a misunderstanding of how heavily regulated this industry is, not just at a state level, but the effort that the city has been put into it to make sure that the citizens of this community are being protected in a fair and evenhanded way. But I think we need to move forward at this point. I mean, there's clearly demand, popular support is high for this issue. And we should move forward and bring this theory and bring this process to a close to the extent that any complaints about long lines in front of a dispensary. I think the obvious solution would be to open more dispensaries. There's clearly the demand for it, and I think the city needs to move forward and make this a reality. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. That was our last public speaker. So we will move into council discussion. And just for clarification, I'm in the city clerk and the interim city attorney, if you would help me on this. We are actually considering introduction of two ordinances and on the second ordinance, I suggested a word, one word change. Do you want me to read it? It's the it is so interjection to ordinance amending the muni code section 16. And this is paragraph C which currently reads Amend the dispersion requirement to require no more than two cannabis retail businesses to operate on either side of Grand Street. And we would my suggestion, I think the clerk and the interim city attorney agreed, is that we would change the verb required to allow because we don't we're not requiring. But we were allowing. So I just want to note that for the record. Okay, who wants to open the discussion or make a motion for that matter? Speaker 5: I guess I'll speak to. Speaker 0: Vice, the person who's. Speaker 5: Actually weighed in on this. Speaker 6: Right. Speaker 5: Right. This is not how this meeting was. I expected it to go. I thought we would have at least a couple of new voices up here. And so I'm going to make a couple comments. The first one is I just wholly disagree that if somebody submits under an RFP, that is one thing that they just automatically get to have the more expanded whatever else. I think that that that, you know, it is possible with adult use that there could be furthermore people who are interested in going and as we're expanding forward that's that's a new program. So yeah I kind of think that that's something that maybe should come back from the for the council possibly. I'm going to assume there are legal issues related to that decision, but then possibly in a closed session, I just I did that was completely news to me. And and I it does change it. Well, it changed the complex, the complexion of this board. So I want to I want to I want to I just wanted to mention that I wanted to just really quickly, there were some comments. It's my understanding Mr. De Sung asked to be recused and then confirmed that that his decision was but he was not forced to recuse himself. That's a decision he gets to make. So I just wanted to and as the person who was asking the question, it was not that somebody told him he could not participate. And then I'm hoping maybe at the end of this, Debbie, if you could maybe speak to to Ms.. Fortuna about the process, because it is true that there is a successful applicant, but they have not gotten through the process by which they have been approved and are definitely going to open. There is still a process whereby neighbors will be able to give input, etc. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. I've really struggled on this and I think that the way that, that, that, that, that this has been set up is I think the agenda its agenda is badly and out of out of whack with what our sunshine ordinance requires. I don't think that even if somebody were to challenge that, I don't think that it means that it would get thrown out. But this is one of the most difficult titles I've ever read. And the specificity of specificity of it makes it so that we cannot talk about anything. We have to either move it forward as written or restart the process again and come back in four weeks with a new first reading. And I think that's unfortunate. I have up until yesterday been using the term I think we need to go slow. And I have heard very loudly that, you know, while being aware that we have been working on this for two years, we've gone slow. I think we still need to go small. And I'm going to just jump ahead to reading, reading the board a little bit. I would be willing to. Speaker 6: Support. Speaker 5: Maintaining this as written, but I would like to do so with direction to staff that they only issue an RFP for two more two more dispensaries. I don't think there's been a case made for that necessary. I think that we can issue two more and and, you know, take it take it a little take it a little , you know, start small, learn, learn from what we're learning and have the the ability to go out for a fourth as well. You know, I do think that there is some concern out there. To Mr. Sherrod's point. I do want to point out that there is a subsection here that says the chief of police, if there are welfare issues that he leave, sorry. Anyway, the chief of police has the ability to actually take immediate action to suspend operations. If people are violating the rules on these things, I will expect that our chief of police is not going to do so under a very ticky tacky complaint. But if people are doing things that are shown to be attracting or impacting children, I would expect that that action will be taken very, very swiftly. I also the reason I feel well, I would like to see some changes here. I know that a lot of work has gone into this and I'm going to honor that work. From my standpoint, I believe that the annual permit people would be coming back every single year gives us a lot of control. If there are bad actors, they will find themselves. At least for me, having invested a lot of money to operate a business for a year and then not being permitted to continue to do so. So with that, I'd love to hear from my colleagues. Thank you. Speaker 0: Who's going next? Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: So I am a little concerned and I want to echo the vice mayor's comments about the interpretation of the RFP. I. I want to assume that we will we will get more advice once there's been a little more research into that, because what I heard essentially from Mr. Lay was that he wanted an Ms.. Potter, was that they wanted to look at other groups and how we'd done things. So I would like to get guidance on that. What concerns me in particular is, especially with the recusal issue, is that essentially if so, does that mean that if there's another, you know, person who's thinking about applying and I live within 500 feet of that, you know, that area that I'm now or any one of us would then be recused. I just I think it creates a kind of we could dove down a rabbit hole where we're in. Essentially, everyone could potentially have recusal issues because of the possibility of future changes or future applicants. And so that when that occurs, it seems to me that that's an issue of kind of general, you know, that it applies to everybody. And therefore, the recusal law wouldn't necessarily apply that. That's kind of an off the cuff thought that I'm having. But I would like to get some clarity on that because I think it will become an issue as to the specificity and how complex this title was. That was specifically in response to the complaint, which said that the title itself did not clarify with enough specificity what we were discussing. And so that's kind of the outcome of that, is that we get these very long titles that kind of lay out every single change since. That was my understanding. That was that was Ms.. Chen's complaint. Additionally, you know, I'm not inclined to change. I haven't heard anything that's that made me inclined to change my position on the substantive issues. I think that there's a lot of misinformation in the community and a lot of people who don't really understand. And I think we need to do a better job of clarifying what the specific process is, where there's an opportunity for community input. And we've had several meetings now where we've heard from community members that are near certain locations. And the feedback that I've given before and I think that this counsel has given before, is we need to clarify where and when the opportunity for those concerns to be raised would be and how people can go about doing that . And that's going to be largely before the planning board. But the other thing that we'd given direction on in past meetings was that there be some sort of good neighbor policy work done where we can kind of establish so that we avoid these sort of ticky tacky violations. But there can be standards put out where people can give feedback and the good neighbor policy can exist. It's something that's been done in San Francisco and other communities so that we know where what sort of things would constitute a substantive violation wherein, you know, the permit would not be renewed on the annual basis. I also think that, you know, regarding the delivery only thing, part of the discussion centered around around the time this came back to us, there were changes to the state regs. Prior to that, the state regs essentially allowed for delivery only to be operated under a different set of regs from storefront properties. And the state regs changed over summer. And they essentially said, nope, delivery only. You've got to comport with all of the regs that exist for storefront property. So now you have to have a separate location, you have to do all these different things. And that's been an extensive conversation that was going on with the state, and they changed those regs over the summer and it did have a significant change. And that was part of the reason for why we said, okay, you know, if they have to be the same, let's make it storefront, but let's require that they offer delivery only. And then the other reason that we we instituted the Grand Avenue dispersion was that the mile dispersion was an issue. It was hard to calculate. It made it difficult to kind of have people planned out. And you you made it dependent upon when different applicants came in, it became a very difficult process. But what we did institute relative to that Grand Avenue dispersion was that essentially you have to have one on each side of grand before you can get that second one. And that was something that we had talked about and we had put in there. And so what that does is that means that we will go slowly. Implementation will be considerate, it will be thoughtful. There is a process. We do want community input. We're not saying no to the community. The community, just like in other conditional use permit situations, will have an opportunity to input and give input. But this will stagger when different businesses come online. And so it's not that we're going to go from. 0 to 4 overnight. And in fact, when we look at other neighboring cities like San Leandro that are similar to two cities like Alameda, San Leandro, Emeryville there, they've been working on their cannabis rags for quite some time. San Leandro just finally got to a point where their cannabis dispensary is finally getting moving through the process. And it's been three years or two years, something like that. Three. So anyway, so I'm not compelled to change the substance of this. I do hope that in the future we can discuss and go over and be more considerate and thoughtful of transparency and access, but also lay out a process where we can address these procedural challenges sooner so that we're not drawing out the process for longer than it needs to be. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: I'm way over here by myself. Speaker 8: You lonely? You're hot. Speaker 3: Just a quick question of the interim city attorney. So I there was a question raised about a possible referendum. So I believe a referendum would either make us like repeal this ordinance, which I think, if that happens, would revert us back to what we have today. Or we would have we would suspend the implementation of it and put it on the ballot, which I think also would revert us back to what we have today. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That is a correct analysis. Speaker 3: Okay. So I appreciate that. So, I mean, and I appreciate my my colleague, Ms.. Vela, you know, kind of re restating the history. But I think it's important to understand how we got to where we are today. I mean, the important thing to me is we can pass this, you know, we can quibble about why we're here and, you know, whether we should be here or not. But we're still going to have the same thing we have today. And if we don't pass it, we're still going to have the same thing we have today, except maybe a little bit more legal risk that the city attorney is concerned about. So, I mean, okay, I mean, six and one half dozen the other, I'd rather have less legal risk than more legal risk. And also, if I'm looking at this, you know, I'd rather pass it and then, you know, make it a little bit more ironclad. I, I sit up here and, you know, this. I don't know how many times we've had this discussion. I think if I counted it out, we've had, what, like 44 meetings over the past two years. I think 25% of them have had cannabis come up because I think there was my referral, I think to Spencer put in another referral. I think we had a discussion and we had a workshop. So I think that's three. I think we had one ordinance that had two readings, so that's up to five. I think we had a second ordinance that had two readings that's like seven. I thought we did something related to the July 1st testing lab. I don't remember if that was one or two. So if it was two, that's nine. We had the the discussion about the youth centers, that's 11. So now this is like meeting 12. And then if we have a second reading of this, that's like 13 meetings and we've talked about this a lot and I'm not going to use my whole time because, you know, there's probably an hour and a half worth of me talking on this. So I'm a little concerned that we're getting that people are getting a second bite at the apple to try to get rid of this. But now I'd like to pass it and get it done. What we did as a council and this is what I wanted to do. And I think Councilman Avila talked about, you know, San Leandro. I think it's been four years. Someone could check me if I'm wrong and I'm sure it'll be over Twitter if I'm if I'm incorrect. But it's been four years since they issued the first permit, and I think they're just starting to open. And then they had to go back and do a second one and then they had to go back and do a third one. So what I wanted to do here, and I think our council agreed, was set a framework to allow these businesses to go forth and let the market and let the planning process sort it all out. And then so we're not coming back, you know, you know, every time doing Whac-A-Mole, when, you know, somebody said somebody got a wrong deal here. Somebody didn't get a fair deal here. You know, we set the framework and the market will decide if there's four, maybe there won't be, maybe there'll be four and they'll be long lines and we'll have to reconsider that. Maybe they'll be one. Maybe in four years like San Leandro will still be struggling to have one open. I don't know. That's what the planning process is for. That's what the market is for. And I think our our job as council was to set a high level policy and put the framework in place for those other processes to play out. I think that's exactly what we're doing. I prefer that we don't have any delay in our piece. And, you know, I'd like to keep the same for so I'm not going to support any direction that would change our piece from, you know, four to any other number. So that's where I am on this. Speaker 0: Okay. So I'll go last. And I, I think my position has been pretty clear all along. I have supported medicinal dispensaries all along. Testing laboratories, manufacture delivery only is fine. But I am troubled that we have managed to with a, you know, three two majority but it was still a majority morph into all of the dispensaries being able to dispense adult use as well as medicinal. And I know I've heard the statistic cited that 68% of Alameda residents voted in favor of legalizing recreational cannabis. And I'm sure I was one of them. But that was not a vote on. Wanting to have it in our in our city, in just any location. I am troubled because I don't think we have been respectful to segments of our community. We have an open government commission for a stated purpose, their mission, and they're there. They're the tasks that they're to complete and conduct were reviewed by the city attorney's office. So it is somewhat curious that the city attorney's office is now telling them, no, you don't have that authority, but be that as it may. I've also been troubled with the changing definition of youth center and the fact that I don't think we've heard or that we've been respectful of merchants on Webster Street. I get that they can come to a a hearing and object. But I think it was perhaps premature for the Webster Street or the yeah, the West Alameda Business Association to say that the Merchants Association approves this when we've heard from an awful lot of Webster Street merchants who certainly don't. But I do have a question for the city attorney. Interim city attorney, is the the issue of the changing or changed definition of youth center? Is that coming back to the council? Speaker 2: No, unless there were three votes to have the matter returned to the council. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Well, I doubt that that would be the case. Okay. So so I'm not going to support either either of these ordinances, but are we ready for a vote, folks? And city clerk you want us to do each separately. Speaker 1: Do a vote on both. Speaker 0: The vote and both. Okay. So is there a motion to consider introduction of, you know, let's well, that probably doesn't make a difference. Okay, we're okay with that city attorney interim city draft. Okay. So public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code as stated in the first paragraph of item six B and then introduction of ordinance, amending the municipal code by amending the articles and zoning districts and all stated in the second paragraph of item six B Is there a motion? Speaker 3: I'll make that motion as long as I don't have to read the whole thing. Speaker 0: I was avoiding it too. We have a motion by Councilmember Otis. Do we have a second? Is there any discussion? I'd just like that Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: Discuss for a couple of seconds. Sure. And rather than make an alternative motion or whatever else, I guess, I mean, I'd like to ask for consideration of limiting the RFP. I haven't yet heard a heard a. The original consultant on this said that Alameda should look at 3 to 4 dispensaries. I haven't heard a compelling reason why four has to be the number, and I've heard that people are okay with Ford, but I've also heard a lot of concern in our community, and I just wonder if we could pass this and then do the RFP for three and and and vote and get at least three votes on this to just move it forward, get rid of the, you know, legal whatever that the attorney has referenced. I am just wondering if you would be willing to consider that I'm making a last minute. I know you said no, but I'm asking again. Speaker 3: Madam Chair, if I may, and I did say I wouldn't be and I. I still wouldn't be. I appreciate the ask. I think if I recall correctly, the consultant said it's like one dispensary for 15,000 people. So, you know, Ford may actually be one less than our market would support. So because we have, what, 78, 79, almost 80,000 people. So, you know, I would like to just keep the process that we passed and keep moving forward with it without any changes. Speaker 0: Your hand. Speaker 8: Councilmember Avila Yeah, and that was a point that was also raised at the I think the last time that we voted on this. And specifically he had said it was for one for every 15,000, and that was based off of the total number of sales that they do per day plus the the volume that that because they're limited in terms of how much they can sell per day, blah, blah, blah, blah. Speaker 0: Okay. So we've had a motion and a second all in favor. I opposed. No. Okay. So the motion is tied to into. Speaker 5: The item film. Speaker 0: So so yeah. Speaker 3: With more legal risk and exposure to the city. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, everyone. And at this point. I'm just going to give you a roadmap of. Speaker 3: How we're going to get our. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. We have another calling. Um. Okay. I'm sorry. You've lost him. Speaker 3: How could you lose a council, mate? Speaker 0: I thought he went through there. Okay. A Tony de song? Yeah. This one here? Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Speaker 0: So while the city clerk is hunting for our highest council member, we've rarely lost one for long. This is. This is the way the meeting is going to proceed, unless anyone has strenuous objections. We're going to finish items seven, eight, nine and ten and 11. I'm going to adjourn this council meeting. We are going to go back for a brief closed session because there was one item, but it's a short item we didn't get to before this meeting. And then we will return. And I'm told, I believe, no more than 30 minutes. Mr. Potter, give me a nod of the head, everyone. Okay? No more than 30 minutes for the closed session item, and then we will come back. Speaker 8: And take a break. Speaker 3: I don't want to do. Speaker 0: An issue and then we're going to come back. Speaker 3: To use the bathroom. Speaker 0: Okay. But I'm still I still want to proceed, as I. Speaker 3: Know you guys can figure. Speaker 0: Out what. Speaker 3: To figure. Speaker 0: Out. Okay. Okay. We are going to take. Speaker 4: Are we still in the matter? Speaker 0: No, we we finished. We finished that item. It's done. And okay, we will take a ten minute break. This meeting is resuming at 940. Thank you. It's 940 and we are going to we're going to we're sorry. Went the wrong agenda. Okay. City Council. Okay. Here we're. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for keeping that to 10 minutes. And this is what we're going to do. Well, I'm just having a little trouble bringing my agenda up, but I'll try again. Okay, so we are on item seven and this is a meeting. It's a little unusual because we have a special meeting following the regular meeting, but I'm going to insert a brief, brief closed session because there was an item with Debbie party that we did not get to before seven. We had to come to the 7:00 meeting. We were a little late to that, so please bear with me. So I'm going to just go down the list. We are now at City Manager Communication. No report. All right. And do we have any oral communications non agenda? Okay. And we don't have any council referrals. How about council communications? Councilmember Odie, can I start with you?

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (a) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (b) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-Medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, and (c) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement; and (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 3228; and Introduction of Ordinance: (1) Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (a) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (b) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as “Dispensary/Delivery” (Delivery Required, Open to the Public) within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (c) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (d) Create a Two-Tier Buf

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01152019_2019-6396

Speaker 0: Okay. All right. I'm. Who's presenting this? Is that you, Mr. Roche? Speaker 1: Oh, I guess. Speaker 0: Oh, you are okay? Speaker 1: Yeah, you were right about. So basically, the two subcommittees of the council went ahead and both prepared their argument. The one against the initiative and the one in favor of the Carrying Alameda Act. And so those two are before you. And what you need to do is just review it blessed. And then you can have a brief discussion about how you want to handle signatures and rebuttals. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. So where do we start, Councilmember Vella. Speaker 8: For the valid argument against which I worked on with Mayor Ash Ashcraft, I did want to note there is a link now that we can add in. So in the second line where it says a report was prepared for the city council link, the I would like to replace the bracketed link with the direct link to the report, which is HTP s colon. Speaker 4: I've got it. You've got it. Yeah. Speaker 7: With. Speaker 8: Backslash Alameda S.A. of McKay report. And so for those watching, essentially we've got the direct link to the report so you don't have to go on to our website and look through the past agendas in order to find out it's now directly available there. Mm hmm. And so with that change, I would just say that I think that, you know, our subcommittee worked. Fairly hard getting this done in the in the quick turnaround time. And I you know, I feel comfortable with the the language as written. Speaker 0: And I will note that we have speakers. So do we have any council questions before I go to public speakers? Hearing that I'm going to call our public speakers. First, I have Doyle Saylor and then I have Doug Biggs. Speaker 6: Mayor Ashcraft and council members and everybody pretty much knows who I am. So we talked about this issue with the McKay Avenue Respite Center. We talked with Doug Biggs quite a bit. So we understand it and renewed hope because is very feels very strongly that this rezoning is not necessary and we were opposed to it. So we just wanted to deliver a message that we're going to oppose the measure and mobilize against it in the coming election. And we're looking to get together with our allies to have a united effort against this. And we just want to let everybody know that we're going to do that. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Doug Biggs. Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the City Council. I'd like to thank both committees for the wonderful work you did on on writing the ballot matters. I have just one minor suggestion, and it doesn't have to really do with the major itself, but how we refer to it for the ballot argument against Mackay. That's the zoning change ordinance. It's not an open space initiative because it's not creative open space that should be referred to as the zoning change initiative. Speaker 3: I think we do a disservice to the community when we refer to it as. Speaker 6: An open space initiative because it doesn't create open space, it just change zoning. And I know the discussion is going to come up around signature gatherers. As you know, over 500 Alameda INS have signed a letter endorsing the project and opposing the initiative. We have a number of folks who are very interested in signing on to to the ballot arguments and also to the rebuttals. I think it would be wonderful if it's each of the two committee members of each of the initiatives signed on, and then there's other members of the public that would be very interested in signing on in the district of those. I just put that out there. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Those are all of our public speakers. So council comments. Who wants to start? Have a question. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: If this is for our city clerk, the ballot argument against that's just listed here. Is that also printed on the thing on the in the booklet? Speaker 1: Yes. The voter information pamphlet basically identifies the that the one is the argument the order of printing is actually the argument in favor, then the rebuttal to the argument in favor. Then the argument against and the rebuttal to the argument against. So that's the way it is identified. Speaker 8: And the title at the top is also printed. Speaker 1: No, they use the exact wording of the elections code but. Oh that so. Speaker 8: That that line isn't going to be. Speaker 1: No, no, no. It'll say measure blank, you know, with the number of the letter. Speaker 8: But I hear what the speaker said and I note that. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Speaker 0: But but so the I mean, the point you're making is it will not will it reference. Speaker 1: It will say argument against measure and then the letter. Speaker 0: Right, then not the. Speaker 1: Title of any form other than right. It's against or. Speaker 4: For. Okay. Measure. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Councilmember Okay. Speaker 3: So, and then just to clarify what you're going to ask us for direction on actually doing a rebuttal argument. Speaker 1: Correct. Okay. I'll have to make that decision time because you do not have another meeting prior to submitting those on the 24th. Speaker 3: And our options are. Speaker 1: You can maintain the same subcommittees, you could swap subcommittees, you could just figure out. Speaker 7: Okay, I'm not a mayor. Speaker 0: Council, I'm a vice mayor. Speaker 5: Nice way to a quick question. I guess I'm thrown off by that. I know that the way you can format these is very, very limited. I'm thrown off a little bit by the bullet points and then the lack of them in a couple of places. And I and I understand the intent is to bullet point a couple of things that are headers, but I mean, is there a way to indent or something so that when this aligns, you know. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: You'd have to give me that formatting by 5 p.m. tomorrow and you know, whatever you decide. But that intention is allowed and it's this is different than candidate statements that are required to be in block format and have no anything. Special arguments have a little more leeway. And so you can do bullets, you can indent, you can. Speaker 0: If I could just interject, I would appreciate if we could perhaps have the city attorney's office. Ms.. Chan has been working with us on these, perhaps just also give a look it over and help with whatever reformatting you're suggesting. Speaker 5: Yeah. Is that okay? Yeah, that's one for. Speaker 0: And what else? Speaker 6: So you. Speaker 5: I have no personal comments to to Councilmember Ortiz question. I would recommend that we we look to have the authors of each of these sign them and then leave the other spaces open for community members who might be sending. And then to your your question, I would suggest. Oftentimes, it's actually the campaigns that write the ballot. And I think maybe the rebuttal should be written by the by the campaigns rather than the council. Speaker 1: I just want to say, if different people write the rebuttal, there's an additional requirement that the authors that do the first one have to release to allow other authors. So there's just an additional form that has to be signed, but it's just something to be aware of and understand. Speaker 0: Right? Speaker 8: Councilmember Vela So I think that the intentions went away as a formatting switch over to we used to, we hadn't tried in previous one. So I'm happy to reformat that and then also add the link and work on that. I would I actually would like to propose that we take a vote tonight in terms of having the mayor, there was a vast majority of us who signed off on on these on both initiatives. I would like to essentially give the mayor the authority to sign on behalf of the the council, and then that would leave open for spots for community folks to sign on. And my question is for the city clerk. Can we do that? Can it say mayor. Mayor Marylin as he Ashcraft on behalf of. Or is it just her signature statement title? Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: I mean, I know she could put her title Mayor City of Alameda City Council. I know she could put like her exact title, but I don't. I on behalf of little. Speaker 2: I would be a little wary of doing it that way. Speaker 0: Well, what was the question again, that. Speaker 9: On behalf of. Speaker 5: Half of the city council. Oh. Speaker 2: I would say it would tend to sound like there's five and now you're adding additional four. Speaker 6: I think. And I think we can do it. Speaker 0: Well, I think you are destroying that. One of the things. Okay, let's everybody let's let's see what the acting city attorney, an interim seizure he's got for us. Speaker 2: Mr. Jam points out to me, we're looking here at not sure where it's coming from, but it does say print name, title and if applicable, submitted on behalf of. Yes, so so it could be done. Speaker 0: So my question. Speaker 1: That's the notice that went out. And that notice is just to clarify that if it's not a voter of the city, it has to be on behalf of an organization. Right. So but I'm not sure that that even that in there, when they're representing their organization, I'm not sure they get to put the on behalf of words in. I think they just put their name and their title. I would have to double check with outside counsel. Speaker 0: My comment would be, I would well know so-and-so comma, executive director of Sierra Club as opposed to on behalf of and the. The concern I would have is that we will recall we didn't have a unanimous vote of the council to do this. And so to say that it's on behalf of the city council seems a bit misleading and also unfair to our colleague Councilmember de Sykes position. I think when we did a lot of brainstorming in the course of our drafting. And one thing that Councilmember Vela and I thought is that perhaps the mayor and vice mayor could sign in our respective titles and then we would scurry around and get our other three signers. And we did. We started compiling a list. It's just we haven't done the outreach to get them nailed down. But we will. Speaker 1: 5 p.m. tomorrow. Speaker 0: 5 p.m. tomorrow. Okay. Okay. Councilmember Ody, I mean. Speaker 3: I agree with the indentation, so that's fine. And I like the idea of having the mayor and the vice mayor, you know, sign both. You know, I personally would like to sign the Carrying Alameda Act, but, you know, if the council would prefer to do it the other way, I'm fine with that, too. Speaker 0: Let's get to that next. Let's let's let's dispose of the first one. Hold that thought. But right now we've got the ballot argument against the Mackay Open Spaces Initiative. That's for identification purposes only. The formatting will be cleaned up, the link will be added. So everybody okay with the wording? Yes. Okay. And by 5 p.m. tomorrow we will have five up to five signatures and maybe we don't have to have a five, but. Okay. And Councilman Brody, sorry. Speaker 3: So then on the rebuttal, I mean, isn't it also true that if we if we choose, we get first dibs, right? But then if other people submit, then there has to be like a random drawing or something, right? Speaker 1: No. Okay. So that's. That's not for the rebuttal. Speaker 3: That's okay. Speaker 1: The director. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: There is an order in the elections code, and the council is highest in the order. So your arguments will be selected. Speaker 3: But if we choose to, like, delegate this out to the quote unquote campaign, then we're kind of losing that or no? Speaker 1: Well, no. Once there's two sides that have done the direct arguments, then the rebuttals are done by those same groups. Speaker 3: Okay, so. Speaker 1: Maybe just another. Speaker 3: Okay. So we can't really farm out the. Speaker 1: Rebuttal, okay. Yeah. I mean, you could work with somebody else, but technically, I mean. Speaker 8: The original. Speaker 1: Group has the authority over the. Speaker 7: Rebuttal. Speaker 3: Okay, so then the committee, the subcommittee would probably be the one that does it. I mean. Speaker 0: That was my assumption that the two drafters would handle the rebuttal to the opposition, to the pieces that council member Jody and Vice Mayor Inoculate. Is that. Speaker 6: True? Yeah. How do. Speaker 5: You mean? Speaker 0: Like I said, it was my assignment. We did a good job. Speaker 5: If the council has to do it. Yes, that makes sense. Speaker 0: Okay. Completely. Okay. So is that so? Okay. So we are we have approved the language of the argument against the Open Space Initiative. And then. Okay. And then we're going to let's take a look at the. Speaker 6: Point of order. Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, we do. Okay, so let's see. Well, how many votes do you want us to take? Citizens. Speaker 1: I think if you want to combine this, like, motion to say you're approving the language with the link in the indent, and then you're authorizing the same subcommittee to work on the rebuttal. And then you're having the mayor and vice mayor sign and figure out the other three signers. That could be the motion. Okay. Speaker 0: That's for the first one. Okay, let's break it up that way. Speaker 8: I will make that motion. Speaker 0: What she said. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Vela. Is there a second then we'll have discussion. Speaker 5: I'll second it for discussion, but I'd like to go. So the problem with going one at a time is that Councilmember Ody has indicated interest in signing the other one. So the question for me is, do we want mayor and vice mayor on one and mayor and Odie and the you know, we can have two different signers on each. But. Or do we want to say the mayor? I don't know. Speaker 0: Good question. What do we want to do, folks. Speaker 5: Before we make a decision here and then we're okay? Speaker 0: When a time when it time. Are you done? Okay. Councilmember Vela. Speaker 8: I am happy to have and I think it's appropriate to have the mayor and the vice mayor sign both of them. I think in the event that we but I also think that there is a value and intrinsic value to show that there is a coalition of folks that are involved in this. It's not that the rest of the majority of the council wouldn't be involved or actively supporting it or even listed as supporters. But I think just for the purposes of the ballot argument, I think having the mayor and the vice mayor sign is a show of solidarity among the majority of the council and then have these other community groups sign on. That's that's what my vote would be. But if there's a strong feeling from one of my colleagues to sign on in a separate measure, I would consider that separately. As for this measure, I'm fine not signing it. However, if we are unable to get other signatures, I'm more than happy to be called at 450 and come to City Hall to sign it if needed. Speaker 0: I have a I have a suggestion. What if. So we've got two valid arguments and then we have rebuttals. What if the vice. The mayor. Vice mayor signed off on the arguments and I from that expression, I'm going together, infer that you're not terribly in this. And then two other council members sign off in the rebuttal with members of the community member Odie. Speaker 3: I mean, I'm fine with just having the two, I think, and happy to have my signature in reserve, but we could still sign the paper and then you could just use it. You don't have to rush over here at 445, right? I think you can have it in your hand and if you need it, you could take it. And if you don't need it, then you just picture pages. Speaker 1: I don't require it. I'll be on the same page. Speaker 3: Okay. So. Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm not sure we decided anything, did we? Speaker 3: That the mayor and the vice mayor are signing and that if. Speaker 0: It signed both. Speaker 3: And is a sign of unity and strength. And then, you know, we would offer our signatures as a backup if we couldn't get community members, because I agree that having a show, a strong show of community support is is probably stronger. Speaker 0: Minor technical point. I'm going to be in a train at 730 tomorrow morning. Speaker 3: You could sign it now. Speaker 0: I could sign. Speaker 3: A separate piece of paper. Speaker 5: Okay. That's my hope. Speaker 3: Okay. I mean, we all could. Speaker 5: Live tomorrow. Speaker 0: So. Yeah. Speaker 1: So you can both sign tonight. Okay. Speaker 3: On the clerk could choose. If she gets the others, then she's good. If she doesn't, then. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: She has some bank. Speaker 1: Well, the the subcommittee would have to let me know who the five signers are. Right. Speaker 0: Right, right, right. Okay. Speaker 8: And I'll be around tomorrow. Speaker 0: Great. Okay. And I think you could probably call in Mr. Biggs and others in the community to help you. Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: That's why I have just just because I didn't understand the nuance exactly about the rebuttal. If Marilyn and I sign the mayor and I sign this, do we if if the mayor and. Councilmember Vela are doing it. Do I have to sign the release? Yes. Speaker 1: There's an. Speaker 6: Additional. Speaker 5: Signatures after the writing. Speaker 1: That's just the signature. It's just to release. If if some anybody any of the five signers of the original argument are different than the rebuttals. All five original signers have to sign a form releasing who? The names of the different signers. And it can be just one different sign or it's still required of. Speaker 3: Got a great point of information. Do we need that by tomorrow? Speaker 1: No, that's by the 24th. Okay. When the rebuttal. Speaker 0: The rebuttal arguments are due January 24th, but these by 5 p.m. But these signatures are required by tomorrow at 5 p.m., correct? Yes. Okay. Okay. So before we do a vote, we should take a look at the valid argument in favor of the Carry Alameda Act because we're going to vote on them altogether, right? Oh, no. Sorry. Sorry. We were. Yep, we were going. We're going. Yeah, we do. We have a motion in a second and. Well, because we won the discussion. Okay, so any further discussion. Okay. So all in favor of proceeding is as we've outlined. Speaker 6: I, I. Speaker 0: Opposed abstain. Okay. So four in favor. One abstention. Thank you. Okay, now we move on to exhibit two, which is the ballot argument in favor of the Carrying Alameda Act. Any discussion? Speaker 3: I would make the same motion we just made last time. Speaker 0: Okay. So does any OC do this motion? Speaker 3: Sure. I'll move exactly what we did. Yes. Speaker 0: What? I said. Speaker 1: Yes, I repeat it again. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 1: Okay. It's keeping the same subcommittee to write the approving arguments presented, approving the same subcommittee to write the rebuttal, and having the mayor and vice mayor sign. And then looking the two of them looking for additional signatures by by 5 p.m. on the 24th. And then the direction in this one would include if you released. Speaker 4: The rebuttal rebuttal release. Speaker 0: Okay. So there's a motion. Do we have a second? Speaker 5: I will second it, but then there's. Speaker 0: Some discussion, part. Speaker 5: Of discussion I would like to suggest. I think that that unity can look and look lots of ways. I heard Councilmember Ortiz say he'd like to sign off on this and I would be very happy to have him sign off on this with the mayor. So the mayor's on both. And this one is Councilmember Odie. I don't think that's a problem. I don't think somehow vice mayor is so exceedingly and I think breadth helps and given his interests, I just wanted to throw that out there. I will support my name being on it, but I definitely doesn't have to be. Speaker 3: I want to defer to the. Titles. Speaker 0: Um, you know, I think you, I my my sense is that it might seem just a little confusing to voters because it almost suggests that if it's the mayor and vice mayor, those are the two positions of, you know, it's not top position because we're heavy, which is but we are designated. If we saw that another individual, I think it could just call into question, oh, does that mean the vice mayor doesn't support the this? So I mean, but but where you could help us is by helping us round up those signature gatherers cause you are going to write the rebuttal. But what do people think? That's just my my impression, to keep it as simple. Straightforward. Speaker 8: I agree. I think the the more, you know, we stick with the same, the better. Um, and then, like I said earlier, it's not that we're not supportive of it. Obviously our votes on the record, it's not that we're not in, you know, voting to endorse the measure or take action on it. We've done that. So I think there's other ways we show our support. Speaker 0: And I would also suggest that maybe when it subcommittee is looking for signers, there might be one set of additional signers who are more affiliated with care centers and dealing with the homeless. And there might be another set of signers for the, the, the argument in our position who are, you know, who know parks and Recreation and what it does and doesn't entail. So that might be where you differ, but I think the council members do best to keep that uniform. But I do appreciate your sung strong support. Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: I wanted it to be uniform too, so okay. But I mean, I could say in the rebuttal to I mean it's I can be in reserve. Speaker 0: Perfect. I don't have. Speaker 3: To be the one on there. Speaker 0: Got it. Okay. Any further discussion on this one before we vote? Yeah, we've got a second. Right. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, I, I opposed. Abstain. Motion passes four in favor with one abstention. All right. And with that, we are adjourned once again. But this time for real. Tony Sosa. Oh, I'm sorry. I am rushing this one. Yes. No. Okay. Yes. To be or not to be. Speaker 1: No recommendation to consider directing the city attorney to initiate litigation to obtain a judicial declaration. Whether enforcement of the Open Space Initiative will require the City of Alameda to compensate the owner for the value of McKay Avenue Property Event.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Review the Ballot Arguments and Address Rebuttals for the Two April 9, 2019 Special Election Measures: 1) a Proposed Initiative Measure to Change the Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District; and 2) the Caring Alameda Act. (City Clerk 2220)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01102019_2019-6397

Speaker 5: Shortly. This is where it is. Okay. Again, my name is Doug Biggs, executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. Just wanted to comment on a couple of things. One, I did follow up on last week's meeting with a letter further explaining the loss that the agency would incur if the election was done later. I'm often told that I am incoherent when I'm speaking in front of the council and hopefully that provided additional information. You needed to confirm that we would be at a loss. That is not the reason to have the election early, of course, because the additional cost to the city and the deferred costs of the facility itself. Regarding the agenda item related to things, the matters as they're written I think are very clear and well done. It's just a shame that we're at this point. I feel very bittersweet that this is a wonderful project that needs to happen. And I'm sorry that representatives of Friends of Crab Cove aren't here tonight to be able to talk about it and explain what they're doing. And further, I'm very sad that they're not continuing to talk with us to come to a community agreement around how that program can operate. Well, within the community, we have a right to create that project. They have a right to raise concerns. It can be addressed without this. And it's just a shame we have to get to this point. But here we are. Thank you very. Speaker 0: Much. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. All right. And I have no further public speakers. So with that, the. Okay. So we have two resolutions. The the revised. Ballot language on the initiative and then the. The resolution, the language on the Cities Initiative, the Caring Alameda Act. I'm going to suggest that we start with the initiative first. So Council wants to start and I will just add that we had two subcommittees working. Councilmember Vela and I. Revised language for the initiative. The proposed initiative measure to change the designation on Mackay. Mackay in both the general PEN, the zoning amendment and Vice Mayor in Knox Wyatt and Councilmember Ody work together to draft the ballot measure, introducing an ordinance entitled The Caring Alameda Act. But let's start with the the initiative itself. There is proposed revised ballot language. Have you all had a chance to review that? Any questions? Thoughts? Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: Thank you. I just had a quick question, so. This should say 15473. Right? Yes. So then the resolution also should say one five, 473 at the whole. Speaker 1: So then before the meeting. Speaker 3: I realize the mayor wants to talk about this first, but then the second one also says one four, 573. Speaker 1: Which is seven four. Speaker 3: That one should say seven four. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. So when we when we make a motion, we have to motion to amend it. Is it read the right. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's pretty and it's a typographical errors, so I can correct it. Speaker 0: Okay. The 73 and 74. Okay. What was that, the extent of your copy. Speaker 3: Of my question? I'll just listen to comments. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: And chime in when you call on me. Speaker 0: All right. Very, very well, then. Let's see. Any when. Councilmember Vela. Well, we obviously were the authors you went to speak with. Speaker 6: I think the intent of our language here was just to make sure that, you know, we spent some time reviewing the initiative itself and to make it very. Responsive to what the initiative purported to do. And so in that respect, we made a couple of changes. Most of them were to the structure of the question itself. Speaker 0: Right. As mayor. Speaker 4: Just and know, I can go either way on this and I thought this was fantastic. Speaker 0: But felt he had to say that. No, no. Speaker 4: I think I think it's I think it's written really well. I wonder if we want to consider changing the term, the word former to existing former federal. They are federal buildings. They continue to be federal buildings until. They are no longer an existing. Also I think is clear that they are there and not in some giant state of disarray. Speaker 0: So I will actually chime in in response to your comment. The note that I had made was to describe them as vacant federal buildings, because I think that's informative to the public that there there is no use being made of them. So would that that was the the comment of the suggested minor amendment I was going to make. Speaker 6: Councilmember Vela And it was one of the points that we had discussed about the the wording there. And we I think we had gone back and forth. So I'm fine with that change to make it all right. Speaker 0: And. Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: So. Help me. How many words out here are there? Do we have. Speaker 0: We read. Speaker 3: One. Speaker 0: Or two. Oh, um. What's your. What's your thought? I think we're below that. Speaker 3: Below was the suggestion to change form or to vacant or maybe add of vacant former federal buildings. No, no, not to add. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 0: They. It's federal poverty. It's GSA. Speaker 3: It's not a former federal building. So. Speaker 6: That would be factually incorrect. Speaker 3: Okay. So Bacon is probably a better word. Okay. I'm fine with. Speaker 0: That. Okay. And Councilmember De, thank you in the way and want to say. Speaker 3: Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedules, both of you, for putting this together. But other than that, I. Speaker 0: Think you're welcome. Thank you for thanking us. Okay. So so we can agree to that wording that might have wording change. Okay. So with that, then, do I have a motion to amend resolution number 15473 calling for a special election in the city of Alameda. Probably can let the um the we have if many no no worries we have many meetings going on this evening under one roof. Hi, everyone. Okay. Okay. Do we have a motion? Speaker 3: I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution. Obviously. Updating the typo from 141547 2 to 1 5473 throughout and changing the word on the draft ballot initiative conversion of former federal buildings to conversion of vacant federal buildings. Speaker 0: The motion to have a second. Speaker 6: Second. Speaker 0: All right. All those in favor. I opposed. Abstain. Okay. So the motion passes for four? Yes. And one abstention. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to item, not item that to the resolution. This is the Caring Alameda Act. And this is. Resolution number 15474. And this is submitting to the electors an ordinance entitled The Carrying Alameda Act. Okay. Any discussion on this one? A vice mayor. And that's why I. Speaker 4: Would simply we use the term existing in arts and I would simply suggest we use the vacant buildings so that both both initiatives are describing the buildings in the same factual way. Speaker 0: Okay. So let's see. Speaker 6: So in the second line. Speaker 4: Shall the ordinance in the City Council's actions to permit re-use of vacant buildings? Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So again. Speaker 4: We could add federal as well as federal buildings at the same. That's a good. Speaker 0: Idea. Yeah, I think it's good to have that consistency. Good point. Okay. Yes. To permit the re-use of exactly vacant federal buildings would replace the word existing. Correct. All right. Any other comments? Suggestions? Nimitz canceled. Speaker 3: Good question. And I don't know if the public's been informed on this, but, you know, should they both fail? And maybe the city clerk comment on what happens to the action the council took already. Speaker 0: I think we might ask the city attorney's office to come in and. No, no. Speaker 3: Either one. I don't care. Speaker 2: If. If both measures fail, the council action that it took back in December to change the land use designations would remain in play, that it would not negate or cause those actions to be null and void. It would continue in full force, in effect. Speaker 3: Okay. So even though we're using the word confirming. If it fails, it's not erased or invalidated or anything. Speaker 0: Right. And and that was explained in a memo we got this evening. Speaker 3: But just for the. Speaker 0: For the sake of the benefit. Speaker 3: Of the public. And I agree with those changes. You know, we did work a lot on this. So I appreciate everyone's everyone's appreciation of it. Speaker 0: I do as well. I do as well. And this was a quick turnaround time. We all had deadlines. And thank you all for for meeting them. We've been working very hard in our first week and a half on the job. Um. Okay. So I am looking for a motion to. Amend resolution number 15474 and. As as previously described, is there a motion to approve. Speaker 4: So so moved with the change as set of 15 or 74 and. Speaker 0: And as the language change as noted. Okay. Speaker 4: As noted. Speaker 0: Thank you. Motion. That a second. Speaker 3: Sure. I'll second guess. Speaker 0: I'll write the motion and it's been moved and seconded. All in favor. I am opposed. Abstain. So the motion passes with four in favor and one abstention. And I just want to say in closing that there is still time. If the Friends of Crab Cove were so moved and so inclined to withdraw their initiative, they have until 5 p.m. tomorrow, Friday, January 11th. And although City Council, City Hall and the city clerk's office is closed, there is a mechanism in place whereby there they can email the city clerk up until 5 p.m. tomorrow. So it's not over till it's over. And we will. We'll see what happens. But. With that. We've we've disposed of that item and we have no further business. All right. So with that. Speaker 4: I just want to get my appreciation that the city attorney's office was really, really we worked fast and hard, but they were also very responsive. I would just want to give my great appreciation to. Speaker 2: And Selena in particular should get the should get the kudos here. I looked at it that she did the hard work. Speaker 0: Thank you. I that that is that is well stated Councilmember Vela. Speaker 6: And I would like to note that the 9212 elections report, which I know that we based our our question off of as well, was very helpful and informative in terms of outlining all of the issues at play and streamlining it. So and Celina did a fantastic job on that. Those are very difficult reports to put together in a way that is linear and easy to follow. And I thought it was one of the best ones I've ever seen. Speaker 0: So and I will just echo my thanks and appreciation for the quick and comprehensive response back. We got to our questions up to and including today going into this meeting. All right, Councilman Brody, I'll. Speaker 3: Just say ditto to all. Speaker 0: That, you know. Nice. All right. Councilmember de seconded. Okay. All right. With that, we will. We're out of here. Thanks. Everyone will be back Tuesday the 15th for a regular meeting to.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 15472, “Calling a Special Election in the City of Alameda on April 9, 2019 for the Submission of a Proposed Initiative Measure to Change the Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District,” by Amending Section 1 (Ballot Question); and Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 15473, “Submitting to the Electors an Ordinance Entitled “Caring Alameda Act” at the Special Municipal Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, April 9, 2019,” by Amending Section 3 (Ballot Question). (City Clerk 2220)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6307

Speaker 6: However, we did not get approval at that time for the actual reimbursement agreement. So we're back before you this evening for approval of that agreement, which involves Catullus has an obligation to build a service road that would connect from phase three of their project, which is north of Mitchell Avenue to the parking lot at Estuary Park. However, that obligation to build that service road is not triggered until they have actually constructed the residential project and the city staff thought it might be a good idea to accelerate that construction project. And because we were reimbursed last year for some expenses that could tell us, oh, the city for some cost involved, that the demolition of the hospital building and the construction of a star while the funds were available to accelerate the project. That's why the council appropriated the funds in the midyear. And now what we're asking for is approval of the contract such that we can have Catullus construct the road, the city will front the funds, and then when Catullus reimbursed, builds the resident, or they will reimburse us for those expenses. And that's what's before you this evening. Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Potter. Mr. Knotts. Why, Vice Mayor? That's right. Sorry. Speaker 5: Thank you. So I know we want to hold up the item itself, but I want to thank Ms.. Potter for taking some time to meet with me about this issue. Earlier today, in approving this record, also approving a roadway design for what is ostensibly being called a temporary roadway, but is likely a roadway that will be connecting one of our new and very important parks for 5 to 10 years at a minimum, and that the way that the market's going could be even longer. I was surprised to see in the packet that the connections to this park for biking and walking were actually below our standard recommendations for how we do that and that we're over building wider roads than necessary for the car access. It's not expected to be really high volume and I would really appreciate support for a motion that would approve the agreement, but also give direction that perhaps we make sure that our priority mode standards be met as we're designing this street that will be connecting many of our new residents to this park, as well as kids who are going to practices and games. Speaker 0: Miss Potter, from a staff perspective, do you have any thing that we should take into consideration? Speaker 6: I would like to defer to Scott Wickstrom, the city engineer who worked with us to develop the cross section. That is an exhibit to the reimbursement agreement. And Scott is here this evening, and he is prepared to talk about why this is the cross-section that staff is recommending. Thank you. Speaker 0: Please, Mr. Ricks, please. Address this. Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council. My name is Collection. I'm the city engineer. It's a question that Vice Mayor Knox White posed a couple of days ago about how the street section came to be and what are some of the rationale for it. It's the first thing to start out with this. This is a driveway or a temporary access road to the backside of Astoria Park in their future, expanded parking lot. One thing to keep in mind when you start thinking about driveways as driveways, you typically think of as a relatively short distance. This driveway is over 800 feet long. It's longer than three city blocks. It is effectively a road. I mean, there's no other way to look at it that it's really a roadway connection from the individual to the parking lot for Estuary Park. And as we start looking at roads and looking at typical roadway design, the first thing to start looking at is what is the typical curb to curb with? And I know there's a lot of talk and discussion in the masterplan about narrower lane ways to reduce speeds to kind of keep the speeds at a 25 mile an hour limit. But the one that considerations that always comes in from an engineering perspective is what is a lane with by definition as it comes to a legal definition that is defendable in case something should ever happen. And we we as the city, would find ourselves in court. And if it does have some guidelines in terms of curb and gutters are not included in the lane list, nor are. And you also do apply for some shy distance away from vertical curves. So the goal was to keep basically to ten foot lanes and allow enough room for the curb and gutter. So effectively you have a a 22 foot face curve to face curve. And unfortunately, I think at the exhibit in the packet shows 23 foot. That is incorrect. It's actually a 22 foot base of curve when it comes to the pathway and the rationale for the pathway. I was again, the general plan talks about guidance and stuff like that, but I was looking for actual hard value numbers that came across our city of Alameda, pedestrian design guidelines that date back to 2011. They do specifically talk about multi-use path trails and their adjacency to roadways and recommend, at a minimum, Caltrans standards of a ten foot wide road. And that was the basis for the design that was provided. Again, this is a temporary road. One does can see that it by its length. It is more than just a typical driveway. And should the roadway ever connect all the way to Main Street, which is envisioned in the general plan, there would certainly be an opportunity to look at the enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle connections at that time to something more suitable for a long term pathway. Speaker 0: I'd like to ask you, Mr. Wikström, what's what's your timeframe on moving forward with this. Speaker 3: Catalysis prepared to move forward shortly after this authorization? Speaker 0: And if the decision were put off for a couple of weeks, would there be any detriment to this agreement? Speaker 3: Not significant. No. Speaker 0: I'm going to. I defer to my colleague, the vice mayor. Do you. Do you have a, um. A motion, a modified motion you're prepared to make? Speaker 5: I mean, the motion I would make is that we we approve the agreement, so it doesn't need to come back, but give but but ask that a design that provides that preferred 12 foot mixed use pathway and to ten foot or a 20 foot fire code rated for a driveway or any street be met there is the and that the cost should be enough that the cost differential should, if anything, be positive for the city. It should become less expensive because a lot of these pathways are built at a much cheaper level and that if for some reason it is found that that can't be built, that they can bring back, that they can bring back that issue on consent, we can approve it. So I mean, this is from my standpoint, this is a this is a driveway. It doesn't need to be built, is why it is the Golden Gate Bridge. It's something we want. People driving low in nine foot lanes are perfectly acceptable. So it may be that FHA has guidelines, but now it also has guidelines for these types of streets. Caltrans says perfectly acceptable for us to follow narrow and for a driveway to a park. I think we should be really putting our money where our mouth is and building the streets that give us the access to parks that we we want, which is on using active transportation. Speaker 0: So I'll just note for the record that I feel somewhat at a disadvantage because I have not seen the diagram, that it's not an attachment to this. Speaker 3: It's it's a page seven and eight of the attachment. Speaker 0: That. Speaker 3: They just have. Haven't. Speaker 0: Oh. Oh. Speaker 3: Are they? Speaker 0: Okay. So could this interim city attorney chime in here? Is it? Are we providing sufficient direction to city staff? Is there a way to do this with some clarity so we all get what we're looking for? Speaker 2: Well, I think the motion that Vice Mayor Knox White has made will improve the reimbursement agreement and give direction to staff in terms of what he would like the. The project in question to look like. And if there's council support for that, I think that's ample to do. And I think the part of the motion was that it could not be built that way to bring back that aspect for the Council to consider further. Speaker 0: The interim city manager wanted to comment. Speaker 3: On the the road with there it looks like it well it calls at 23 but you say it's 22, correct. And would it be used as a fire lane? It fire access road would need to be 22 feet. No, a fire access road is is by code is 20 feet. It comes down to the definition of what a what a lane is relative to the vertical curve. So there's a little bit of nuance and a lot of it comes down to what would happen should should an accident occur and should the city be held liable . And then that's when things start looking at, you know, when at what point, what our actual lane was, what are the defined definitions of it? It gets to be subtlety. It's a nuance and it gets to be at some point, it's a legal issue. Anything we do in a public ride away has to be based on some recognizable, undefined standard Pashto. FHB way NAC do is a guidance, but it's not the same as FHB Wiranto. So the recommendation for the 2020 flight was not looking at this as a driveway per se because it is 800 and 880 feet long looking at it really is it as a functioning roadway? It's more than three city blocks long that it's it's a bit of a misnomer to refer to it as a driveway. Granted, the the amount of vehicles on it are going to be relatively not to tremendously high use. But however, just the pure length of it take to consider a driveway is a bit of a bit of a misnomer. Speaker 0: So further clarification. Clarification question, how would the city council know what a modified design, if any, that is, is is achieved? Speaker 3: If I may suggest it's probably best if maybe perhaps Vice Mayor Knox White and I meet separately off line and discuss this through, and then we could come back again in a couple of weeks and content with hopefully something that is agreeable to both parties and to the council as well. Speaker 0: Well, I mean, this is a decision for for the whole council to be made aware of, although. Okay. Any any other thoughts from my colleagues here, Councilmember Odie. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. So help me through the chair. So the drawing here on page eight shows ten foot of pedestrian bike path and then 23 foot of roadway. I mean, what's the proposed? What do we want them to come back with? Speaker 0: Because it's asking the vice mayor. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 5: So so what I would propose to Mr. Wikström is comment that the number is actually 22. So the idea would be to reduce that to 20 feet to ten foot lanes or to nine foot lanes and a one foot gutter, both of which would be defensible and a 12 foot multi-use path. Which would then meet our preferred standards for multi-use paths. Speaker 3: Okay. So then my question would be to our city attorney. I mean, this is an attachment to the contract, right? So we'd have to make sure. They went we went back to and they agreed to it. And we didn't give notice to the public that we were doing. You know this. So I'm a little sure. Just want to make sure we don't run afoul of any Sunshine Ordinance things and that we're, you know, we're not. I'm perfectly supportive of the change, by the way, but I just want to make sure we do it the right way. Speaker 0: And there's another party to the contract, obviously. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 2: It it certainly seems to me that the the exhibit, which is part of the agreement that was that's been available to the public, indicated a certain design, a certain with the modification being suggested here does not seem much different than what is proposed here. I mean, it's a three foot difference in round numbers. So I think it is within the ambit of what has been described in the agenda report as well as in the agenda title. So I think if the council took action tonight, that was certainly to be appropriate. If the council has some concerns about having the more a a revised design as part of the reimbursement agreement that the city engineer and and the vice mayor can discuss and see if there might be some some redesign. We can certainly bring back the reimbursement agreement in two weeks or a month and have it considered. I don't think there's a time a time crunch here. Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate that, Councilmember Vela. Speaker 4: I think at least what I would appreciate is if there is some sort of alternative plan that could be put forward that we as a council get to weigh in on what we're actually approving and that it gets agenda. So it sounds like there isn't a rush to get this approved tonight. I my preference would be in an abundance of caution and transparency. Wait here. This. Speaker 0: Okay. So what I would propose, if everyone is agreeable to this is actually just what our city engineer proposed. Could you and the vice mayor arrange to meet offline? This is a former planning board president and go over, you know, have a chance to sit down face to face and with drawings in front of you and and then bring this back to us when you're ready as soon as possible. Speaker 3: Yes, I would probably guess I'd probably be a month. Considering the turnaround timeframes on counterpart, so they would likely be back in a month. Speaker 0: That sounds fine. Do we need a comment, please? Council member Desai. Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to say that we have our engineer here giving us some insights, recommendations on professional expertize when it comes to building a temporary road that's almost 800 feet. So this is, for all intents and purposes, a road. And I think what caught my attention was his reference to safety and how that relates to legal issues. For me, that was a it's an important point because, you know, at a at a park like estuary park where activity will occur, there is a possibility of people getting injured. And for example, from myself during the Alameda City tournament, I experienced incredibly grave cramps such that we actually called the the fire department. And I was transported by the ambulance to Kaiser. And to me, I believe a fire ambulance back into I think on a close to the where I was laying on the ground prone because of incredible cramps. So I think this is not an issue that that we should take lightly the safety related issues and how we could, you know, how we would serve our residents in the event of of some emergency. And also the related legal questions at this point, I'm satisfied, frankly, with the with the recommendation from our staff. So I'll leave it at that. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. de SAC. Okay. Do we need a motion to continue this? Speaker 5: Sure. I'll make a motion to continue. This item to, I guess, the first meeting in February. Speaker 0: Okay. I was actually asking procedurally, is that the best way to do that? Okay. Okay. So we have, uh, I might leave. It's your motion, but you might want to leave the date open. I'm happy to just. Speaker 5: Continue this and whatever date. Speaker 0: Soon as possible that it can become a back end with. With the understanding that you will meet with the city engineer. Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: I make a suggestion that you also add to it to incorporate the comments. From the dais. Thank you. I'll second that. Thank you. Speaker 0: And all the comments, including all of our colleagues. All right. Okay. So we have a motion in a second. Speaker 5: Can I make one comment or comment after it's done? I just wanted to. I have actually met with Mr. Wickstrom. I appreciate his diligence and care and know that you know that to Tony's there. Council member disagrees comments very does take safety and whatever else. I also know that he understands very much that there are lots of ways to look at safety and design and whatever else. I just want to thank you for this. I'm sorry that we didn't have a time with my travel schedule to connect on this before the meeting. In the future, I will try to avoid that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So we have a motion in a second. All in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 0: That was unanimous. All right. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Okay. So then we move on to the regular city council meeting. Speaker 4: Roll call. Roll call has been noted. Five present. Speaker 0: Are there any agenda changes? Hearing none. There are no proclamations, special orders of the day or announcements. I'm Madam Clerk. Do we have any public speakers on all communications? Not agenda. Speaker 4: We do. Speaker 0: All right. Okay. So thank you very much. Okay. So under oral communications, a limited number of speakers may address the council on any member, any item that is not on the agenda. And you will have 3 minutes to speak. But the time for this particular item is 15 minutes. So use your time wisely. Okay. So the first speaker we have is Paul Medved. Speaker 7: Good evening, Marissa Ashcraft and council members. Paul Medved, 74, Justin Circle. My wife and I have enjoyed life in Alameda for nearly 40 years now and raised our two daughters here. Like so many others, we love Alameda and want to see its vitality protected.

SACIC Consent Item

Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement for Estuary Park Access between the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission, City of Alameda and Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. [City Council and SACIC] (Community Development 256)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6216

Speaker 3: Good evening, mayor. Council staff. I'm Rick Sandberg, deputy fire chief for the department. So I was here to answer questions. I didn't know that you wanted a presentation, but I can tell you from the staff report that we are proposing to raise the ambulance transport fees to that to be in line with the county provider, which is authorized through the county of Alameda. Speaker 0: And. The fiscal impact of this, I understand, is that that if the recommended increase is not approved by the city councils, the department will be unable to recoup costs associated with providing emergency ambulance services. And the general fund will have to cover these costs, correct? Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 0: Okay. Are there any questions? Comments? Motion. So moved a motion to have a second. Second version. A second. All in favor. I. That was unanimous. Okay, we're on a roll. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: You've done. Speaker 4: K6ba public hearing to consider approving the Housing and Community Development Needs Statement for the Community Development BLOCK Grant Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20 1920. There's a presentation. Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. I'm Debbie Potter. And with me this evening is Lisa Fitz, the management analyst who administers the CDBG program on behalf of the city. We have a staffing services agreement with the Housing Authority to administer our CDBG program. And Lisa will be making the presentation this evening. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 6: Madam Mayor, city council members and staff. I am Lisa Fitz, a management analyst with the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. I manage the Community Development BLOCK Grant, home investment partnerships and inclusionary housing programs for the city of Alameda. So what is CDBG? There are federal funds, funds provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But the explicit purpose of assisting low and moderate income persons by developing decent housing, suitable living environment and or economic opportunity.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Alameda Fire Department Transport Fees. (Fire 3200)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6299

Speaker 6: So what is CDBG? There are federal funds, funds provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But the explicit purpose of assisting low and moderate income persons by developing decent housing, suitable living environment and or economic opportunity. The city is required to prepare a five year strategic plan, which outlines the housing and community development priority needs that will inform the CDBG funding decisions for the upcoming. Period. We are in the last year of the current five year strategic plan to receive CDBG funding, the city has to submit an actual plan to HUD. Which details the program's activities and resources that will address the housing and community development needs that are outlined in the five year consolidated plan. In addition, there is a priority among the needs for non housing. Community development. Public service needs. An Exhibit one, the Social Services and Human Relations Board has provided a refined priority statement that reflects the social service needs in the community. I'd like to take your attention to page one, paragraph three. Which identifies that the needs should focus on the following activities. Case Management. Domestic Violence. Victim Support. Housing, Wellness Services. Information and Resources. Legal Assistance. Outreach and Engagement. Senior Services including food security. The current five year strategic plan has emphasized preserving Alameda safety net, addressing the needs of those who are vulnerable, vulnerable and in crisis, and recommended that funding for public services focus on food, shelter, case management services , personal safety services and homeless prevention services. Tonight we commence the fiscal year 2019 2020 needs process. The first of those steps was on November 29th, when we when the Social Service Human Relations Board heard public comment and prepared the needs statement that I referred to earlier tonight, city council will hear public comment and adopt the need statement . And shortly thereafter we will release the RFP that is based on the priority needs. I know that we've got several of the social service providers here to speak, so I'm going to let them speak. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay. And those are the speaker's lips I have. Are there. Were there any clarifying questions from council? Okay. So then I will go ahead and call. Just in the order I got the slips, the first speaker is Dan Ashbrook. Hello. Speaker 3: Good evening and thank you so much for this opportunity to present. Speaker 1: My name is Dan Ashbrook and I'm with Legal Assistance for Seniors. Speaker 3: When a senior faces a problem with their housing, it is critical to their. Speaker 1: Health and safety that they receive timely and accessible and affordable help. Seniors are often at risk of being. Speaker 3: Harassed by landlords due to. Speaker 1: Physical and mental health impairments. When a senior is handicapped. Speaker 3: It is easier for. Speaker 1: A landlord to intimidate them by pretending to have more power than the landlord actually has. In addition, a senior facing such intimidation may not seek help to avoid conflict among among family and friends, making it that much easier to be evicted and even abused. To address these problems among seniors, Legal Assistance for Seniors has launched its housing legal services for the prevention of evictions. We want to thank you because we did that partially with the City of Alamitos help because of the numerous challenges seniors face in meeting their basic needs on fixed incomes. Hiring a private attorney to protect their rights is not an option for most. And with the number of seniors doubling in Alameda County over the coming years, even more will be at risk of homelessness. Since launching our Housing Legal Services earlier in 2018, again with the help of the city of Alameda, we have received we received roughly Speaker 3: . 50 calls a week with very limited outreach. Speaker 1: And advertising. We're still very much in the development phase. Speaker 3: Because of the complexities. Speaker 1: Of dealing with cities throughout Alameda and all the various ordinances. But we are receiving roughly 50 calls a week. We currently have 30 to 40 cases being assessed for legal issues and we have four that we are attorneys is working with that have filed eviction actions. One of these cases is a city of Alameda resident fighting a retaliation for holding a landlord accountable to a lease. Finally, counseling and represent representation by attorneys is needed more than ever with the increase in our senior population, not just for housing, but for health care, public benefits, elder abuse and guardianship of minors. Speaker 3: Without the ability to legally advocate for. Speaker 1: Problems with accessing Medicare. Speaker 3: Social Security. Speaker 1: Supplemental Social Security income, or the legal authority to care for family members, a seniors welfare can be gravely at stake. Speaker 3: Abuse continues. Health care stops, income stops. Speaker 1: Families separate and evictions continue. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Next speaker is Liz Varella. Speaker 6: Bear Council members and staff. I'm Liz Rowland, Executive Director of Building Futures. And we are a domestic violence homeless and housing agency serving Alameda. Speaker 4: We run the Midway Shelter. Speaker 6: The newly opened Alameda warming shelter and basic home court on the point. I think it's so important that we all do what we can for those that are most vulnerable in our community. We are building futures supports the needs statement safety net services that are like homeless services, domestic violence support, housing, legal outreach and senior services and food security are so important to help those neighbors in need. I want to thank you, the city and especially Shrub, for continually advocating and understanding what the community needs here in Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our final speaker is Stephanie Penrod. Hello. Speaker 6: Good evening, everyone. Speaker 4: I'm Stephanie Penrod, Im the managing attorney at the Family Violence Law Center. And I'm just here to again say thank you to the Council for your continued support of Family Violence Law Centers programs. I completed our quarterly report today, so I'd like to share with you a couple of numbers. We received 25 to 35 domestic violence referrals from the Alameda Police Department. Speaker 0: Closer. Speaker 4: Each day. Our items are each month. And in the last two quarters, we provided 80 Alameda residents with direct crisis. Speaker 6: Support and advocacy services. Speaker 4: And approximately a quarter of those requested and received legal services. I'm including restraining orders and family law and including orders that allow those clients to remain stable. Speaker 6: House and City of Alameda. Without your support, these residents would have nowhere to turn. Speaker 4: So again, I am just here to offer my thanks to the Council for your ongoing concern and efforts to assist survivors in the city of Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 1: I just have a quick question. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Jason. Speaker 1: Did you say that that you average 25 to 35 domestic violence referrals each month in the past fiscal year? Speaker 6: Yes. Yes, it is the last actually, it's the last four quarters. So last last four quarters. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: And I'm sure on behalf of the council, I just want to thank all three of our speakers for the work that your your agencies and groups do. Thank you very much. Okay. So any council discussion or do we have a motion? Speaker 5: Can I ask a quick question before. Speaker 6: Of course. Speaker 0: Sorry, Vice Mayor And that's wait. Speaker 5: So I'm not sure who this question is for. I will preface it by saying I found trying to figure out what the exact need statement was a little. It might have been that I was jetlagged and a little addled, but a little difficult to find. And I wanted to suggest that when we actually approve it, that we we pull out the need statement. But the staff report mentions and one of the speakers mentioned that food security was a key item. And yet in the actual need statement, food security is not mentioned. So I wanted to see if that was intentional or if it was an unintentional unintentionally just not mentioned explicitly. The fact that it's in the staff report made me think that maybe it just wasn't written into the made statement. Speaker 0: Too to be a staff member. You will to address that question. Speaker 6: Thank you for your comments. We will make a more concerted effort next year to specifically identify the needs and more clearly. And regarding your question regarding food security. I think that was unintentional. I know it does cross the groups. Few food security affects all of the populations that are described in the Schwab newsletter. But I think it would be helpful to explicitly state that. Speaker 5: Thank you. I know that we've been a long time provider of CBT, CB DB G grants to the food bank, and I would just want to make sure that when we send a needs statement out that they are aware that they can apply again. Speaker 6: And they were our highest scoring nonprofit last year, so we would want them to look like we are. Speaker 5: Unfortunately, we have a lot of great applicants. My other quick question, I guess this is just a question for consideration for my my council colleagues. We have the council last year funded tenant legal services and tenant legal services are also specifically called out on the CDBG needs assessment. And I wonder if we wanted to perhaps talk about that. There are some other. Now either, you know, whether we want also to be funding additional tenant legal services here or if we want to look at other. But with as anything, whether we should remove that, clarify what we mean so that we're not actually having two pots of money funding two different legal services efforts. So I don't I don't have a specific recommended. Speaker 0: Point of I think we've probably exhausted our need for. Speaker 6: Under the CDBG program, the only tenant legal services we fund are through the senior legal services. So those services are strictly for the seniors. And that was a service that that was a service that senior legal services recently expanded to. When they the first year they were funded, they did not provide legal services for housing related issues. And they because the need is so great and we hadn't yet the Council hadn't yet done its legal services funding contract that just went in place in November. They expanded and it's a conversation that we can have as part of the NOVA process to see if there if there's a need or a specific kind of niche for seniors that we would want to continue to have them provide. Or they could go back to the kind of legal services they've been providing, which tend to be about benefits and other kinds of services for for seniors. Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela. Speaker 4: I think just where we're at in terms of the cycle of funding, I would hate to see that change be something that we're discussing now. I do think that with the new legal services contract that we have and through the city, I think it'll be interesting to see what happens. As somebody who used to work in legal services, I found that a lot of times when clients come to you, they come to you with a number of different issues specific to certain groups, whether it's youth or seniors in particular. Typically, when they come, they come with a number of different issues. And so those specialized legal services really are helpful. And while we might have a vendor that does overall tenant protections, that might not be something we wouldn't want to necessarily have. The senior then transferred to another attorney, start a case file all over again, kind of relive whatever trauma they've been through yet again. So I, I hear the comment about, you know, is there is there a possibility of maybe consolidating these two things? But I'd be interested to see just how many of our seniors are using the legal services specific to seniors, what they're using it for, and then make a decision later on about if we want to open it up. And then relative to the need statement, the need statement is, is from the way we talk about the need statement from the president of the Social Services Human Relations Board. That's exhibit one. So we would be just amending that to include the food services. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: I have a question regarding the the legal services for seniors. What is the venue of that if a senior wants to seek legal services? Mr. ASHBROOK, Perhaps you can if. Speaker 6: We're going to have someone here who's the expert on that. Speaker 3: Just I want to clarify. Speaker 0: Something, and if you could, I just speaking to the microphone. Speaker 1: So first off, I just want to say I'm not sure. Speaker 3: If there are other legal service agencies being funded through this process. Speaker 1: I believe legal assistance for seniors is the only agency that is providing legal assistance specifically for the needs of seniors. Speaker 3: From what I. Speaker 1: Know, I'm the development director, so I'm raising funds for the organization. Speaker 3: But from what I know. Speaker 1: They started developing this program, obviously, for the benefit of the seniors to prevent evictions. Now, if landlord assistance or landlord representation is also needed, then we are designing those services to also address that as well. So it could be that the legal representation to protect the senior could be legal, represent representation on behalf of the landlord or the tenant. But we're not doing two separate. It's one legal housing program that can address the needs of both the tenant or the landlord. Speaker 0: Okay, so that's one issue. But you also talked earlier about seniors might contact you about health benefits, about elder abuse, financial issues. And my question is simply location. Where does a senior go to avail themselves of your services? Speaker 1: The Mastic Senior Center. We have attorneys that hold regular hours there on a regular basis. And we also run a health insurance counseling and advocacy program where we do Medicare counseling also. So in addition to Mastic Senior Center, we also do those out of our office on at three, three, three, Helgenberger. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's very helpful. When you sit down, that was that was helpful. One of the concerns that I have expressed to staff and we're going to continue to look at this is the and we do have a contract for legal services through. Since they are allowed in but it's in Oakland in the Fruitvale District. And so it means that our tenants need to get themselves over to Fruitvale. So I think especially for seniors who may be limited in their their mobility, I think it's great to know that your services are provided at Mastic. Speaker 3: I almost forgot. Speaker 1: We also provide them in the home. Speaker 3: I believe we we do. Speaker 1: Go out and do home visits and take care of any need in the home. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember Garza, did you have a question for Mr. Ashbrook? Speaker 1: No, I just want to comment comically. I do. As a council member, I do think it's imperative that we as a city have a special set aside with regard to tenant protections for our elderly, largely because when it comes to the elderly, how they respond to crises is very different from the working age population, for example. Oftentimes, they can't fall back on a job to deal with issues. Sometimes they're also frail. So I think it is imperative that that we acknowledge that that unique situation that elderly residents face. To be sure, many residents are potentially vulnerable when it comes to housing issues. But in unique ways, the elderly are especially vulnerable. So for that reason, I think it is important to have a set aside with regard to them via the CDBG program. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brody, did you have a comment? Speaker 3: Sure. I'll be quick. Just echo a lot of what my colleagues just said. I mean, we're just adapting the needs statement today so we're not deciding any funding or making any direction on funding. So I'm comfortable with the needs statement. And these are the problems that are the most pressing in our community. And, you know, we never seem to have enough for that release. But I just wanted to just point out, you know, the second priority there. The first one is affordable housing. And the second one is is preventing homelessness and other housing crisis is increasing housing opportunities for homeless and extremely low income households, deliver support services to promote stability and independence and measure these successes. So we should keep those in mind as we make other decisions. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I would just like to echo all my colleagues, really, and to say that it is overwhelming every year to know that the need is so great and yet our resources are finite. But I do sincerely appreciate the work of all the agencies and committees and staff who go into helping bring to our attention the most pressing need so we can triage these items, if you will. And I congratulate you for that. And if we do, we have any further comments. And if we don't, I'm going to ask for that. We approve this Housing and Community Development Needs statement. Yes. With the amendments. As noted, that motion. Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 0: Oh, who's. Who's moving? Speaker 4: Oh, I'll make the motion. Speaker 0: All right, who's second? Speaker 3: Sure, I'll second. Speaker 0: All right. We have a motion in a second. All in favor. I. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. All right. Moving on to item six C. Speaker 4: Recommendation to receive the report on the initiative measure to change the land use designation for an approximately 3.65 acre site on the avenue. By amending the general plan designation from office to open space and by amending the zoning ordinance from administrative professional district to open space district and consider the following options. Option one Adopt the ordinance or option to adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance to the voters. And I will give the brief presentation on this item on December 4th. A certificate of sufficiency was presented on the initiative and the Council ordered a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, and that report is required to come back 30

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Housing 236)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6304

Speaker 4: Option one Adopt the ordinance or option to adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance to the voters. And I will give the brief presentation on this item on December 4th. A certificate of sufficiency was presented on the initiative and the Council ordered a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, and that report is required to come back 30 days later, which is why we're here tonight. The report is attached as Exhibit one and city staff and the consultant are available to any answer any questions about the impacts report. But basically to lay out what is before council, you have two options tonight. You can call an election or you can adopt the ordinance. If you elect to place the measure on the ballot, you have two more choices. You can either go at the next general municipal election in November 2020, or you can call in a special election. That special election has to be called within 88 to 103 days, and the election date that we would be able to use would be Tuesday, April 9th. And. There is a new provision in the law that allows the proponents to withdraw the petition up to 88 days before calling it before the election takes place. And there are differences in costs for the two elections in November. It would just be the cost of adding the measure onto an already existing election. So it would be 25,000 for the printing. Translation Typesetting of the measure. If you call a special election in April a non established election date where we'd be running an election just for the measure, the cost to be 580 to $730000. The next things you need to consider in proceeding with calling an election would be to look at the ballot question, which is limited to 75 words, and decide any interest in authorizing or authoring an argument for the November election. You can postpone that until a later date. If you're proceeding with April, you would need to make that decision tonight. In addition to this item, there are two more items six D and six E on the agenda that are related. Staff has prepared six D as a supplement to the initiative to require a funding mechanism, and then six E is a competing measure to allow the voters to uphold the council rezoning the property recently. And then if the competing measure and this measure were both placed on the ballot and both passed, the higher the one that receives the higher number of votes would prevail. And. Since there is that new provision in the election code that allows withdrawal to 88 days ahead of time. All three of the ordinances are the resolutions allow a mechanism that if proponents do reach that agreement and do withdraw, the these resolutions would be null and void and wouldn't go forward on an election. So that's the basics. And I can answer any questions and also staff and consulting. Speaker 0: All right. So, counsel, do we have any clarifying questions of the city clerk, Councilmember Vela. Speaker 4: Who drafted the ballot question? The legal staff and staff worked together. We worked collectively, a group of us then and reviewed different options. And does council have an ability do we would we have to approve the ballot question tonight as drafted? Yeah, especially if you're going on the if you selected the April election date, you would definitely have to approve that exact wording tonight in it. Like for the previous rent initiative that was on the last ballot, the council approved the wording but then changed, kind of looked at it and brought it back at a later date to revise it. So if you went with the November date, you could do something similar to that. Speaker 0: Any further questions, Vice Mayor? Not quite. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Interim City Attorney. The council. Speaker 2: The Council has the authority to revise the ballot question. This keep in mind that it can't be more than 75 words. And the ballot question needs to be as neutral as possible. Could not be argumentative or. Or obviously not misleading, but it's intended to be informative and neutral and kept within 75. Speaker 0: A question for the city attorney. Is that and does that comport with what the city clerk just told us, that if we're going for an April election date, we don't have the ability to do that? Speaker 2: No. You have the ability, whether you go in April or November, to try to revise the ballot question. It's simply regardless if you're going in April and you're going to change, it just needs to keep within 75 words and be neutral. Speaker 4: Then be decided tonight and. Speaker 0: Be decided tonight. Speaker 4: Right? Speaker 2: Correct. Or when you are. When you make the decision, if you make whenever you make the decision to put it on in April, you made it tonight or you made it at a subsequent meeting. Still made the timeline to put it on in April, which means you have until, I think next Thursday or Friday to make that decision. You have that. Speaker 0: Option a. Speaker 2: Special revised language. Speaker 0: Are you referring to calling a special meeting? Speaker 2: Correct. Or actually either a special meeting or continuing this item to that to another date? Speaker 0: Right. Right. Okay. I think the vice mayor had his hand up. Did you? Speaker 5: Yeah. So I wanted to clarify that question. So tonight is the last regular meeting where we can approve this, but we have until Friday and 5 p.m. to actually put this on the ballot and approve the final 75 words or less language. Correct? Correct. If we want it to. Speaker 6: Friday of. Speaker 5: Next week, yes. January, January 11th at. Speaker 0: 5 p.m., as I recall. Okay. All right. Anything else? Speaker 5: Yes. Can can the 580,000. I was a little confused by some of the language in. And I can ask the question, are we talking about just 60 or 60? And here at the same time. Speaker 0: Let's stay on the first one, if we could, just. Speaker 5: Some of the language and I will apologize. I can't remember which one talked about polls being open. And my understanding was that they were looking at an all mail ballot. So can we talk about whether or not this will be an all mail ballot or whether it will be a full on polls across the city? Speaker 4: So there are certain election code requirements in order to meet the all mail ballot, and this election did not meet those. So therefore, there will be polls open on Election Day. It will be a map to your polling place. You know, of course, people who are absentee will still mail in their ballots and have all of that same ability. But it's not going to be an all mail ballot. Speaker 5: And is there a way in which this issue could be. Called it a special meeting that is an all mail ballot. You know, the school district has done them in the past. Speaker 4: No, it did not meet the requirements and legal staff determined that it could not be. Speaker 5: No matter what the timing. Okay, great. And then I have one last question for the legal staff. Yeah, I think one of the. No. I'm going to call it compelling. Not that compelling arguments for this initiative is that somehow the voters voted on W to make this land open space and that all this initiative is doing is following in his footsteps. But it's not clear to me that it was ever the entire parcel for this federal. Do we have any insights from our conversations with the space regional park or what or what not about what land they considered the park boundaries that the language of WW was very, very well, it was pretty clear it was the visitor center and expanding the beach and this is where nowhere near the beach, etc. was this parcels specifically called out? Do we know anything? They split it ultimately. Speaker 6: Right? Selina Chen from the city attorney's office. People have been. Speaker 4: Saying, and I think in the. Speaker 6: Initiative, some of the findings. Speaker 8: Are saying that the subdivision didn't. Speaker 6: Happen until after 2008 after measure WW was placed on the ballot and that the Park District meant to acquire the whole. Speaker 8: Of the parcel. Speaker 6: Both another northern parcel, which is what we're talking about, the subject of the initiative and the Southern Parcel, which is referred to as Neptune Point. Based on my discussions with District Council, the Federal Government plan to subdivide the parcel and dispose of Neptune Point first East Bay Regional Parks District New as early as 2005 or 26 that the government. Speaker 8: Was going to subdivide the parcels. Speaker 6: Even though it didn't happen until later. Speaker 8: The intent was clear to both the Federal Government and the Park District before Measure WW was placed before the voters in oh eight. Speaker 1: But let me just ask to clarify. Speaker 0: That would be Councilmember Desai. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. The subdivision occurred roughly in May 2016. Is that correct? Speaker 6: I believe I received the quitclaim deed from the federal government. Speaker 8: And I was I believe it has a date of 2015. Speaker 1: When you look at the assessor's data, you'll see that there's is a parcel number for one. There's an API number, parcel number for one parcel or all of of the seven acres. And that goes until 2015 dash 23,016. Speaker 0: Is that a question, Councilmember. Speaker 1: Yes. Have you have you seen how the APN numbers have changed from 2015 to 20 16 to 2016? Dash 2017 meaning that in 2015, 2016 it was one passel for the seven acres and then 2016, 2017 and that it was then split into two parcels. And it looks like, judging by some of the data I've seen, it looks like it's May 2016 that. It's just. Speaker 4: I think you. Speaker 2: And often, if they depend on when a deed is recorded, the assessor's office doesn't necessarily make the change immediately. There's a time lag in there. So that may be the reason why. There is a slight discrepancy between when the quick claimed was recorded and when the assessor's parcel map was modified to show two different assessor's parcels. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Although we probably want to stay away from speculating on things that are not before us. Any further clarifying questions from the council before we go to public speakers? Yes. Councilmember. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think we had a discussion about Friday, Friday, January 11th. That's the 5 p.m. for the 75 words. And then if we chose to do a ballot argument, we'd have to do that by January 16. Yes, I think. And then we'd have to decide and write that either here and now. Speaker 4: Or. Speaker 3: Give it to a committee. Okay. Speaker 0: Right. Okay. So any further clarifying questions? We do have some public speakers. Okay. I'm going to call public speakers. We have to hear. We have six. We're good. You have 3 minutes each. And our first speaker is Doug Biggs. Spoiler alert. Next speaker is Angela Fawcett, the actress in the actor after that? Speaker 3: Good evening. To be fair, Ashcraft, members of the city council. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of Alameda Point Collaborative. A resident of Alameda, a neighbor of the project, and a frequent user of Crab Cove. I want the same safe community my neighbors want. And I also want a place where elderly and the medically fragile homeless can stay with dignity, get mental health services that improve their quality of life, and saves millions in health care costs. ABC lawfully and dutifully requested to receive surplus property on McKee Avenue for the purposes of creating a wellness and medical respite facility. When we were notified by the feds, we we reached out to and worked with the neighbors on this project, knowing the emotions of the topic. We hired a qualified facilitator to lead meetings with the Friends of Crab Cove to identify their concerns and develop operating principles to address those concerns. Thanks to their participation in that process, we've identified ways to improve traffic flow, ensure quality of operations, and identified ways to minimize loitering in the area. I believe that through cooperation and compromise, so much more will be accomplished than through conflict. Last week, ABC issued a letter to the community asking that the initiative sponsors withdraw the initiative as they are allowed to do so by law. Already the letters gathered almost 500 signatures, and in fact, right now it's more than 500 signatures, including leaders from almost every faith based organization in Alameda. Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Trinity Lutheran Church. Christ Episcopal. Twin Towers. Methodist Grace Church. The Pastoral Center. Alameda All Face Coalition Bueno Vista United Methodist Church. The Islamic Center of Alameda and more. Over 70 neighbors of the project have signed the letter, as have representatives of environmental groups, neighboring schools and the many just social justice groups like Renewed Hope, Ark and Alameda Justice Alliance. The Rose Up to defeat Major Cave. While we are ready to run a campaign and confident of winning, we prefer to continue working with Friends of Crab Cove and others to create the best possible project we can. Homeless are literally dying on the front steps of the project site. This is a project that needs to happen and should happen. The Impact Report is very clear on the serious consequences of moving the initiative forward. And when all is said and done, the opponents still won't get their park. Now is not the time for expensive conflict. It is time to look into our heart and into the eyes of those that need our help and work together to move the project forward. The city can help that tremendously by joining our facilitation process and ensuring that we will be held accountable for the agreements we make. I believe that will give strength to the voice of those with concerns that need to be heard. At this time, all we're asking is to pause, withdraw the initiative and allow us to move forward with the project. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Angela Fossett. Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Angela Foster and I represent forensic lab coats. Many have called us heartless, soulless and horrible people. This initiative started from a grassroots movement for justice. We were told we're doing a wellness center in Mackay and there's nothing you can do. It's a done deal. And the America I grew up. We have rights, a voice. Opportunities for input and to be hurt. In 2008, we were promised a measure to VW, an expansion of the park into Crab Cove Educational Services. And instead we're getting a parking lot and a maintenance yard. International parks may claim they don't want the property, but that is not what they sold to the voters of the city. Through their own words, campaigns and fliers to get Alamitos to support their efforts to give us more usable open space, park lands and educational opportunities. And we met with Marilyn to discuss options. Prior to today, we offered a conditional use permit in exchange for dropping the initiative. This initiative is the only voice that we have at this point, and no one seems to be listening to our concerns about Measure WW. We are being forced to give up everything we thought would happen to grab power for an experiment. I've been feeling so pressured by the city, community, social media and various organizations to give up our voice that it's made me physically ill. This is and has always been about open space and park expansion. You can call the Wellness Center for Homeless, but it is still a high density residential medical development in an area and location that does not fit. Bottom line. This is on a single access road that cannot accommodate high traffic activities such as ambulances, fire departments, tenders, delivery trucks and staff coming and going. This has never been the use of this property and the need to shut it down was just a few people picking up the phone with no site visits, testing or studies and instead having some discussions going back in time as far as occupancy and declaring no negative impact. How can a 24/7 facility have no impact when the last ten years was barely seen a footprint at the federal? If this council moves forward with a special election at the taxpayers expense. This is on you front of Crab Cove qualifying for 2020 election at a minimal impact and expense to our taxpayers. I implore you to adopt the resolution or add to the 2020 election. An initiative is not qualified and the election code to trigger special election for a reason. If you choose to spend up to 700,000 instead of 25 to do a special election, the City Council is liable for that expense. And taxpayers, not French or Kharkov. We do not want special election. I was also told in talks that you had planned on doing a walk and only ballot option and no absentee. And to me that's discriminatory to those who would be want to be heard but unable to walk into the polls. But I understand from correspondence that you had said that that's not, in fact true. But this facility is being set up in the city of Alameda. So this is not even being set up for to help the city of Alameda homeless first. They have to be qualified on a county regional level before grants. Speaker 0: Thank you for that. Our next speaker is Dr. Cindy Acker. Speaker 8: Congratulations. Mayor, vice mayor, all of city council. I am principal of a preschool through middle school in alameda and former president of one of California's preschool associations and former vice president of the National Childcare Association. I'm also a choir director, and I used to sing in a choir in San Francisco in a church whose greatest population was serving the homeless. And my three children were there and hung out with the people who were outside while I sang with the choir. And I think it was one of the most transformative, intergenerational experiences that they could have had. The students in my school have learned the importance of caring for their environment, and I would say that Kabakov has been a piece of that that has that we really appreciated with the education that they've been furthered with there. But I cannot divorce the experience of teaching children to care for others, to care for our elders, as the elder population is growing as principal of a school within a residential neighborhood. I'm not denied the ability to provide a service, but I am expected to learn how to be responsible for our neighborhood, to keep it safe and to connect with our neighbors and to try to to make that those relations with our neighbors good. So I submit that APEC has been holding the tension of the two opposites, examining ways to keep safe, positive relationships with the community and with the neighbors, and providing an excellent service to the community. And that isn't easy. I know that when I was president of one of California's child care associations, one of the hardest things that I had to do was to educate my community, to face their fears, to work toward the greater good. And so I guess what I'm asking is that the council does their work to educate the community and that the sponsors of the initiative also consider facing the fears and pulling the initiative and allowing the community to work together for the greater good of the community to remove the resolution in 60 and to help the community work together to care for the seniors, the homeless seniors in our community. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Guerrero morris. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor. And council members like to keep this simple. We were all aware of the first portion being available in 2006. This is the McKay property in 2008 stated in Measure WW 2008. In black and white reference referencing the second portion of the property when it becomes available so the park boundary can be completed. Park boundary under the starbase. It's in the second portion of that seven parcel, which was clandestinely split without public notice in 2015 and recorded by the Alameda County Assessor on May 11, 2016. How many times do the people of Alameda have to vote on this? In addition to the voter approve expansion 2008 in 2014, the city Alameda Attorney finding section two e states. The expansion of Crown Beach for open space use is the highest and best use of the surplus federal property at Crown Cove. The city and the council members were served with a writ to mandate to correct its previous illegal behavior in order to comply with the law. On December 18, 2018, shortly after, Mayor Ashcraft reached out to us to meet to the to meet, to discuss giving up our voice, to have the people vote for open space initiative. This was not an open meeting, but I felt being bullied in giving up our cause. As a lawyer, you are aware of the State Bar Code of ethics that we need to have our legal counsel present if a deal is being made. We had no idea. Mayor Ashcraft made a point that the city will do everything in its power to support the private use of this public land and that we are going to lose. 100%, we're going to lose. And if we want to have a say that this will be the only opportunity for our voice to be heard . So give up the initiative and we will listen to you. I'm sorry. This is not the Philippines. We don't we don't do backdoor deals. We cannot be bought. And we are standing up for the people that voted with Measure WW 2008 2014, a 2018 Open Space Initiative. We matter. Our voice matters even though we do not have deep pockets. I am so tired of people in power to change their own rules all of a sudden to serve outside money. So tired since the seventies. Adopted 2018 Open Space Initiative, just like you did with the first portion with Open Space Initiative in 2014 and have zero cost to us. Instead, you are driving up the cost of the special election to support private use instead of public. You said this land. We grew up a lot of families that grew up in the seventies. We ate our food. We fished our food on Crab Cove. We were free to be to do anything. Our slip and slides with no no other things. We still have families that the fish out there for their food so they could afford the rents here in Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Strimling. Speaker 3: Good evening again. Yes, people do have freedom to speak. And when you speak, people are free to speak back. When you devote yourself to preventing homeless seniors from getting the convalescent care that they need, people are free to tell you what their opinion of that kind of behavior is. And not just people, but community groups, not just community groups. But churches can come and tell you that working against the interests of homeless seniors who need convalescent care is not a good thing. No society anywhere says that's a good thing. The right thing to do is to withdraw this initiative. The right thing to do is to work for a legitimate open space. This is not open space. This is a space with nine buildings that are contaminated. This is a space that would cost the city many millions of dollars. You mean made into an open space? The alternative is do nothing. The standard NIMBY line, do nothing. Change nothing. Go nowhere. Not good enough for Al and me. That's not who we are. Certainly not who you are as a city council. I know all of you. You are not a group of do nothing people. Let's move forward. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Strimling, we have Elizabeth Middleburg, our next speaker. And our final speaker on this item, unless there's someone else who hasn't turned in a slip. Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Elizabeth Middelburg. I am a chaplain and therapist at a retirement community in Oakland and a resident of Alameda. I was at Walgreens this morning at about 630 where the police just had arrived because there was a man sleeping in one of their bathrooms. And of course, that can't happen. But they pulled him out and it was an older gentleman and he shuffled out into 32 seven degrees sweater, probably not knowing where to go or what to do next. I think we can do better as a as a city. I think we don't need to have people out in the cold like that. I think it's an amazing project that is about to get started. I'm in full support of that. When I walked up to City Hall tonight, I saw the sign Happy Kwanzaa. The theme for Kwanzaa actually this year is to have a commitment to an inclusive good, to have a commitment to make the good of all accessible to all people. And I fully support that. If we say happy Kwanzaa, let's let's get with the theme. So I know the people that were. They'd have the. Of whom we were requesting to pull the the ordinances I have left in the meantime, but I'm still in favor of moving forward with the project. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That concludes the public comments. I would like to hear from the council. I I'm going to start first and I don't usually well, this is the first letter, so I guess I don't do anything usually, but it will be the exception. I just have to say, because some personal references were made to me and because I am an attorney and I take my duties and obligations as an attorney and an officer of the court very seriously. I did, in fact, sit down with the two proponents of the project, Angela Fawcett and Lisa Gambaro Morris on a Sunday almost two weeks ago. During the holidays, my children were both home from out of town and I would have liked to have spent time with them. But to me, nothing was more important than trying to make this project put it on the right track. And so I spent almost 2 hours with the ladies, and I wasn't a legal negotiation, but I did indeed tell them that rather than engaging in a zero sum game where one side wins and the other side loses, that they had done a very credible job of advocating for the concerns of some of the neighbors and some of the businesses in the area, and that I respected that. I also am very grateful to Debbie Potter, our economic development director, for engaging the services of a facilitator, a very capable facilitator who met at least a couple of times with the Friends of Camp Crab Cove and Mr. Bates and his some of his group to try to find that middle ground. And I work as an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau. My mantra has always been, just keep talking as long as we can get both sides to sit down and talk. Maybe you don't agree, but hopefully you listen to each other. And that's all I can expect of anyone. I don't have that magic wand to make you. Do you know what I want? And I'm. And I'm open. And what I tried to say was that there is compromise. If we're asking something of the Friends of Crab Cove, we have to be willing to give up something in exchange . And that was the suggestion that they could be a part of helping fashion something akin to a conditional use project. So I will step off my soapbox, but I needed to get that off my chest. And I will ask which council member would like to start for Councilmember Vela? Speaker 4: And also that there was no Brown Act violation with you conversing with Council. I want to I would like to put that on the record that they. Speaker 0: Say that. Speaker 4: Well, they insinuated that you had said something along the lines of the full weight of council behind it. And I just want to put it out on the record that, you know, I haven't talked to any other council members about this or about my opinions on it. And I certainly think that if there's some sort of. Feeling out there that the council's mind has been made up or that we've discussed that all of our discussions are being held publicly. That's why we're having this on an on a public agenda. So I had a couple. I guess there were a couple of things that were raised that I do want to address. One is the the issues with Measure W, W Measure W W was put on by the East Bay Regional Parks District. It was not a city of Alameda measure. It was an East Bay Regional Parks District measure. They have their own separate board. They have their own. There's a Citizens Oversight Committee that oversees the expenditure of Measure WW funds. If this is purely about Measure WW, there is a public board of elected officials that can be held accountable and should be held accountable. If if members of the public feel that way. They have public meetings. They also have liaison meetings with them right here in council chambers that are open to the public. And so if there are issues that are related to measure. WW whether it's what you're getting out of measure. WW The parking lot and the use of the buildings or whether or not this land is within the definition of, you know, becoming available, I think that that's something that is debatable because first what happens is the federal government puts it up to see if it can be used for one of its priority uses then and only then if there's nobody that comes forward for those uses. One of those uses is actually the use that's being proposed by Alameda Point Collaborative. But if no one had come forward, then it would become go through a surplus process that would eventually make it open to the Park District. So I think whether or not this land is quote unquote, available for East Bay, regional parks is up for debate. But I also think if our constituents are feeling like there's some sort of misuse of WW funds, that I certainly encourage them to work with and speak with the East Bay Regional Parks District Board and to come to the lease on meetings that we have. There's additional costs that aren't just related to a special election. Those costs, in my opinion, are the types of things that we also have to consider, because what we're being asked to do by this initiative is essentially have the city find a way to commit resources to take this parcel which comes at a cost itself, and then to turn it in from one thing to another. And there's this notion out there that if any sort of property is not being used, that it's somehow open space. And it doesn't matter whether or not it's public land or private land or what type of public land. But we get these comments that come forward that say, well, it's it's it should be open space. It's just not being used. It can also be urban blight. And that's what this parcel has essentially become. So we just went over CDBG needs. We talked about what those needs were. A lot of them had to do with seniors. And a lot of them had to do with housing security. And I would think that end of life care has got to be up there. So, you know, I think I would have liked to have seen us reach some sort of resolution and not have to put this on for an election. But at this time, I can't support adopting the ordinance, and I would like to pursue the second option of submitting the ordinance to voters. I think it's a misnomer to say that it's on us to have this special election. I think we've tried to avoid it, avoid a special election, and that's why we tried to facilitate conversations. But those additional costs add up. And as we saw with the Jean Sweeney open space, those costs have grown over time from what we initially thought. Things like construction costs increase. They haven't those costs haven't gone down. So I think that there is a worry, at least on my end, if we wait and we might save a little money putting it on that general election, what other costs are we accruing in that time? And when I look at the city budget and I think about our fiduciary obligations, I have to weigh that in making my decision of if there's other hidden costs that are going to outweigh the special election. I also think that this is something that we need to call the question on, because if we're not going to be able to do this project here again, what we just heard in the last agenda item was that these needs exist and that their top needs. So if it's not going to be possible or feasible here, we need to know and we need to plan. If the voters disagree with us, then essentially we need to find a way to get this project off the ground somewhere else. And so, again, construction costs add up and that's why I'm leaning towards supporting a special election and not a general one. And I do think that there's a financial and fiscal issue that benefit to having it early. But I would like to have an opportunity to weigh in on that ballot question, because I found it to be a little confusing and hard to follow. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de SA. Speaker 1: Well, thank you very much. To me, the issue is straightforward, not simple, but as straightforward. Over 6000 residents took the time to sign an initiative which. Which means that they want to see this put to a vote. So I think it's incumbent on this city council to respect the wishes of the 6000 people who want to have this voted. Now the question then is do we do it on a special election basis or do we do it in November of 2020? To me, again, it's straightforward. If it's going to be put to a vote. You know, at roughly 600,000, $630,000 for a special election, that is just far too costly. If we're going to do it, then the most straightforward, reasonable thing is to simply put it on the November 2020 ballot. You know, this is not a simple issue. I mean, this is a very difficult issue involving the lives of of of people, not just Alameda INS, but people from from the region. But if we focus on the key things, the key things are people have gathered signatures to put this to a vote. So let's put it to a vote and let's have the residents vote. But in doing that, let's have it on the November 2020 election. There's a lot of issues between now and November 2020 that we can vet. But one thing we know for sure is that if we do it in April of 2019, you know, we're going to be spending $630,000 or so that we the city of Alameda. Just do not have for a special election. And I don't see a compelling case as to why it has to be done on a special election basis. I think the cases that and it appears to be that's something that the Friends of Krabbe cover asking for the November 2020 ballot. Speaker 0: Thank you. Who's next? Council member Odie. Speaker 3: Sure. I'll go next. And I'll just talk about the first two things. And if we decide if we do, an election will go. Speaker 0: Into the decision tree here. Yes. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: So I won't use up all of my time. I was struck by the comment. I think it was, Elizabeth, that we can do better as a city. I think that really resonated with me. And I don't think we have a choice here. We're going to do in favor I'm in favor of having the election and not adopt a resolution. But, you know, this is going to be bitter. I mean, we've seen it and on the blogs, we've seen in the newspapers, we've seen it here in chambers. But, you know, we don't really have a choice. And I hope it doesn't come down to the fact that we relitigate WW because my colleague, Customer Mirabella kind of walked through it. I mean, I can't put myself in the shoes of what East Bay Regional Parks did. You know, we can't be, you know, held responsible for what ever they told us truth or untruth, you know, in order to get us to vote for that measure. I voted for that measure. I remember. But, you know, we only he can do what we can do to take care of the people that we can take care of. So. I read these earlier and I wanted to read them again because I think it's important that we we remember what we just passed as a priority. We passed this unanimously for our community needs, for our CDBG, which I think represent the values of our city. And the second one there was homeless, preventing homeless and other housing crisis. Now, this this is a solution to help meet that goal. Increased housing opportunities for homeless and extremely low income households. This is an opportunity to meet that goal and most importantly, deliver supportive services to promote stability and independence. That's what this entire project is is devoted to doing, providing supportive services. You know, people aren't going to be doing some of the things that we we we've heard online. You know, some people are going to be transitioning. Some people are actually going to go there today as as it is. So I hope that it doesn't devolve into pitting one side of the community against the other. But, you know, I'm afraid it's going to. But I do think it's something that we need to resolve sooner rather than later. And I do think it's important that we have clarity. I do think it's important that, you know, we have certainty. This is a project that will go forward. And if it goes forward, it will continue to. Raise money. They will continue to exert costs and they will continue to add value to that property. And again, Councilmember Vela talked about it. You know this. If this passes, it's a it's a taking. And then we have the city will be on the hook for the fair market value of of that property. And there's nothing we can do to stop the project from going forward. So if we can if we let this drag on to November of next year, then I think our liability is a lot more than, you know, 600,000. I thought I had asked for that in the report and I really didn't see it in the report. But, you know, I think it could be in, you know, the tens of millions. So that's something I think we need to look at, look at, you know, instead of just looking at the small myopic view of how much is the special election going to cost, you know, what what liability are we exposing ourselves to if we do let this go to November? And, you know, Councilmember, I'm sorry, my fault Mayor Ashcroft talked about. Speaker 0: It four. Speaker 3: Years ago that have a long habit. And as she talked about her experience as an attorney and my experience as attorney is, you know, you'd like to have all the time in the world. And maybe we think that, you know, 15 months, 18 months, 19 months is enough time to negotiate. But most of the big deals get done right before trial. So having a deadline, you know, having a deadline, you know, if there's a deal to be made, I hope that people keep talking and people can figure out a solution that we don't pit our communities against each other. And, you know, if that deadline is January 11th or whenever it is, I think it's important that we impose that deadline. And the last thing I want to say is. You know, reading the report, reading what East Bay Parks wants to do with it and doesn't want to do with it, reading the implications of of this passing . This is going to be a homeless facility if we do nothing because it's going to stay there. It's going to become urban blight, and people are going to go in there and sleep just like they did at Alameda Point, that we going to spend millions of dollars to tear those buildings down so we can either do this the right way or we can let nature take its course. And that's the wrong way. And I think, as Elizabeth said, we can do better as a city. Speaker 0: Thank you both. Very sorry. Speaker 2: If I may just interject. Moment. I don't want I don't want the council to concede at this point that if this passes, it's just automatic taking of the property in the next item before the council if this moves ahead to an election. One of the things that that initiative would do if the voters approve it, it would compel the city attorney's office to bring an action in court to determine whether or not there had been a taking and also if there were a taking, what the fair market value would be in order to establish the cost to the property owner. So while it may ultimately be that there is a taking and there will be a cost, which we don't know. I don't want to concede tonight that there is an automatic taking by reason. If this were to pass, that will be decided down the road. Based on a number of different factors. Speaker 0: Thank you for that clarification. Vice Mayor Knox White. Speaker 5: Can I ask one question? If we move forward to put this on an, let's say, on the special election tonight, can it still be withdrawn by the once we have voted to put it on? Can it be withdrawn by the by the proponents? Speaker 2: Yes, the the petitioners have the right to withdraw it up to the deadline. So even if the council took action tonight, the the resolution itself provides that if the petitioners withdraw, then the item basically stops. Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank my my fellow council members for their well-spoken comments on this. I agree with Councilmember Desai. This is straightforward. He and I clearly have a different definition of compelling. And we can talk about the $500,000 for putting this in April versus November. But what we know is that if we do not move forward with this right now, the wellness center will lose tens of millions of dollars that it already has committed. And that is a compelling interest to me. As Councilmember already mentioned earlier, we just adopted not just things we need, but emergency things we need in our dire need of and don't have enough money for this meets that need. And I don't know how we don't move forward to find out whether or not we can meet that need or not as soon as possible. You know, we just ended a campaign. I got to talk to a lot of people. It just reinforced to me how caring Alameda is for as a community. You know, we sometimes come at things from different places, but for the most part, our community wants to be there. Homelessness was a major issue that was discussed. What are we doing about it? And over and over again, I said, Well, we've got this wellness center. And people are trying to stop it. I do not believe for 2 seconds that this is about open space. Because it's not open space, it's commercial buildings. This is about stopping a wellness center that is more or less funded and is well needed and well document that need is well documented. For me, I am hopeful that in the next week the proponents of this initiative will see that it is a lost cause to win at the ballot, and we'll see that the best way to get what they want, which is to fix the outcomes that they are most concerned about, is to sit down and work on those issues to address their concerns. And I, for one, will commit right now to be there at that table to help with those, if that is useful . I know our mayor has been you know, other people have also offered there are many of us here who will be willing to help do that. It is the number one way to get what you want, unless the only thing you want to is no homeless center at that site. Measure K was funded with $750,000. They spent over 350 to $400000 put on the put this on the ballot. And our community will see through what this is. This is not a community wide supported thing. And I appreciate that. 6000 people signed a petition. Those 6000 people were told a lot of things that were not true. And I stood next to the people collecting signatures and heard them say it. I know that at the last meeting before I was on the council, there was some indignation by some folks who did collect signatures, said they never did lie. And that may be true. I must not have stood next to them. Because the people I heard were telling people that this was about protecting existing open space from development. And this is 11 buildings. So for me, you know, I again, I it's not up to each individual, one of us to decide what the ballot in WW was. The Park District is the one that knows and we know from the Parks District that they were aware that this land was not going to be up for sale. They were talking before they ever put WW together about putting something on the ballot for WW to fund it. My understanding is the WW funds are already spent or spoken for. There are no WW funds. To my to my knowledge, to put this on, I would like to get some clarity on that before we move too far forward with this. And at some point in time here very soon, I'd like to actually ask if my council members will agree. I think there are factual misstatements in the initiative that need to be challenged. This is not going to be an argument about whether or not the voters passed open space. And we should honor that because that's not what this argument is about. This argument is about whether or not we are the community that we say we are. Who cares about homelessness and addressing this and taking those taking care of those who need help and taking the burden, the hand that we have now. Or listening to some folks who want to stop this just to stop it because they don't like it. And with some promise of some bird in the hand and another space magical. Another space that exists with magical money that doesn't exist. And so I would like to whether we move forward tonight to put this on the ballot for April, which would be my druthers or not, or whether we decide to continue this meeting so that we can get some more information about the splitting of the property, about whether there are WW funds here, because I think that I think the proponents should know. I think the proponents should know that there are going there will likely be people challenging them on this. I felt very bad. I got to spend time with Ms.. Fossett in Minsk some more. Said a number of campaign events that came to some of my events. I have got to enjoy spending time with them and talking about things and whatever else. I'm very sorry to hear that Ms.. Fossett is feeling ill about what has been happening so far. But I can tell you my experience with the measure campaign is that that was nothing. Our community will stand up like they did with Measure K, and they're going to stand up very clearly and stand up for the people in this community for that we need to take care of in this community, and I think we can avoid that. And there are maybe ten days, nine days left until that happens. But I really want to make a quick, clear, clear clarion call to please remove this from the initiative. And let's get working on the issues that we can address and let's take care of the issues you want to. But you know that don't do this to our community. We don't need this. It's time for healing. Those are my comments. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'm going to just finish with mine. Our city and our county are in the midst of a housing crisis. During my campaign, I said that I consider addressing and eventually resolving this housing crisis to be a moral imperative. And I do. I'm honored that my first meeting of the New Year as your new mayor was this afternoon with Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, who came over and sat down and talked with Ms.. Potter and me about some housing issues that the CASA Compact. And one of the things that Mayor Schaaf said that I think applies here is that it is not easy to do the tough work that needs to be done. And but we were elected to do just that. So as elected leaders, we can't look the other way at this housing crisis right here in our backyard. And we can't say not in my backyard. If we do, the crisis only grows worse. We need to take concrete steps to address this crisis and the proposal at McKay Avenue. This project that Mr. Biggs and others have put together is a well thought out way to shelter some of our most vulnerable homeless individuals that were referred to in the CDBG report. The reason that I support going forward with a special election is not that I like to see my city spend hefty six figure sums to do so. However, I know that this facility has funding commitments now that will not still exist in November of 2020. And I mean, the election would be November of 2020. The the project wouldn't move forward until sometime after that. Right now, there is a funding commitment from the Kaiser Family Foundation which understands the connection between homelessness and health and has taken bold measures in the East Bay and also in the South Bay to construct housing and resources for our unsheltered population. And Alameda County recently indicated that they are recommending that this project receive $11.5 million for Measure one that county residents passed last year. But these funding sources aren't going to sit in wait because as you can imagine, there are so many competing projects. This need is great around the Bay Area. We have the opportunity we need to strike while the iron is hot. I In addition to meeting with the representatives of the Friends of Crab Cove, I also had a meeting with Ted Biggs and Dr. Harvey Rosenthal, who owns the shopping center, the Neptune Plaza Shopping Center, and he's a member of the Friends of Crab Cove. And I wanted to get them together. I wanted to walk the property. I wanted to listen to what his concerns were and all of the concerns that he articulated about, you know, his shopping center, which, by the way, is fully occupied now and the safety of the businesses and the merchants . Those can all be addressed and all be taken care of with the sort of regulations and operating agreement that would exist. We would love to have the neighbors and the businesses help us draft that, Mr. Biggs, but I'm sure in the city offers its services to do any of that. As was previously noted, I did meet with the Friends of Crab Cove. In my long experience in life, I don't always get people to agree to what I'd like them to agree to, but I will reiterate that they are able to withdraw their petition any time up to January 11th, 5 p.m. and work with the city and the project sponsor to have their concerns as neighbors address. That door is still open. It will remain open until 2011. I want everyone to go away feeling that they have gotten something out of an agreement. So what is before us right now as a council we're looking at item six C, so we have to decide, first of all, do we want to just adopt the ordinance? I don't think I've heard anyone say that we want to adopt the ordinance. And the second question is, do we adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance? To the voters before that happens. I do think that it is a very valid concern that was raised by a couple of my colleagues that the opportunity to revise, amend the initiative language should be should be addressed if that's the will of the majority of the Council. Speaker 4: Madam Cleary we can put it up on the screen. Speaker 0: Well I. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 4: I would like to continue it. Speaker 0: I'm, I'm wondering what other I'm, I'm never a huge fan of editing on the fly. So, but I mean, it's nice that you put that up on the screen, but I'm just not sure we want to do the wordsmithing here. But tell us tell us the best way to go about this. Speaker 2: I was going to suggest that if if if you feel that the you're going to probably want you can change this item to next week anyway and give sort of a straw vote in terms of where you're headed. I mean, it sounds like the council's going to put it on the ballot. It sounds like it's probably going to go in April. You could appoint a committee of two council members to meet with all our staff and and other staff to come up with some language that could then be brought back to the Council for its final action next week, if that's something that the the mayor would like to consider. Speaker 0: Well, as a matter of fact, I and we haven't had a chance to talk about this, but I've thought about that very thing. And the subcommittee I was going to propose and I also haven't talked to any of my colleagues, was Councilmember Vella and I, if you would be willing. We've done drafting before. She's really good. And and I and we've I've already tasked the vice mayor and council member to decide they're doing the deep dove into the city charter. So I don't want to pile too much on them. And don't worry, council member Eddie, your time is coming. I've got, you've got your number. Um, but if I'm. First of all, I'm seeing a nod of the head. Yes, yes. The party can not take down. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. And so with that, Mr. Ashby said we could schedule time to meet with you. Speaker 2: Yes, I probably with extent from our office and perhaps from somebody from planning and do that, you know, certainly as quickly as possible in order to bring this item back to the council. Thursday or Friday, depending on what your schedules will permit. Speaker 0: And could that same subcommittee also be considered for drafting, say, ballot arguments? Speaker 2: Certainly. And also, if word get, I don't if there's some concern about also the ballot language with respect to the two other items. If the council's going to talk about those, that also might be inappropriate. If you're going to, you know, want to. Suggest wordsmithing this ballot question. The other ones may need some wordsmithing too if the council feels that's appropriate. Speaker 0: Okay. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Let's. Let's see if we can get through item six C right now. Help us out, Madam Clerk. Speaker 4: Well, it sounds like if you wanted to, you could just continue this item with the direction that you two will form the subcommittee and work with staff. Speaker 0: So do we need to do anything to formally establish that we do not want to adopt the ordinance, but we want to go forward to the voters? Speaker 4: I think it's been expressed. I think that the main thing is to continue to add dates and time specific. So that's that's really where I would focus on is trying to figure out what date and time you want to continue it too. And then, you know with the new revised ballot question coming that meeting to review. Speaker 0: But this be a good time to take a little break? Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 0: Good. Let's take a little break. Could everyone be back here in 10 minutes? That's 915 sharp. I'm going to start 915. Thank you. Speaker 6: Oh. Speaker 0: Actual. Speaker 4: You can. Speaker 0: Trying to just fool around for a minute because nobody or we could get out a minute earlier. Okay. All right. Madam Clerk, um. Do you want to. Sure. Speaker 4: I think. Bring us up to speed. Yes. The city attorney and I convinced and basically what we think we would recommend is that the council proceed with adopting the resolution, calling the election on April 9th with direction that the ballot question will be amended and return at a date specific. And we would suggest that date specific be next Thursday the 10th and any time after 531 time, the council designee. Speaker 0: And the reason that you would recommend that we adopt the resolution now is because. Speaker 4: In in order to set the argument deadlines and you have to call the election now and then that way and we can proceed with, you know, getting out that notice and having those deadlines set and then getting the information to the registrar so they could compile it on the ballot. Speaker 0: Okay. How does that sound to everyone? Okay. So did someone want to make that motion or did you have one say to me? Speaker 3: Councilmember So we're bringing back. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 3: 75. I'm sorry, bring back the 75 words and suppose ballot. The argument against the. Speaker 0: Proposal now and again we're just on item 68. So I'm looking for a motion to adopt the resolution calling the election and calling it on a date specific April 9th, 2019. And. Um. And also. Continuing the meet what we need to do that my motion. Speaker 4: I would include it in the motion just as one. Speaker 0: I will wrap it all in and then continuing the meeting to a date to January 10th next week to review the amended language. And that would be of the ballot measure itself and. Speaker 4: Well, the ballot. Speaker 0: Question and about the ballot question and then we'll get into arguments. Speaker 4: Yeah, you can make a separate motion. Okay. Speaker 3: I could make that motion. Speaker 0: Please. Please do. Speaker 3: I do. Speaker 4: All right. Speaker 5: Second. Speaker 4: Sorry, one little minor piece. What time do you want to specify your continuing it to on the 10th. Speaker 0: What works for people. Speaker 4: It is 530. Speaker 3: Work for six would be better. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: Because can you just. Speaker 5: Up to six. Speaker 0: Okay. 6 p.m. would be great. Speaker 3: One clarifying question. Speaker 0: Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: Thank you so. This revised. 25 words. Will that be posted somewhere or there's some deadline on by when which we have to provide that to the public. Speaker 2: I think the goal would try to try to get it done by Thursday, which today? Wednesday. What do you think? Monday. Speaker 4: I mean, I think we could get it out at any point because technically you could edit that language at the meeting. Even as long as you have the final language adopted at the January 10th meeting, you'll be fine. So. Speaker 0: QUESTION I'm wondering, though, from our Mr. Councilman Rhodes. QUESTION perhaps as a revised staff report would come out with that language so our colleagues can also see the proposed language ahead of time. Speaker 4: That and that can happen at any time. I could even put out I'll put out a continued agenda tomorrow. And then what we can do is just add that when you have the question formulated, we can add it as an attachment at that point in time. So it'll be public at all at the same point whenever the subcommittee decides. Speaker 3: I just want to make sure we're properly noticing things. Speaker 4: You're continuing it and you well, you have the ability to edit the question on the spot even. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 4: I think the goal is to have gotten there. I think the goal I think we are going to have it properly noticed. I think the goal is to just give everybody enough time to weigh in. They need to. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I'm not sure about weighing in because we don't want to do serial meetings, but at least. Speaker 4: They'll be prepared to weigh in at the meeting. Speaker 0: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Okay. So was that motion clear enough for you? Yes. Okay. So Councilmember Ody has moved to do we have a sec? Speaker 5: Yes, exactly. So I ask the question now that we have a this motion. I think it would be fair to to because we've already had public comment on this item. If we were to write it right now, there would be no more public comment. Typically, there would be no public comment on that Thursday as well. I think we should be. I just think it would be good to be clear about whether or not this we have public comment is now closed and we are now revising based on the public comment we heard tonight and and whatnot or whether we're planning on having it. Can you just if people are going to come on Thursday. Speaker 4: Correct. When you continue an item, the public comment has already been closed and you're just continuing the council. Speaker 5: But we can always reopen. Speaker 4: You could decide to reopen it. But the typical way is to have the public comment closed in Metamora. Speaker 0: Yes. Councilmember Desai, I'm. Speaker 1: Just going to quickly say that I will oppose this motion because I believe at $25,000, at a $25,000 cost for the November 2020 election, that decision is far superior than spending roughly $600,000 that city hall just simply doesn't have or an April special election. The second reason is because. While Council members had indicated that that the project proponent is at risk of losing funds if an election was held in November 2020. During the course of his three minute presentation, the project proponent himself never explicitly said he is at risk of losing project funds if the election is held in November 2020 . So no case has actually been made that funds for the project from the sponsors are at at risk. No case has been made from the floor, so I believe that the better decision is to hold off until November 2020. But I respect where all of you come from. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr.. DE So I think the best decision would be if we could get the initiative pulled, but we'll play the hand we're dealt. Okay, so we have a motion. It's been amended slightly and seconded. Councilmember Villa. Speaker 4: I did want to raise one point. You know, there are other funds at risk here. And while we aren't necessarily conceding a taking putting, if this were to be adopted, we have other parks that are in jeopardy. And one of the things that several of us, including myself, had asked for when we heard this at the prior meeting was where where would these funds for this new open space park come from? And essentially, would we have to go out and do a park bond? What would the cost of that be? We would you know, where does this prioritize different things? Would this put this ahead? My understanding is this would put this ahead of Jean Sweeney and Estuary Park, two parks that are going to be utilized and are supposed to be used by the entire city of Alameda Estuary park costs, you know, significantly less is already underway, is going to have a number of different uses throughout the city and with our partners. And I think that those are concerns that we had expressed at the at the previous meeting. So I get that six figures, any six figures is a large expenditure for the city, but it behooves us to ask where are these other funds coming from? Because if we don't have enough money to host to do a special election, we certainly don't have enough funds to pay for and reprioritize this park or proposed park over other parks that we have that are already under way, including Gene Sweeney and Estuary. And so I know that it's somewhat difficult to get those numbers together, and we would only have to go off of estimates. But we that was a large concern that was raised at the prior meeting, including by Council member Motor City. Speaker 0: And quick clarification. City Clerk The option to on this item also requires a request that the City Council decide interest in drafting ballot arguments and direct the city attorney to prepare the impartial analysis. Speaker 4: Right. So I was suggesting, if you want to make the motion separate about the directing direction on the ballot argument and the resolution contains like language directing the attorney to prepare the impression. Speaker 0: Okay, that's fine. So then we've got our motion. It's been seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed. Speaker 6: One oppose. Speaker 0: Okay. So the measure passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Okay. And now we move on to item. Speaker 4: No. Speaker 5: I'd like to. I'd like to make a motion. Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yes. Speaker 5: And it's there at the mayor's discretion to it to appoint a subcommittee of two members to write the ballot argument for submittal at our January 15th meeting. I say no. Our next. Speaker 4: Argument. Speaker 5: The argument against not due to the 16th letter. That's just agenda. Is it for the 15th? Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: So that. Speaker 0: So let's hear from the city clerk. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: So let's do it this Thursday, isn't it? Speaker 4: Yeah, the packet for that goes out tomorrow. I guess if the argument could be completed by next Tuesday, it could be on a special agenda with the seven days of advance notice. It just becomes really difficult too for the timing for the argument authors. Speaker 5: I do. So I just wanna say I do feel uncomfortable putting that on a continued meeting when there has been nothing. Speaker 4: No, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying it's difficult to get it on the 15th, even. Is that what the point I was trying to make is? Speaker 5: No, no. What I was meaning was we continue this item to the 10th. We have no public comment and we bring forth arguments. The argument for review at that time. Speaker 2: Let me ask if the resolutions adopted tonight, when are the arguments for and against due? Speaker 4: January 16th, Wednesday. Speaker 2: So if they're due then and if the council is going to consider if, for example, if a subcommittee were to write the arguments, but once all the council members or a majority of the council member wants to sign that argument against, for example, when we have to do it on the 15th. Speaker 4: Well, the council can just delegate the authority to those two people and make a decision about let them even decide who's going to sign or decide now that the four council members in support are going to sign it. But they would have to sign it without being able to make edits. That's typically the way it's done. Most recently, we had a little extra time because we were consolidating and we could give more time. So we did get one on, but that was the first time we've ever done it that way. And typically it's just deferred to the subcommittee with letting them work it out. Speaker 2: And the problem otherwise is that. There really isn't adequate time to draft it and have it on the regular meeting for the 15th. We would have to have a special meeting on the 15th to consider a full council approving that ballot argument against right. Speaker 4: And the people would only have until next Tuesday to draft it, which. Speaker 8: Doesn't. Speaker 5: Always throw my motion. I would be more than comfortable to just add my name actually. Speaker 0: Well, depending on who you were about to suggest, I think this subcommittee I the subcommittee I propose, believes that we can have that language done by Tuesday. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: Well, I did. I mean, I think, you know, I would be happy to put my name to something that I trust you to write something in on the 16th at my name to that without having an agenda. I don't know how Councilmember Odie feels. Speaker 3: Well, I'd like to read it before I sign it, but, I mean, I would trust the subcommittee. Yeah. Right. Speaker 8: Yes. Speaker 2: That solves the agenda problem. Speaker 5: So we don't have to bring it back to the point. You write it and submit it and we can sign our names to it. Speaker 0: If I if I could. Speaker 4: Out of deference to our colleagues who I think if I was in your shoes, I would certainly want to have an opportunity to read it prior to adding my name to it. I think that we can. I'd be willing to work on it to get it back to the city clerk on Tuesday. Whatever works for you guys and we can just cross that bridge when we get to it on Tuesday. If you guys have it, we'll get it out. Speaker 0: We'll make it. Speaker 4: Work. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So. Speaker 4: I don't know if you formally want to move the subcommittee of the two members and. Yeah. And then. Speaker 0: It. Speaker 5: I withdrew my. Speaker 0: Motion. Motion? Speaker 4: Or if you're just comfortable with the direction, that's fine. Speaker 0: I'm comfortable with the rest of you. All right. Okay. Now can we move on? Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: It's the. Speaker 4: Adoption resolution submitting to the voters an ordinance entitled Mackay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility. Speaker 0: Measure at the special. Speaker 4: Election to be held in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, April nine, 2019, and consider offering a possible rebuttal. Speaker 5: An American to ask whether or not we could combine this with 60. I think that the discussion will go back and forth between the two anyway, but facilitate a better conversation.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Receive the Report on the Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District and Consider the Following Options: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; or Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters. (City Clerk 2220) [Continued from January 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6350

Speaker 5: An American to ask whether or not we could combine this with 60. I think that the discussion will go back and forth between the two anyway, but facilitate a better conversation. Speaker 0: City Attorney. Is that okay with you? Speaker 2: Sure. Do you want to combine them? You can. Speaker 0: Okay. So just for the public's no knowledge, we are. Do the rest of the rest of the council agree with that? It's fine. Okay. So just in case anybody who's out there wants to comment on either item. Speaker 6: 60. Speaker 0: Or 66 is submitting a resolution, the McKay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure to the voters and six e is a resolution to submit an ordinance, a competing ordinance, if you will, entitled the Carrying Alameda Act that proposes that voters confirm what the city already did as far as approving this use at this location. So anyone who wants to speak out on 60 or 60, please fill out a speaker slip. Speaker 6: Douglas. Okay. Okay. All right. Speaker 0: So. Um, city. Do you want to just walk us through? Speaker 4: Sure. So, basically six d the fiscal responsibility measure is similar to what was done with the alameda beltline. And as the city attorney explained earlier, it compels the attorney to file that suit to make the determination about if it's taking and then figure out a way to pay for it prior to implementation of the initiative. And so this is supplemental to just try and find the funding stream that is going to be needed if taking the next one is the project that was approved by the Council on December 4th and the reasoning that went with that for the facility and it places that as a competing measure. And so similar to what happened in 2012 with the rent or 2014 with the rent ordinance that the renters had brought forward, the city put its own rent law that it had adopted to allow the voters to kind of choose between the two. So it would be similar to that. And whichever of if both passed, whichever of the two receive the higher vote would go into effect. And I think basically you have the same choices here. You've got to look at the ballot question and then you've got to talk about authoring the argument. Speaker 0: Okay. Any clarifying questions for our city? SO, Mr.. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Actually, a question of the city clerk. So. This open space, fiscal responsibility, the six D item. I mean, can we just do that on our own if it passes? Or do we need voter approval to direct the city attorney as this describes? Speaker 8: Well, well. Speaker 2: Well, what would happen is if the voters approved this particular measure, then as part of that, then the the voters essentially would have said, city attorney, go file an action to find out whether or not there was a take in and what the value is. Speaker 3: Right. But my question was, do do we need that voter approval in order to make that direction? I mean, hypothetically, if it passes, could this council give the same direction after the election is certified? Speaker 2: Yes. I mean, you could do that without having it. It's simply just I think the staff sense of it was that it sort of complemented what was being there in front of the voters. So they knew the voters would know that if they if they passed the other measure, there was a mechanism in place to determine what the value or if the owner would have to be compensated. Without that, they might then they may have a different feeling about whether or not they should approve or not that measure. Speaker 3: Okay. I mean, the other option is that that is fleshed out during the campaign and the ballot arguments and so on. Speaker 4: I think one thing that might be in your favor is just if you take this to the voters in you could say the voters approved this this funding requirement, a mechanism that might be stronger than just the council doing it. I mean, I think that was what was done with the ballot line in order to, you know, let the voters make the full disclosure. I. Speaker 2: That's a good point, that courts if it were challenged in terms of this process, the court would presumably give a little greater weight to what the voters approved than what maybe a council had done. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. So Councilmember Vela so. Speaker 4: Just to be clear. And there were a couple couple questions that were were asked, but. What we would be authorized or what we would be putting forward is just that there be some sort of court action. Correct. The voters authorize a future election, essentially, that that we would be authorizing putting a ballot initiative forward potentially for funding . Right. That's part of this. Speaker 2: Where you would be you would be putting forth. If the voters were to approve this, then we would move ahead to approve the act. Speaker 4: Approve the previous agenda item that we just discussed. Speaker 2: You know, the voters say the voters approved that. Yes. And then they also approved this in conjunction with it. Then there would be a process to move ahead to find out if there was if there was a taking and if there was a taking the value. And then also then there would be a a process that would have to be determined in terms of coming up with a funding source and how that would be. It would depend on if there was going to be a bond measure, then obviously that would take some council action to put that on the ballot, etc.. Speaker 4: My concern is we just heard about all the issues with WW and everything else that if what we're thinking about is potentially going the route of requiring some sort of bond measure to fund it, that we say the words bond measure, why would we not say that? Why wouldn't we put that specifically in here? Speaker 2: Well, it wouldn't because you could fund it from a source other than bond measure. In other words, you could use general fund money or development impact fees or so. Speaker 4: So here's my concern with that. What we just heard was essentially that we, the voters voted on WW and we the voters thought that it was going to be spent on this and that. And I guess my I understand that it leaves it open, but I think rather than leaving it open, at least on my end, I would I would. My question is why it is impossible impossible to be as clear as possible. So could we, for instance, just say that what would be required is going to court? Figure out if it's a taking and then going through this bond process, basically. Could we narrow it so that it isn't coming from general funds or it isn't coming from other other sources? Speaker 2: So that the the only source of funds would be through a bond measure. Speaker 4: Correct. Speaker 2: You could do that. The concern that I think that I would have is that if that bond measure wasn't passed and it would it would generally take a two thirds vote to do that, then that sort of leaves the funding up in the air. And the question is, have you limited yourself too much in terms of where that funding source should come from? And would that would that make the complementary measure subject to an additional legal challenge? Because there wasn't. There was such just one source of funding at that funding was contingent on the voters. It becomes somewhat problematic in terms of knowing that there's going to be a funding source. If you leave yourself some flexibility and options. It's certainly going to the voters would probably be the preferred method. But there might be other options available too. And I don't know that you'd want to necessarily limit yourself by this measure to only one source of funding. Speaker 0: Mr. Asked The question that I would ask is if we were to approve this proposed ballot measure and limit the funding source only to a bond or whatever, and it didn't pass, would we be placing the city in legal jeopardy if we were faced with a taking or some other action? Speaker 2: Well, I think that would that would be a concern is that you have now sort of put yourself into a box and then that box wasn't opened. Then what's going to happen next? You know, the property owners are going to say general funds have to be used instead of some other source. So that would be my concern of limiting yourself to one funding source in the measure. So. Speaker 0: Councilman Brody. Speaker 3: Thanks. But this is just really related to possible compensation to the owner. It's not, you know. We wouldn't be forced to spend money to turn it into a park or maintain it or do whatever. Speaker 2: Correct. This is simply the to purchase the property. Assuming there was a taking the whole issue about the development of it in in some fashion is a whole separate issue. Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any further questions? We do have a couple of public speakers, Doug Biggs. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. First off, thank you for combining the two items so that you don't have to hear from me twice more tonight. Appreciate that. And just a follow up to something Councilmember Desai said. I will not Catsimatidis I did not take me up on my offer to meet with him prior to this meeting so I could fill him in on the on the history of this project. Also, probably didn't take a look at the lease that was enclosed in the documentation with this, which very clearly lays out the penalties we have to pay if this project goes beyond two years. Yes. Delaying this is going to cost us. Very clearly it's going to cost us. With regard to the ballot measures, the additional ballot measures, I will say in our perception, I think 60 or the cost impact study is or cost protection initiative is flawed. I think you run the risk of if it doesn't pass, then and as you said, if it does pass, then that'll give more credence to going for a to a lawsuit. But if it doesn't pass, it's going to give less credence to a lawsuit and perhaps impact your ability to do that. Determined if there's a taking. I think it's confusing to voters. I mean, I think the difference between this and Jean Sweeney is Jean Sweeney. That was a grassroots effort that was highly popular. This is paid for signatures on an initiative that doesn't have the grassroots strength, doesn't have any of the environmental groups supporting it. It's not something the community wants. So clearly, they're not going to vote for them to pay for it themselves. Also, in addition to this, I do think this is clearly this is not about parks. We all know that this is about homeless. And I think it's time that this community make an affirmation in favor of serving the homeless. And that's why I support the Carrying Alameda Act as the companion ordinance in this. Thank you. Speaker 0: And our next speaker is Jeffrey RIDDIFORD. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, council people and everyone here I live on. My name is Geoffrey Bernard. I live on Central Avenue and I look right down Mackay Avenue. I have a Bay View somewhat. The concerns of the of the of the two people. In opposition to the. Seniors. Project. They seemed possible, but not probable. They talk about the the ambulance, you know, activity and and just total chaos is the impression that I got. What I understand about the project is that it is a it's a support based project to offer people who are on the edge of being possibly homeless . So to help them stay housed financially. Financial help and mental help. Physical help and access to. Just resources that just keep people on track, so to speak, in life. I went to the Alameda Caring Act morgue recently and I pointed out one of the five resource reports that I think was from the government woman And then I looked at another one that was 99 pages. So I scrolled and scroll and scroll and came up with a floor plan. I mean, a plan of the of 3.65 acre lot. It showed that one of the major buildings right next to Neptune Gardens was going to be demolished and then built into some medical help facility. And then the three of the buildings, which are just about the right size to subdivide into. Appropriate sized housing for older people and. And it just seems like a it seems like a no brainer. You've got a whole bunch of people out here that have a program. They've they've got a limited amount of commission. They've got funding. If people are willing to help and I think the island as a whole is willing to help the not in my backyard influence I find the most disappointing. Because. You that that feeling. Shows that people don't care about other people. And if more people cared about other people, things would be a whole lot better. Thank you for my time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So. I think it's worth having the discussion of not only what should be in a fiscal responsibility measure, but whether we do indeed want to put that on the ballot. Does anyone want to weigh in one way or the other? Speaker 4: Councilmember Vela I have concerns about putting. I found the wording to be. Difficult to follow. I think as a concept, I think it's very nuanced and I have concerns about putting it on the ballot because I think it detracts from the larger question at hand, which is, you know, which is the question that we're going to be working on revising for the for the other measures. So I also think that since we do have the ability to give the direction to our legal counsel to to do just this. My question is, can we give that direction now? Like, could we could we say in the instance that that other measure passes and that way it's been notice to the public, we can refer to it in our ballot arguments, we can refer to it in campaign material, and we can say that that this is the process that will be followed based off of council ordinance. So I hesitate to add things to the ballot that we can do through an act of council direction. And I think that this is one of those times that I think the council can can make that informed decision and give that direction, and we can give that notice to voters in a timely fashion. Speaker 0: Thank you. Anyone want to weigh in on that? Speaker 3: I like that idea. I mean, I asked the question but didn't think about doing it like preemptively. So I'd be supportive of that. But I don't I don't really want to put this fiscal responsibility measure on the ballot. Speaker 0: Anyone else? Vice Mayor. Councilmember. They saw. Speaker 5: For me, I think I would lean on just not putting this on the ballot. And I guess I would like to hear a little bit more about what we gain by giving that direction tonight. I think it almost opens up the well, we can vote for it. They'll figure it out in court later. Kind of argument. I would personally, if I had my druthers, I think I put the carrying Alameda act on there and I think it's I'm comfortable that our coverage, the conversation our community should have is do we want to take care of the people we say we want to take care of? Or do we want to pretend we're going to knock down 11 buildings and open space in a place in a functioning commercial, federal commercial area for for many, many years? I think in that I think that's the cleanest to use. Councilmember de sucks up really the most straightforward conversation we can have with the community. We can give that direction, but I'm open to it. I just don't quite understand why we would get what we gain by getting that giving that direction now. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai, any thoughts? Speaker 1: No. Since I don't support a for a special election, I think it's for for me, the issues. Speaker 0: So you're neutral on this or. Oh, well, I won't put words in your mouth. Okay. No. Okay. No. So I. You so I, you know, in thinking this over, I know it's. Well, we're we're doing a special election, so these would be all the measures there are. But I still do think that giving voters three measures to consider could be complicated and could be confusing. And I do I'm very much supportive of the Kerry Alameda Act language. And I think to the vice mayor's point that we we do want to take it to the voters, to the community to say, you know, here's the problem we face. Do you want to help solve it or not? So, um, I would, I would be supportive of, of again, I thought Councilmember Vella made a very good point that, um, she's hesitant to go to the voters with an action that the council could approve or could, could give direction to. So I think in this case, less is more. And we can be simple and straightforward with the measures we do put on the ballot. But that's assuming that someone wants to make a motion not to go forward with the, uh, fiscal responsibility measure. Speaker 4: I do have a question. I. Councilmember De Saag had said that since he's not supportive of the April special election. But I think whether or not the special election is in April or it's a question put in November, we still have to decide as a council. So I don't think that I do think whether we take that vote tonight or at another time. I would like to hear from all my colleagues about their thoughts on potentially how we would go about funding this. So perhaps tonight isn't the night for that question. But I would I would like to hear from everybody on that, because it's a concern that I have. Relative to the carrying Alameda language. I guess my question is, are aren't these questions that we could tie in to a valid argument specific to the first measure that that we voted to put on the April 9th, 2019 special election? And because I think they go hand in hand again, I worry about confusing voters. And are we. You know, we're asking them a negative and one and then a positive in the other. And I, I just worry about that. Speaker 0: So to continue the discussion, my feeling about that is a good question. I think that it's important to let the voters know the action that the city council has already approved and and to spell it out. I think that having the two measures side by side gives a clearer choice that I think maybe not all voters get all the way down to the ballot arguments as hard as we're going to work on it and going to be standing. But the but they will presumably read the measures before them. And I, I, I like the way that it was worded and spelled out because I thought the language told the story. That's not to say that we can't, you know, do a little wordsmithing if we feel it's necessary. But I'm inclined to. Keep both on the ballot. That's my opinion. Those are your thoughts. Speaker 3: So all three. Speaker 0: Of the I, I did say earlier and that the fiscal responsibility measure, I think could add confusion. But I like the the the match, you know, the two. Speaker 3: So let me try. Emotions, if it gets anywhere. If it doesn't, we'll do something else. So I would vote to not a motion that we don't put the McKay Avenue open space fiscal responsibility measure on the ballot and that we instead direct the city attorney as the. As the wording of that proposed ballot initiative directs. So if it passes, then we would authorize the city attorney to do that same thing that the ballot initiative would. Okay? Speaker 0: Sure. Are we? You can do something separate on the carry on. Me too. Speaker 3: I didn't even speak on that one yet, so. Oh, yes. Speaker 0: Okay. So. So we have a motion second. Speaker 4: I'll second it. But I do want to hear from the city attorney. Speaker 2: As I understood the motion. The motion is not to put on the. You get what is called the other. The other, the. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 7: Resolution. Speaker 2: That the council would give direction or the council's direction would be as part of that motion that if the citizens initiative passes, then the city attorney's is to is to file the action in court. Within a six month period to determine whether or not there was a taking and to determine the value, etc., as the bee and the other resolution would have provided. That's the gist of what the Council member already said. Speaker 3: And I think the reason I made that motion. Yes, correct. The reason I made that motion because I think it would give the writers of the ballot argument, you know, another possible angle to approach it with if they chose to. And then we don't really have done it because that's within our purview. So it didn't seem to me worth, you know, spending that time and possibly confusion, you know, for something that we have within our authority. Speaker 0: I'm vice mayor. Speaker 5: That's what it's a again, I'm I'm unclear why we are what we think we're getting from this. I understand the were giving this direction but to me the the the the. Proposed ballot language was the the importance of the fiscal responsibility ballot language. Was that it that the voters would say don't enacted until the money is found? Right. And so the direction was given in order to figure out how much money it was so that there would be. You know, is it a taking and how much is it going to cost us before that kicks in? To me, giving this direction now just feels like we're giving direction for some work. But. I'm not quite sure what we're getting and why we're making it now rather than in four months. Five months, once we know the. The results of the. Speaker 0: So to respond to your question, also good question, by the way, people good discussions tonight. I, I don't think they're mutually exclusive propositions that we can give direction to the city attorney now and perhaps also fold in information about the costs, in argument, in opposition. To the to the measure or, you know, somewhere in what we're still going to draft. Speaker 5: So I am sure it's because I'm jetlagged. I'm not I just am not understanding maybe what is being proposed. It sounds like we're basically saying if this thing passes, the city attorney should then go to court and figure out how much it's going to cost us. And are we, you know, in our we liable in terms of taking. Speaker 0: Councilmember Bill, I. Speaker 4: Think my concern would just be it would be another item that we have to then agenda is have another set of discussions on post election, which I do think again one of the questions before voters that's going to be discussed is where is the money going to be coming from? And that's the question that has come up more than once. And so, you know, I think it's prudent to say, look, we counsel. Would like to know one if this is taken. And two, you know. If it is a taking, what what are the costs going to be? And then how are we going to go about funding those costs? I think it just outlines for the public what the process would be, which sounds like that would be the process that we would follow anyways. Passes, I guess my whole thing is why put off the inevitable when we look right now? Because it's already agenda. Speaker 0: And while I appreciate that something similar to what is proposed in item six D was done with the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. I think there are also some distinguishing characteristics or not. They are not the same situations. Okay. So I do believe we have emotion and. It's someone I. Speaker 4: Suck. And I'm happy to hear more from the vice mayor about the concerns or perhaps the city attorney could weigh in about what we would potentially lose or gain from from giving that direction tonight. I just my concern is if we've already agenda is that why not give the direction it then gives that that power to you to take that action otherwise have to agenda. In the event that that measure passes. Speaker 5: This is actually an interesting question. Has that question been agenda? What was agenda ized was should we ask the voters to give us and I'm not trying to be problematic often you said that I'm not sure that we did. Agenda is giving me. Speaker 4: Direction and so maybe some legal action. We can't vote on that tonight. Speaker 0: Or maybe there's a special meeting on January ten. Speaker 1: Just quickly. Speaker 0: Please. Speaker 1: What I recall of the Jean Sweeney initiative was that Jean Sweeney, her great credit ad, obviously found that pass that large parcel and then went about the process of declaring it an open space area and out of an abundance of caution, what the city council had done. I believe this is what happened was the city council said that the Jean Sweeney initiative would not be enacted until and unless funding revenue sources were found. I believe that's that's how it went. So this whole discussion about taking or not then becomes. Well. Speaker 0: And and I would just add that that is one of the features that distinguishes this item from from Jeanne Sweeney. Unless. Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Speaker 0: Unless the railroad wanted to make a ticking clock, but that wasn't what. Speaker 1: It was about doing. Speaker 0: Yeah, but they lost. Speaker 8: But they. Speaker 6: Lost. Speaker 0: They lost, right. Speaker 1: Because because, you know. Speaker 6: Before they caught. Speaker 3: Contract. Speaker 0: So but I do think that the the noticing issue is a valid one. Speaker 2: So it's a valid point. I mean, I think I think one could reasonably argue that it's within the ambit of of the of the measure. And certainly the idea that the city attorney would be given direction to do something. But you're right, there's a distinction between the voters doing it and the council doing it. And in light of the fact you're going to come back on the 10th anyway, why don't we just play it safe and just sort of add that as a separate agenda item? You could take action tonight not to put the Fiscal Responsibility Act, if that's the council direction, but we will defer the issue about giving direction to the city attorney. And then the other measure passes and to the 10th. And that way you have more time to think about whether the vice mayor's issues are should be followed or or not. Okay. Speaker 0: QUESTION Councilmember Thank. Speaker 3: You, Madam Chair. I mean, I'm okay with that, but I'm still I mean, I don't see how we resolve the agenda using notice thing by just kicking it to the 11th or the 10th or whatever it is. Well, I think you were talking about adding a brand new agenda item to a continued meeting, which has already been noticed. So. Speaker 2: Well, we'll, we'll, we'll put it on as a special, a special meeting item. Speaker 3: On the 15th. Speaker 2: Oh, on the 10th. Speaker 3: Oh, okay. All right. That's okay. Speaker 2: We will just do that. Speaker 3: I mean, if we're if that's our concern, then we need to make sure we. Speaker 2: Do it right. Speaker 3: We do it right and not, you know, like. Try to squeeze around all into a square peg or something. Councilmember Square peg. Speaker 0: Whatever we go. Speaker 4: Through, through the chair, if I could suggest to the maker of the motion a possible amendment, which would be to actually move this item to the 15th, because I think that that would allow it to actually be. Properly agenda. Speaker 3: I feel better with that. Speaker 4: I would feel more comfortable. Speaker 3: All right, so I'll revise the motion to continue. I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. I didn't call on. They call it in, as they call it, revise the motion to not put it on the ballot. And then agenda is actually giving this direction to the city attorney at the special meeting on the fifth. Which would be noticed with. Speaker 4: 1715 making it. Speaker 0: The 15th. So does that work? Okay. It's again. Speaker 4: It's past the deadline to call the election, but you're not calling an election. So since you're giving direction, it doesn't have to be done by chance. Right. Speaker 0: That wasn't my question. It's that the agenda goes out tomorrow. Speaker 4: Will you be meeting? Could be next Tuesday with seven. So instead of going out tomorrow for the regular meeting 12 days in advance, it would go out in a special meeting for that same date of 15 foot, which is seven days advance. Yes. Speaker 3: I mean, it doesn't it doesn't. I'm sorry. It doesn't solve the problem. I notice it. But if everyone feels more comfortable, I'll make that motion. Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 0: Okay. So. So we have the motion to continue this item. Yes. To a special meeting on January 15th. It's been moved and seconded all in. I opposed. Abstain. All right. So we have four yes votes. One abstention. The motion passes. Now. We still need to. Resolves this carrying Alameda act. And so we have numerous speakers. Correct? Speaker 4: No more. Speaker 6: OC. Speaker 0: Council members. What are your thoughts? Speaker 5: I don't have much more to add on this one. I know that there were some comments, but just since I think technically we're supposed to make motions and then discuss them, I would propose a motion to to put on the ballot the Korean Alameda Act. And as we did with the first item, to ask the subcommittee if they are willing to look at the language to make sure that that and bring that back to our special meeting on the 10th floor for final approval. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 0: ACCOMANDO We just got rid of one. Speaker 2: Ballot and and also to craft the the arguments. Speaker 0: For people, I'm sorry. Speaker 2: And also to craft the arguments for that particular initiative. Speaker 0: And I'm going to look to the city attorney's office to help us with some initial framework that we can work from. Speaker 2: Correct some. Speaker 4: For the question could live the legal requirements of the ballot question. The advice on that. Speaker 0: It's similar to what we did on the sales tax measure is what I'm what I'm suggesting with that. Speaker 3: Point of clarification. So the. The belt is 75 words has to be done by Thursday at the ballot argument doesn't have to be done until the following Wednesday. Speaker 4: It's do the following. Speaker 3: Right. Well, okay. So we would do that on the 15th is right. I thought you. Speaker 5: Said the ballot question on the 10th ballot. We could do so. That would be the same timing I would propose. I'm sensing some reticence from your fellow subcommittee member taking on too much. I don't. And and another councilmember, Dave Saag, has kind of expressed a interest in staying away from this a little bit. I don't know if Councilmember Odie would be willing, but I'd be happy to find some time to work with somebody. And he thought he was going to duck being on a subcommittee, but it would really only be one. Speaker 3: Change is how I'm going to vote on it. I'm fine. Yeah. Speaker 0: Well, that's a fair question. Speaker 3: That's. I mean, if that's okay with the mayor, I'm fine with that. Speaker 0: Okay. So then for the subcommittee on the Carrying Alameda Act to be myself and Councilmember Odie. Speaker 5: Oh, is it or that that's. Speaker 3: Why you are me and John. Speaker 5: I am afraid if you would like it. But you're trying to spread the spread the word for. Speaker 3: It could be, you. Speaker 0: Know, I think we're going to let council member Vela that that's good. We've we've we've divided up nicely. Okay. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: So we've got so the ballot question and the arguments will be drafted by the subcommittee of the vice vice mayor. That's why I didn't. Councilmember Odie, is that under. Speaker 3: That motion, which hasn't been seconded yet? Speaker 0: Well, I just want to get into the motion, but. Okay, so it's been moved right here. Have a second. Speaker 3: I'll second that so we can discuss it. Speaker 0: Okay. And further discussion. During. Speaker 3: Then why did. I'm sorry. I didn't want to comment on this because I didn't talk about it earlier. You know, we've heard some, you know, folks up here talking about how they've gone around the city recently and talked to a lot of voters. I did the same thing. I talked to a couple thousand people. And, you know, besides people speeding down their streets and their kids at risk of getting hit, the one thing that came up spontaneously after that was this. People would ask me, what do you feel about the homeless center? I mean, and they would ask you in a way like, you know, you have to answer because I'm not going to tell you how I feel. So you have to be honest with them and tell them. And to a one, none of the people I talked to were opposed. So I know that's you know, it's not scientific, you know, it's anecdotal, you know, but, you know, we were out there talking to people about the things that that they were concerned about. And this is an issue that people are concerned about. And I go back to the thing we said before. This is about Alameda carrying. So we can talk about that and we can say this is a value proposition that we have. This is a value as a city and our city can do better. So I, I think this is something we need to put on the ballot. We need to make sure the voters understand that this is a clear choice between having these services which are desperately needed and not having them. I think my my colleague, the vice mayor was very eloquent, said a very stronger than I probably ever would have. But I appreciated those comments because it's true. This is what this is about. This is about are we going to serve our most vulnerable people or are we not? And I think we need to give people a clear choice. And to me, this gives them a clear choice and they know what side they're voting on and if they're going to stand with the values that we share or they're not. So I will be voting for it. Right. Even though I got assigned to work. Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. With me. Okay. So we. We have a. A Motion Council member. Speaker 4: It. And I do, you know, I think. I don't disagree with the proposition of that's being put forward. I actually agree very much with question B putting forward to voters. I think my concern is just this appearance that the council and part of why I didn't want to be involved in drafting it is we are drafting the arguments to the other measure. And so I think it's it's very important to segregate the two things and separate them so that there isn't an. Oh. Trying to use voters. I don't think that that's the goal of this council and also that whatever we're putting forward relative to the ballot question that we would also be drafting for the other measure is balanced and fair. So that that I just wanted to explain my reasoning for that. Speaker 0: Good point. Thank you. Speaker 4: In addition to the work. Speaker 0: You know, good, very good plan. The fine art of saying no is something to cultivate. Further discussion. Council member and. Speaker 1: I will vote no on this because you know, I'm all for a November 2020 election. But even when the project proponent, Mr. Biggs, came up and and made his discussions, my takeaway from his discussions were mainly barbs aimed at me rather than getting to the heart of the question that I raised earlier, which was I did not hear and I continue not to hear specific. Look wording from him that saying that if this is held in November 2020 that he would lose logic funding. So I, so I, I'm not at this point I'm not convinced I that by that argument I heard, you know, maybe people up here saying it. So I still believe that the superior decision is November 2020 when it comes to elections. Speaker 0: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Speaker 5: Can I just clarify in question? I mean, I know we are voting to put this on the April election, but you would support it if we were running the last one on the April. And this one on the November. Speaker 1: You know, this all related to the previous one, which is April 19th over there. There are intimate there. They're intimately related. So. Speaker 5: I guess I'm trying to understand just to see if we can if there's anything we can address. Is there is there something about what's being proposed that you have a concern with or literally the timing of it and because it's associated with the timing of the other? Speaker 1: Well, it's the three issues. One was that, you know, you had 6000 residents saying that they want they want to have this to put to a vote, which we are doing. But from what I might take away from the leadership of that organization is they were fine with the November 2020. Yeah. Parallel to that, I did not hear a compelling evidence that that said that the project will crater if it is held in November 2020. So that's why even on this matter, because it was intimately related to item six, the to me it makes sense that it would be consistent. I should vote no. Okay. Thank you. With all due respect. No. Speaker 0: That's fine. Okay. Anything further? All right, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. Oppose. Okay, so the measure passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. Um. Um. Oh, wow. Speaker 4: That's true. Speaker 0: You're going to go home the same night we arrived. Speaker 6: Um. Speaker 0: We have next on the agenda. We have city manager communications. Speaker 3: No communications. Speaker 0: No, no communications. You say. Okay. And then we have oral communications, not agenda. No additional speakers, none. And any council referrals this evening. Negative. Okay. None. And so. Okay. So item ten is Council Communications. Council members can address any matter not in the agenda, including reporting on conferences or meetings. Who wants to start on my right. Speaker 3: Whilst because I put this item, this council compact that the MTC put together. I wanted to share it with the public in case they weren't aware of it. I will be doing a referral to direct staff to come back and report on solutions that we can do.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of a Resolution Submitting to the Voters an Ordinance Entitled “McKay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure” at the Special Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, April 9, 2019; and Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal Argument. (City Manager 2100)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12182018_2018-6294

Speaker 3: Recommendation to approve agreement appointing Michael H. Ross in terms of the attorney for a term of no more than 960 hours at a salary of $113 a 90%. Speaker 1: And unfortunately, I won't be able to support that. That's why I pulled it. That we have a motion to approve. Speaker 0: I move. Speaker 1: Their second. Offsetting. All those in favor. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 1: All those opposed. I oppose. Others abstain. I'm sorry. Speaker 3: I would like a little discussion. Speaker 1: Let's have discussion. All right. And then I have. Yes. So did you want to make some comments? Speaker 0: I made a point of order. That motion goes down. Correct. Because we had a motion. We voted. There were two. A yes and a no and silence. Speaker 1: So we haven't finished counting votes. Speaker 0: We have. Speaker 1: So I'm happy to. Okay, so I'll go to our clerk. City clerk, do you want to tell us where we are in regards to the last motion when we had a request to have some discussion during the vote? Speaker 3: I think that the people who didn't make a vote yet wanted to have discussion prior to this. Speaker 1: The motion failed then? Or is that just like back to where we're discussion discussing the motion? Speaker 3: I think it's up to you guys because you didn't have a full voting motion to reconsider. We need to have it. Speaker 5: It would have to be something. Speaker 1: So I'm okay acting as though the motion failed because. That's right. I'll go ahead with that. But then could we have a motion to reconsider that then? If you want to move it so moved. All right, I'll second that. All those in favor. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: All right. So now let's get back to being clear about this motion. Okay. I'm happy to explain it. To reconsider the same thing. Yes. Okay. Yes. That's what he had asked for my motion. That's the one we're reconsidering. Okay. I just wanna make sure you understand where we are. Frank, I'm not. You're confused. So his motion had already know his version had already failed. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: And then I think the vice mayor and I may both be continue. Speaker 4: We do it. Speaker 1: Now. He made a motion. His motion failed then and we were in the middle of my motion when she asked though she would want to make comments. And then he, uh. I was. Speaker 3: I would like to. Speaker 1: Situation. Do you want to reconsider? Speaker 3: Frank's. Speaker 1: Okay, so then. Speaker 4: Now we're back on Frank's Ocean. Speaker 1: At the beginning. Okay. So, are you making a motion for reconsideration? I will second the vice mayors motion. I thought we already did that. Yeah, we're actually on the motion and we can discuss. We're clear. When you made your emotions, I assumed it was the most recent motion, not the original motion. So go ahead. Speaker 3: I just would like some discussion, I think. You know, I guess my concern and we've we've discussed this is an issue of making sure that we have continued legal counsel as we transition into the new council and that we don't have an absence of a city attorney. And I think that that's a primary concern, at least for me. If the mayor could elaborate on her concerns. I would appreciate hearing them. Speaker 1: So I'm not. Can I take a recess to ask you about? I can say on the record publicly. Okay. So I'm going to take a short recess and ask our legal counsel what I can say on the record. While I appreciate the concept of continuity. My first concern when hiring any employee has always been their ability to do their job at serving our city. And I have concerns in regards to that. And to me that has to be the primary focus when I'm hiring any employee for our city. And I would say especially a city attorney. Member. Did you want to speak first now? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: So I will be voting to support the the acting or Mr. Roush as the acting city attorney until we hire a new city attorney. I have differed with him recently on his advice to the Open Government Commission on a noticing item having to do with cannabis. But I don't expect to always agree with our city attorney, but I do expect a clear and open line of communication for as long as he is our if he is our acting. And I felt that I had that. And anyway, I also well, I won't go beyond that. But anyway, that's it. Thank you, though, for the motion to reconsider and I'm happy to offer. I also disagreed with the advice and there are been other issues that I've that where I've disagreed. Any other comments from council? So the motion to recommend to approve the agreement appointing Michael Roush is the motion that I will now call the question on. All those in favor. I, I oppose and I oppose. Motion carries for two one. Thank you. Now we are on. To J. Speaker 3: Final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending various provisions of Article 17 cannabis businesses of Chapter seven business, occupation industry including but not limited to a modified the definition of use centers as a sensitive use, including specifically excluding certain uses, martial arts, combat sports, cultural or similar education and physical fitness, and to modify the definition of cannabis business owner to conform with state law and see make any other conforming amendments. Speaker 1: All right. So we have three public speakers. I would like to go ahead and call them at this time. I don share it. Irina Chen and then Marc Hersman. Yes. And you each get up to 3 minutes.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Michael H. Roush as Interim City Attorney for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours at a Salary of $113.94 Hourly. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12042018_2018-6145

Speaker 0: Although we do have a staff member to bring the item five C. Speaker 3: Where the station. Speaker 6: Don't usually give way pulling member and next time to explain why he or she pulled it or I don't know. Speaker 0: On this I think we have a staff member ready to present. Speaker 4: Well, maybe she would just like to know my question for the sake of saving time. Speaker 3: Yes. So good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's base for youth and community development director. And I'm also here with Lisa Fitz, the management analyst from the Housing Authority who works on this issue with the city. So hopefully between the two of us, we can answer any questions you might have. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 4: Do you do you want to go ahead and just for the audience, explain briefly what this fears about. Speaker 3: So the city has an annual well, we have an affordable. Speaker 0: Could you back and forth. Describe the item for the audience. Let's do that. Speaker 3: This is a consent calendar item every year because of the type of fee this is, we are required to file an annual report with the City Council reporting on the amount of money we took into this dedicated fund, the amount of money that was expended and for what the monies were expended. This is our affordable housing unit fee. It is our impact fee that we charge to commercial development that is covered under the fee to mitigate their impacts on affordable housing. So this is the annual report we're asking the council to adopt this evening. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Member Ashcroft And so I have no problem with levying the fee and collecting it. What concerns me is we had an ending fund balance of $144,609. And the and there's certainly a breakdown in Exhibit One of the expenditures, but and there's certain specified uses that can be made of these fees they include, but are not limited to pre-development or development loans to develop affordable housing grants, to develop affordable housing participation leases. Other public private partnerships, and they may be used may be expended for the benefit of rental or owner occupied housing. And I just wondered, in a time when we've seen so much need for housing in our city, were there not some other sources where I would prefer not to see a six figure balance sitting there? Unless you're going to tell us that maybe it's more prudent to let it get up to a certain number and then a certain amount, and then you can do more with it. But now that was my question and concerns. Speaker 3: So we this is a fund that fluctuates a lot because you can have a lot. When Alameda Landing was under construction, we had a lot of money coming in and we spent that money very actively and very aggressively in two years where we don't have a lot of commercial development, we don't have that much money coming in . So it does have sort of a lot of peaks and valleys. So when looking at doing more, larger projects, we look to, as, you know, one of our revenue funds that have a more steady flow of income. This fund, we tend to do special studies, special projects and administrative costs tend to be what we do because we can't really rely on this fund to be consistently the same amount of money every year. Speaker 4: Okay. Well, maybe it's and I'm prepared to vote to approve this report now, but perhaps in the coming year and years, we can talk about if there's other pressing needs that might be that these funds might be applied toward. Because, again, we've seen what a housing crisis we're experiencing in Alameda in the the whole Bay area. But thank you for your explanation. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Do you have emotion. Speaker 6: So moved. Speaker 4: A second. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I emotion carries unanimously. Thank you. That completes our consent calendar. Six. Speaker 1: A presentation providing an update on the Veterans Affairs Project at Alameda Point by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Administration. And we have reason members here to present an energy to them.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the Affordable Housing Ordinance and the City’s Affordable Housing Unit Fee Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001, and Accept the Annual Affordable Housing Unit Fee Fund Activity Report. (Housing 266)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11272018_2018-6198

Speaker 0: And so based upon this, we have 37 speakers. I have had concerns expressed that people that oppose it are not very many and that they received only one minute last time. And so I don't know if there's a that would consider at this time how I would like to proceed. Remember, Audie. I say. Speaker 8: Oh, I said 38, but. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 8: So it may be a lot a little bit too little, but, you know, maybe 90 seconds would be better. Speaker 2: I don't know. Speaker 0: Are you? Are you all at all. So. Are you all agreeable? If I ask how many are here opposing and how many are here? And they were. You don't want to know that. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 5: There are regulations and rules don't specify between supporter oppose. It's really about limiting the number of speakers. This is the second time we've heard this specific item. It's on consent. So we're, we're just, um, I'm inclined to just follow what our rules are, which is to shorten the time. Speaker 0: So I can share with you. When we tried to do the rent issue, we did have like 20 minutes each side or something where we did something like that. Instead of having everyone speak. Speaker 7: We looked at it just. Speaker 0: So that you're aware. Um. So, um. Would people be interested in having? The Council be interested. And so if I have 37, 38 speakers, if they get one minute, then that's half an hour and it's just over half an hour. Is that what you all want to do? One minute. Speaker 7: I'm not feeling that. Speaker 5: I'm fine with that. Speaker 9: Is a second reading. Speaker 5: Second reading. And we have a robust agenda. Speaker 0: And so I'm hearing one minute per speaker. Speaker 1: And a vote is required to suspend your rules. Speaker 0: The rules are actually 2 minutes for the first 2 minutes, so. Speaker 1: It drops to 2 minutes of their sentence. Speaker 0: Right. So after seven or so, the rules are 2 minutes per speaker. Currently, if council wants to suspend the 2 minutes, then we need you to have a motion with at least four in favor to reduce it from 2 minutes to one minute. All right. So a member Ashcraft, did you want to sit? No, I was going to clarify that you need a 4 to 1 vote. The only thing, if you wanted to organize it, if it's even possible, and let the tobacco. Speaker 7: Store. Speaker 0: Proponents speak first. But I don't know how you do that. And the one thing I would say is that, well, I'm not going to tell people what to do, but, you know, you've got one minute. So so I'm hearing you. I mean, is there a motion I. Speaker 9: Make a motion that we limit to because this is the second reading and there have been no changes. We limit it to one minute. Well, you. Speaker 0: Don't even need to make the motion. That's what are. No, we have to have a vote of at least four. Yes, we have to have that. I'm happy to repeat it. So what normally happens is if you have at least seven or more speakers, that we normally get 3 minutes per speaker. However, if we have seven or more people turn in slips on an items and the rules reduce the 3 minutes per speaker to 2 minutes per speaker. However, what I'm hearing from council is they'd like to reduce it from the 2 minutes to one, in which case it does require a motion with an affirmative vote of at least four council members supporting the reduction from 2 minutes to one minute. So there is a motion made to reduce it from the 2 minutes to one minute. The second there is a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion carries 4 to 1. All right. And so each speaker gets one minute. You will see the clock on here, please. No applause so that we can get through this and and help make everyone feel comfortable while they're speaking. And so I will call out five names and then I'll ask you to line up on the right side of this wall. Everyone on the I'm sorry. We can't have anyone on the right side of the wall here and go to the left other than the speakers. Then you can come up to go to the right side. And we actually need to make sure that the people in the hallway and in the overflow do they know that this item is being called so that they are here? We can make sure that the people that are here for the tobacco issue are here. And then we may have to do some rotation. Give me just a minute to make sure that everyone that's turning this up is here as opposed to out there somewhere. Because they have they get to hear the the speakers, the other speakers on this item. So right now we're going to we're going to be hearing the item on tobacco, 5G. And I'm going to call the first five and then you all can line up to my right. I'm a Amy. Linda. Astbury. Samir's sailor. Alec Cora. Karate Foster. Paul second. Speaker 7: Five. Speaker 0: And my apologies if I don't pronounce your name correctly. All right. So. Do you think we're ready? Yes. All right. All right. So Hymie versus. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. City Council. We're here today again to fully support the city tobacco retail license program, but not as the ordinance is proposed. Naito and its retail members have submitted many letters opposing the ordinance as written but not has not been included in the agenda packet. Where is the transparency of this policy process? As retailer workshop staff has promised to create a map and listing showing the retail stores impacted by the ordinance, which included the use sensitive areas and distance between retailers. This was not provided as of yet and not knowing the number of retailers. But yet the city has provided a cap. We ask the following to save the unintended consequences of Alameda of losing Alameda businesses. One Increase the number of retailers capped to about 45 from 1 to 100 per person. Retail motion changed the measurement between current retailers to be measured from door to door, and lastly, to keep the original ordinance language, which allows retail owners to sell their businesses within three years. Thank you for consideration. Speaker 0: Thank you. Linda Astbury. They know this because. Speaker 7: And Asbury, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. I'm here tonight speaking differently than I did a couple of weeks ago because we hadn't really gotten into the comments. So our retailers have accepted the fact that the jewels, the menthol that's gone, they've accepted that. And I suspect there's some people wanting to talk and still on that. We need to go deeper into it. And it's about the ratio of number of residents per tobacco. We're suggesting instead of 2500, we're suggesting it's 12 1250, and we're suggesting that there's a cap of 55 tobacco licenses total. We're also suggesting that the buffer zone, instead of being 500 feet parcel to parcel, it's 300 feet door to door. This is absolutely devastating to these people that instead of a401k, they've invested their lives. And if this passes the way it's presented, 18 will lose their life savings and that we just have to prevent that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Samir Sala. S.M., I are. Speaker 2: Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am here to talk about we, except for the ban of menthols, the jewels, all of that, but the zoning and having to take away licenses from a like a basically like robbing Peter to give Paul. Speaker 3: If I'm not able to transfer a license, it's a problem because after 20 years of running the business, I have it taken away because I can't sell it. So, you know, he wanted to look into the zoning and as far as the 300 feet and as far as the cap. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Alec Crotty Foster Alec C really? Speaker 4: It's great, great. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. It's a pleasure to speak with you tonight. I am speaking to you as a Alameda resident, lifelong. I was born here and I also went to the schools here. And when I left Alameda for four years, I was I joined an organization called Students for Sensible Drug Policy because I am very much against youth and teen drug use and tobacco use. However, the resolution that has been proposed will not actually make a difference. Because how I am. I know because I talk to 18 year olds and like my cousins over it, over Thanksgiving, they can all buy it online without an I.D.. Anything that you do to regulate the businesses here will do nothing to keep tobacco out of the hands of youth. What is keeping tobacco out of the hands of youth is the raise of the minimum age, which still doesn't affect interstate commerce. So you should be taking your time and investing it into encouraging the state to better regulate interstate commerce and protecting the youth. And also these Alameda businesses that have been here for ages that also like any other things beyond tobacco. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll second. Speaker 2: Sorry. I just have homework. Speaker 0: Mr. Scone, or. Speaker 2: Put them up. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I see, I see. He has an exhibit and I. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: But and if you could screwed up, so then we can hear you. Speaker 2: Because I don't want to use my time waiting. Okay. Speaker 0: We're waiting for the exhibit. Speaker 2: But I did it for you, Mayor. I was the one who drove around and everybody had a Thanksgiving. That was amazing. And mine was really sickening. It's really sickening. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 2: So if you look, I dotted every yellow mark and they're all mostly in the downtown area. These are all tobacco retailers. I was able to find that's about 50, 49 to 50. If you notice, they're all really in the residential area. Most of them are closed down because they won't be able to sell because in the downtown area, we're we're too close to each other. So if we tried to sell, there's that there's basically this ordinance has unintended consequences. I've talked to staff, the assistant attorney, multiple people, and everyone agrees that there is a lot of harm that wasn't intended for us to be able to sell our business. I don't care about this flavored tobacco. I'm asking for three changes. These three changes are about small businesses. I'm hoping that you guys are leaders, Jim. I hope you're a leader. Frank, I believe in compromise. Marilyn, please. While I wasn't able to talk to you, I tried my best. But I'm asking for three changes in six. There are 63 currently. There's over. It's over. I put it in the packet. There's over 24 businesses. It's actually now 30. When I did Google Maps that will not be able to sell their business, they put in three 500 free parcel parts of the parcel. Please change it door to door. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Go anywhere. Thank you. It started in January. At least give us a chance to sell our business. That's all I'm asking. Speaker 0: Seven. Thank you very much. The next five people, Kimberly McGowan, if you could line up along the windows. Kimberly and Brandi Long and Denise Zachariah. Then Malia Zakaria and Seamus McGuinness sit. Karen. When? Charlie Kleinman. Sydney Williams is ten. Matt Hussein. All right, Kimberly. Hi. Thank you for having me again. Speaker 5: I'm here on. Speaker 1: Behalf of the Lincoln Middle School, PTA, our community of parents. Speaker 0: Educators and the kids. Speaker 1: Thank you for your recent. Speaker 5: And strong support. When we last met. Speaker 0: On the subject. Speaker 1: I just wanted to say that we as parents and educators are absolutely teaching our. Speaker 0: Kids. Speaker 5: At home and in the classroom all. Speaker 1: About the dangers of. Speaker 0: Tobacco. Speaker 5: And tobacco related. Speaker 7: Products. Speaker 5: Guess what? Some of the kids aren't going to get it. Some people aren't going to get it or they're. Speaker 1: Just going to ignore it. Speaker 0: And will. Speaker 7: I? Speaker 5: You got to take your. Speaker 1: Responsibility for those sort of things. Let's not make it any easier. Speaker 0: So as as. Speaker 1: The community of Lincoln Middle School, we're just imploring you as our city leaders to. Speaker 5: Support the teachings that we're doing at home and in the classroom with government action. Speaker 7: Let's put help before profits. Speaker 0: Randy and then Dennis. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Randy Wang and I'm with with California Golden Gate Public Health Partnership. Speaker 4: And we breathe California do a lot of work helping in schools to provide tobacco related education. Speaker 2: And for that reason, one of the things that really stands out in my mind is the large number of youth using tobacco products because of these flavors. We know that in 2017, the percentage of. 11th graders. Speaker 4: In Alameda Unified Schools. Speaker 2: Who had already used a vaping product was about 22%. Speaker 4: So we think that legislation that you're considering. Speaker 2: Today would do a lot of good to protect youth health. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Denise. ZAKARIA And then Malia. Speaker 5: It evening, Madame Mayor. Speaker 7: And City Council members. As a parent of two middle school students and resident of Alameda, I just want to thank you for being very proactive in putting forth this policy of banning flavored tobacco that you're putting through tonight. Speaker 5: I'm heartened to see so many young people who have rallied and worked so hard over the last month to educate the community about the epidemic of vaping by our youth. I notice the voice of tobacco retailers may be more vocal than the last meeting, but I urge. Speaker 7: You. Speaker 5: Stay strong in keeping this ordinance worded exactly as it is. Your leadership on this issue is the best way to protect Alameda youth. Speaker 0: Thank you, Malia. Speaker 1: Hello. City council members, my fellow Girl Scout, Alexis and I would like to thank you for the common sense tobacco retailer policy you voted for in the last meeting, which creates a strong ordinance intended to intended to protect all Alameda residents from harmful tobacco products by prohibiting the sale of candy flavored tobacco and menthol products. You are confirming how important it is to breathe clean air. We believe this. We believe this ordinance will reduce the chances of any of our friends. We'll try vaping and kids my age. Avoid the temptation of flavored tobacco. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Seamus. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Seamus McGinnis. I'm a senior and small high school. I just want to say thank you so much for going ahead and banning or banning the sale of flavored tobacco products in Alameda. It really is an epidemic. I'll meet a high school has told now lock their bathroom doors open so that staff members can see inside the bathrooms so that they can see any kids that are using these vaping products. And I'd say while I have friends, Alameda High and they say about 2 to 3 kids are taken every day to the office because of this problem. My friend here, Mason Legg, his grandfather died from smoking CIGARETS. And smoking isn't just Cigarets anymore. It's now these vaping products. It's getting to kids and it's hooking them in their youth. And so these tobacco companies can sell them their entire lives and profit off them. These kids their entire lives. Thank you. And we appreciate this very much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Karen. And then Charlie. Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Karen Nguyen and I am a senior at Arsenal High School. And I just want to state that I have a lot of family and friends that are a bit older than mine, that have experienced the negative effects of long term tobacco use. And I don't want the friends I have right now in high school to start using them because companies like the ones we're talking about are targeting my friends. I don't want to see them in pain or any type of negative effects that I've seen in the past. And I know that these companies are using, as we said, candy and special flavors to make it seem like they're safe or to make it seem like it's safer than smoking. CIGARETS But it's actually not. And it's giving students false hope. So I wanted to thank you for all the work you put towards this ordinance. Speaker 0: Thank you, Charlie. Speaker 5: My name is Charlie Clement. I'm a senior and still high school. I want to start off by thanking all of you city council members for taking this action to help prevent. Speaker 7: Specifically teen. Speaker 5: And youth nicotine addiction. I've seen the effects of this in my peers and also in family members. Speaker 7: Who or older. Speaker 5: Family members who have had nicotine addictions with cigarets and now with my friends. Speaker 7: Seeing the signs of that in them as well, using the vape. Speaker 5: Products and the flavored products as well. So I want to thank you for. Speaker 7: Helping to take this step to prevent that. I would hope that everyone. Speaker 5: Supports this as well because we would like to make sure that our friends and our family don't suffer these. Speaker 7: Consequences that can end up being deadly in the end. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Sidney. Hello. My name is. Speaker 7: Sydney Williams and I am a senior. And in our high school the tobacco industry. Speaker 1: Targets children like myself. Speaker 7: And my peers. Why else would there be such a problem with the youth buying these products if they were not marketed towards us? Candy flavored products catch the eye of toad and it make it seem like they're less dangerous. Nearly one in four high schoolers in Alameda have vaped and use these candy flavored products, and I truly believe that this number is probably higher. But kids do not want to admit it. Many of my friends have been afflicted by this dangerous gateway drug. I have seen members, family members suffer from lung cancer, and I do not want my friends to fall victim to the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is trying to make lifelong customers out of us. And in the sale of candy flavored tobacco in Alameda is a crucial step to saving kids and preventing the youth from a lifelong addiction to tobacco. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Our next ten speakers again. And I want to thank all of you for being respectful of all the speakers. Matt Hussein. Debbie George. Antonio Newman. Sir. Sir, in surrender. Sing Cinder Doll. CARR I'm sorry, maybe. KLR I'm not positive in Inderjit Singh Sidhu. Timothy Langford. Narinder Massoud. Ha. The Shins are. Ali Shah's. Bob Secon. Lee That's approximately ten and. Matt. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and Council Member. I've been a local merchant for the last 30 years and I'm not opposed to this ordinance because I want to sell the product to the youth. The reason I'm opposed to this ordinance is because. It doesn't make sense. We are already working ethically and working hard to keep the tobacco product out of the children and tobacco product away from the youth. And we we are already know the the our responsibility. But your new ordinance is not just going to shut down all the businesses, but also is going to take away our retirement. So we have worked for the last 30 years to build our businesses, worked ethically, and now we are getting this results that because of the other reasons that the youth can find their tobacco from their way and you are punishing the store owners. So this is absolutely not right. I hope everybody reconsider that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Debbie George. Speaker 7: I am Debbie. George and I hold a state tobacco license here in Alameda. Run a business here for almost 45 years. And what I see is some some deep flaws in this. It's not that we're these people out here that have the stores are in not in favor of of getting rid of the tobacco for children marketed to children. It's the fact of how there's this ordinance here in there was a flaw in it where if you want to sell your business, the next buyer cannot get a retail tobacco license because you've limited from 50 retailers down to 32. How, how, who who's going to go? Who are you going to get rid of? How are these people going to sell the business when they can't get a tobacco license if that's part of their business? It makes no sense to us. And it's it's not fair to the public as well, because the convenience store is just that. A convenience store. Eventually they'll all be gone. So please hold off on this tonight. Speaker 0: Antonio. Speaker 2: You name it, Madam Mayor and Consul. I own the Valero, the Alameda Valero gas station, and I can assure you we do not sell Cigarets or tobacco for youth. We have strict rules. We have been very careful in our India and I have a feeling that in a way we're being naive because. Now all these cigarets menthols and jewels and all that will be sold in High Street by the dealers that used to sell marijuana, but now are out of a business because they can sell it in shops. So you take it from the shops and you put it on the street and it's a knife of two cuts both ways. And at least we don't sell to use, but over there by dealers and people who will go to Vallejo to buy them and bring here to sell. There won't be any control. Speaker 0: Thank you. Surrender. Speaker 2: Good evening, everybody. And my name, surrender. And I am in the business class. 21 year old graduated from school. And if we lose a license and we lose all kind of a business because cigaret and beer is the best of all and we have in the store. So if the people. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt. We cannot have any talking in the audience. If you're not able to sit quietly, I'm going to ask you to leave. We he has the right to be heard, just like all the other students that have been speaking. Thank you. He gets additional time. Thank you. Speaker 2: We are the five people working in the store and we if we lose their license, we lose all business because all of them depend on cigarets and beer. And this is convenience store. We lose everything. If we lose the cigaret license. You're going to have to think about that. From last year, we didn't have even one thing that we never sell to any minor anything other than any problem. Even you check our record. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Cinder. S I ndr and then it looks like a new word DHL. A new word k. A u. R. In in inderjit i. N d e. R. J i. T. Speaker 3: Hello, everyone. I've been in this business last 20 years and having like four or five employees working for me, generating all tax revenue from the city and then 20 years in one business, that's all my. 401k and that's all I have it after 58 years old, I don't know what to do when I'm selling to that business . So we'd not sell to any minors. And we want to be having less crime in the city. We don't want to be anyone sell on the streets. Also these kind of products. And if we pass this bill today, make sure we pass the online so no one can buy online. Also, people are buying online here and there are they are cousins for their sisters, brothers. So we make sure we will do that one also. So I will say no to that one. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Timothy. Speaker 3: And I thank you for hearing me out. I'm a business consultant. I work with several small businesses here in the East Bay, including several here in your community. I've worked with these people for over the last 15 years that own small businesses. And what they really have is a lot of sweat equity in their business. Many came with not much came from other countries that immigrants inside of them really have built up a life this way. We saw a nice rendition in Nice tonight of Janet having an opportunity to retire and go on to a new life. Their retirement and their ability to go off and enjoy that type of thing is wrapped up in their business, and this ordinance really threatens their ability to do that. So while we sit here and celebrate some people, even though it's well earned and deserved, we are threatening others for that same opportunity. Speaker 2: Of taking that away. And what we're not asking is for it to be repealed. I think the best thing would be working with the business community to find a user, a way to extend it, or give a larger. Speaker 3: Window of time to allow them either to change their business and what they sell and their mix of products and get out of tobacco or sell their business and move on. And so an opportunity to just. Speaker 2: Change that and give them the opportunity that we give ourselves. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Narinder and Air India are. Speaker 4: Good evening. So I'm not in favor of. To this kind of readiness because the problem is. The people they can get from here and there. Everybody's seeing that. But the as a business community, when you are losing your business, you are going to think about that, your business. So you are going to try to sell and get away from this city so they can open there somewhere. It's a it's a both way. If we lose, you guys are going to lose. So the things that. Speaker 0: Thank you. 0vhino S.A.. Thank you. Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Paul Denson, and I've been I've been in the convenience store business for over 13 years. And this ordinance law, a lot of the business owners have invested thousands of dollars, millions of dollars into this business and taking away tobacco license. They actually lose their goodwill. This product will always be available one way or the other. I have three kids, 11, eight and four. I'm also concerned about my kids, but taking it out of the stores doesn't keep it out of their hands. It starts at home. We got to educate our kids. We got to spend more time with them. Bye bye. Banning tobacco license for some businesses that will lose their goodwill or lose their retirement. It does not make sense. If you want to keep it out of the hands of the children, it starts at home. It does not start by banning anything. It's available everywhere. 91. I've been available everywhere too, for a long time. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ali. Al, I. Speaker 4: Hello, everyone. I think if Alameda banned the menthol and all the flavor and we're going to lose the business and the second think alameda city. I think they said the cigarets the regular cigaret. They sell more and menthol and flavor in a city in alameda and the menthol we be listen, we pay taxes. We buy everything for we sell them. We have the license later on. If they if we get bent is going to be in the street with no license and it's going to be more crime, more problem, more fighting like the other city. They sort of like back in cigaret $20 now in the street, $2 $3 for one cigaret cigar. They sell more like the other city and the second think when they you can solve your business transfer if you had if any have been to you, you have to sell something. How are you going to do? Because you have to lose your business and you lose your life with it, if anything going on. And right now we see in Alameda more businesses come in, big businesses and they do more really good. We lose a lot of businesses, small businesses and the big businesses. Speaker 0: Thank you, Bob. Speaker 3: My name is Bob Seger. I have a 7-Eleven across the street from here. We go street to street, the whole town. We find 49 stores out of 49. Six pharmacy degree. Six pharmacy. We have 43 left. Then six are school near to school. So we left 37. But this time through distance, we are losing 24 stores. They cannot sell it. So only 30 stores they can they can get they can sell their store. All the others, all our goodwill and everything goes said goodbye. It's not right. What did you should do? Make that I ratio 15 under and distance store to store should be instead of 500 to 300. And it should be door to door like a school to store. So please do that. Otherwise we are losing 24 or 30 short will go right on the. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. I'm going to call another ten speakers, approximately. Line up on long the right side, my right to windows here. And in fact, if there's any of you that would like to leave at this time, this is a good time. A pause. Thank you. Thank you for coming out and make sure you pick up all your trash before you leave. Unfortunately. Last meeting, there was a lot of trash left here, so I really appreciate you taking it with you this time. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: That I'm going to call for a short recess. We're going to take a five minute break so that we can let other people come in and fill those seats. So thank you. That's. Without recording. No recording right now. I just need to be able to speak to the audience. If there's an empty seat near you, please raise your hand so we can. All right. Let people know. And you are that are looking for a seat. Anyone that has an empty seat near them, there's a hand up. Please take a seat. Thank you. And I do want to remind everyone, as you leave, please take any of your trash. And for our last council meeting, we had a lot of trash left here. That usually does not happen, including opened bottles and cans with had liquid in them. Speaker 7: Very sad. Speaker 0: Let's see how many more. Speaker 7: Be. I'm just in the back channel. Speaker 2: When they get rolling. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 7: Some. Well. Speaker 1: He's looking for David. Speaker 7: Oh. But in. Now. Well. That's. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Yeah. You know, so some of this. Oh. Speaker 0: Yes. No. Speaker 5: I'm already I'm already. Speaker 7: Sure I'm. Speaker 2: Not going to call another. Speaker 8: Band. Speaker 7: There. Speaker 5: And no, I'm not feeling well. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 5: Now I'm dizzy. Speaker 7: Oh. The air finally going. Here. Speaker 2: Already. We are ready. All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to continue the meeting at this time. I'm going to go ahead and call another ten names. And if you could line up to my right and everyone needs to find a seat. Thank you, sir. And if you if you don't see a seat, then you may stand to the left. Otherwise, we greatly prefer if you take an empty seat on the armed. Ahmed. I believe that's the name. Dada Boulevard did air the h u LHR. The first one I called was Ahmed H. Medhi, and the last name is Ahmed. The next one is Shay Overstreet. If I call your name, please line up here to my right. I want to make sure that if we have Ahmed, please come to my right over here. We have a d r d d idr. Please go to my right. Shay Overstreet. We have Shea Turner. Sure. For bronze. The first name is Turner Michael McDonagh. John Sykes. A Neal Pandey and I l Lizzy Veltman. Philip Gardner. All right, first Speaker Ahmed, if we find three. No. Speaker 7: I we don't. Okay. Speaker 0: So I'm going to ask I'm going to keep the names of the people that aren't responding will call again at the end the da de idr. Speaker 4: Good evening, Gregory. I'm also a student, like many of the students before spoke before me, but I'm a student in college. And what I want you guys all to know is that when you take away a tobacco license, you're basically killing a business. And if you look around many of the people that went before me, you'll see that they're all first generation parents working for their children. And these same parents are the ones that put their kids in college. My dad my dad was able to afford for me to go to college to become an engineer. My brother, he's going to college to become a doctor. So what I want you guys all to know is that. That you're hurting the families themselves, too. When you when you remove the tobacco licenses. So it's affecting the future, the students. So how are how are we supposed to be able to afford to go to college when the business that my family is running goes away? Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Shay Overstreet. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 5: I'm here to urge you to support. Speaker 1: Health over profit and support this initiative. The people that I know that. Speaker 5: Use these products currently, they newly use them. My brother's in college. Speaker 1: Am and him and his friends that use them. Speaker 5: They're addicted. They treat their e-cigarette products as being as. Speaker 1: Important to them as their cell phones. They lose them. They're going to find them. And they're newly using these in. Speaker 5: The last couple of years. Your support will protect not only the health of our community, but the buffer zones will protect. Speaker 1: Youth from getting them into their hands, like the people I know that have them right now. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Turner Blaze. Turner. Michael McDonough. Speaker 9: Good evening, mayor council. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. We in no way condone the use of tobacco by children. So the ban on the flavored tobacco is fine. But what we do support is small business. And I think you've heard tonight the effect of this on small business. And of course, we're concerned about the children. But what about the lives of these business people who have put 30 years in to their retirement? And just this was great for the child to go to college. This is real life and it affects these businesses. A lot of times legislation has unintended consequences, and I think this is one of those cases. So the ban on flavored tobacco isn't the issue with the chamber in many of these businesses. It's the time frame in which you do it. So we would request that you start this January one, 2020 to give them time to sell out of their inventory. We would suggest that you do not limit the amount of licenses so that these people do not go out of business and lose their own retirement. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. John Sykes. Speaker 2: Evening. The name is John Sex and I'm a smoker and I've recently gone from smoking a lot of cigarets to vaping saying that that's my choice. And just like it's any other choice to grab a drink or to grab a smoke or whatever it is, you know, we all have vices and I don't. Also, it comes down to money and that's what this world is. This is money, money, money, money. And I just. It's not right. So anyway, I am. I'm for it. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Aneel. And I'll. Speaker 3: Well. Good evening, honorable mayor and experienced. Speaker 4: City council member. My name is Anil Pandey. I am also M.I.T. student and I do work for a small nonprofit and I'm here to support that. Taking away the license of tobacco are not going to solve the problem because you start from the home and school and school job, a school teacher, all everyone's supposed to teach that what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is not good. So by taking away all those license, I believe that a lot of people are going to be losing their job and they cannot afford it. And I will humbly request you to give time. If you decided already they should sell the business and until them you should keep them continue the business because they all have to sell the business. It takes time. So whatever time it takes, you should give it give it the time to sell the business. So that's why I would like to request keep the license until they sell the business, not because of the one year or two year. Whatever time they can sell it, they will. We all have to help you. We help them to sell it. That's fine. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. This is Elton. Speaker 1: Good evening. I just want to I'm with the American Heart Association, Roosevelt. And I just wanted to say thank you so much for your leadership on this topic. Let's remember, this is about social justice and protecting our youth. Two quick points. One is that nobody's going to lose their current license to sell these tobacco products. And what we're talking about is whether the next person who buys that store should continue to sell tobacco products. And I think that whoever buys the store will buy it with the knowledge that they are not allowed to sell tobacco products. And so I'm sorry. The second piece that I want to say is that sorry, just a little thrown off by the comments behind me. You know, kids are vaping at a higher rate. They're getting addicted to nicotine. They're getting it closer to schools. There's good evidence that that reducing the access around schools and child sensitive areas reduces the amount of smoking there's. And on the federal level, we are working very hard with the federal government to push them to remove online sales. These are products that are dangerous and deadly. We're working on many levels to try to reduce access, and I encourage you to vote yes. Speaker 0: Thank you, Dr. Philip Gardner. Maybe I speak on the side and please submit your slip. Speaker 2: Thank you for having me back. Alameda County is on the right. Speaker 3: Side of history. San Francisco passed citywide restrictions in June. Richmond in. Speaker 2: July. Beverly Hills in August. Marin County in October. Today. Today, Santa Cruz passed a citywide ordinance. Berkeley is taking it up for city move their buffer zone to citywide on the 11. Last week, Los Angeles city council. Speaker 3: Introduced the same measure that you have here. Let me just say we have too much data that shows the greater concentration of tobacco outlets leads to greater use by youth. The FDA finally figured it out that it needed to ban menthol, but let me say it'll take them years, if not longer, to get this done. Speaker 2: It still resides here at the local level. Speaker 3: We need to take flavors out of poison. I want to applaud the. Speaker 2: City council for what they've done. And thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to go back a couple of steps here to make sure if you're here are not Cinder S.T.A.R.. Amid a dramedy Turner plays. All right. I'm going to call new speakers now Serena Chen. Louis Schneider. Alexis K You see, h i, I believe. Bride Abdullah, Robert Todd, Irene Nika, Mike Choe and Sasha Shaw for XYZ Eye. Theresa Dames. Paul Cummings. And if you want to see if you wanted to speak on this item, please submit your slip. Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Members of the Council. I just wanted to again thank you for having the courage to take a stand here and follow the lead of San Francisco and Oakland, San Leandro and all the other cities that Dr. Gardner mentioned. Because basically everyone is realizing that this is. It takes a village to help people turn away addictive substances. And part of the village is city government and city government. So the reason why the smoking bans have taken effect and have actually worked here in this state and working all over the country to reduce tobacco use. I'd also like to say that I really feel for the merchants here in my generation. Many of my friend's parents had convenience stores. That's how they started out. That's how they sent their kids to college. But now we know that some of the products that are being sold are killing the same children and their children's friends. So please, let's look at different profit centers for people and help the businesses thrive and be a healthy for a healthy city. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. This might actually be Holly Schneider. Sorry. Speaker 7: That's okay. It's my handwriting. Good evening. My name is Holly Snider, and I work for the Alameda County Public Health Department for the Tobacco Program. And thank you for tonight for giving me the opportunity to share some information to help inform this discussion. There has been a lot of discussion about density, and I wanted to share with you that the State Department of Public Health, a tobacco program, has pulled together research which shows that children are more likely to both experiment with and then become addicted and use tobacco products when tobacco retailers are located near homes as well as schools . And the same goes with density. You may know that tobacco retailers, tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise their products. That's a nationwide trend. I mean, law. But there still is a lot of marketing that happens in stores. That's the one place that marketing is still happening, and that's part of why density is a concern. Speaker 0: So thank you. Thank you, Alexis. Alexis. And it looks like the last name Casey. I am the first name. Alexis. Alexis. Right, Abdullah? Already, I believe. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. Speaker 9: I just want to point out several points. We'd like to request that you guys change the guidelines as far as pertaining to the door to door. People brought up the what other cities have done and taken into account. Oakland, San Francisco. Why not take into account that we have offer an exemption for. Speaker 2: Stores that are similar like mine, Amazon, where we have. Speaker 9: A dedicated smoke shop that has a dedicated 21 and over only room that only. Speaker 2: 21 and over are allowed to access. We ask that you. Speaker 9: Meet with us retailers, you city council meet with us retailers. We tried time and time again to meet with you guys, visit with us so we can sit down and maybe come to some type of resolution. Include us in the process to try and. Speaker 2: Figure out an and a resolution that's beneficial to both the city council, our students, the youth, as well as the business owners. It will devalue the business. It will cost people jobs and lives at work. It can cause it's a detriment to a lot of people's lives. Please take these into account. Speaker 0: Thank you, Robert Todd. Then Irene. Speaker 3: Longtime resident of Alameda and most recently co resident of the reservation in Lake County is Pomo Indian people of mixed origin. I have to thank you, Mayor, for your resolution encouraging the Native Americans and the American representatives very well. When she spoke of the broken treaties and broken contracts that they had with the government. Over the years. I see these regulations as just more permits and licenses and more more of the same. Regulating our use as a sacrament. Our use of our land. Our use of our time and our talents. To benefit other people who have no no feeling whatsoever for us. Salesman here. Our tremendous people. They have invested all their money in it. Can I have another minute? And I won't speak on the cannabis thing. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. That'll be later. The cannabis will be another item. Sorry. Speaker 3: I have to stick around for another one. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: The feeling would be. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. We need to continue this time, Irene. Thank you. Speaker 7: Hi. Good evening. Speaker 5: I'm with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Speaker 7: And while cigaret smoking among youth has declined, the use. Speaker 0: Of e-cigarettes. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 0: Hookah has increased. Speaker 7: Most most youth who report using tobacco say they begin with a flavored product like. Speaker 0: Names like Jolly Rancher, Cotton Candy. Even the packaging is designed to look like popular candy. Speaker 7: Whose names of products they have sold, and they're clearly marketed towards kids. Menthol Cigarets is another product targeted towards youth. It has a minty flavor that masks the harshness of tobacco, and it's popular among youth. 12 to 17. While cigaret smoking has declined, menthol, cigarets and sales have increased, especially among youth and people in youth, smokers, communities of color. The LGB population have been targeted by predatory marketing for menthol Cigarets youth become addicted. 95% of tobacco users who become addicted to before the age of 21. Please protect our youth. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Mike Cho. Mike Cho. And circle and. And then shop her. And then Theresa James. And. Yes. Speaker 7: I just want to say to the city council that. Speaker 4: There is a big flaw in your ordinance that you. Speaker 7: Need to look at the distance and things that are in. Speaker 4: There. It's going to impact. Speaker 7: People who want to sell their stores safe ways. Speaker 4: They don't have to worry about it. They're not going anywhere. The gas. Speaker 7: Stations, the corporate owned gas stations, the chevrons and the shells that. Speaker 4: Are not privately owned, they're not going anywhere. Speaker 7: But people like us who spent. Speaker 4: 24 years of our blood. Speaker 7: Sweat to build up this business and our retirement, can't afford to lose it. And if anybody in this room thinks that I can sell my business without a tobacco license. We submitted addresses in a letter from a person in San Francisco to the city council, and people walked away. Speaker 4: Whenever an owner lost over. Speaker 7: $500,000 of his investment. He just couldn't sell his store. So there is a big impact. Speaker 0: Thank you. TAPPER As. Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening to every console. Sorry, my English is weak and I'm new. The new new owner of a retailer and I'm close by a Walgreen and liquor store. And also. And also if if if if these things bend it or tobacco flavors or tobacco or close by bend it, then how how I pay my rent, my expenses. And I have four children's to and I'm new, new in this country too. And, uh, and I don't know how to, how to pay my expenses and, and, and I cannot sell my business and I don't know what to do. If, as other users business. Please, please think. Think about this other you are business. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Teresa. Speaker 7: Hello. I just want. Speaker 5: To say I get what you guys are trying to do with this ordinance. Speaker 0: But I fear that it's not going to be successful. Speaker 5: The education starts. Speaker 0: At home and in schools with preventing the. Speaker 7: Children. Speaker 0: From getting the. Speaker 5: Cigarets. Speaker 0: Not the stores because the stores are not selling them. Speaker 7: To the children. Speaker 0: And we're affecting as a community of small businesses, not big corporations, says Alameda. There's not a whole bunch of big stores that you're going to be affected. Speaker 5: It's going to be families that are going to be. Speaker 0: Out of business. I mean. Speaker 5: The price of cigarets has already gone up tremendously and the age is already up to 21. And I know the main goal here is. Speaker 0: Now that keeping it out of the hands of kids, this is not the answer. Please reconsider. And also. Speaker 5: Please reconsider the start. Speaker 0: Date. If this goes through, please reconsider it to January 2020. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Paul Cummings. And if you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip at this time. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Paul Cummings. I work for Alameda County Public Health Department and I'm the tobacco control program director there. And I came to remind people that tobacco continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Despite everything we have done trying to protect young people, trying to keep them from starting smoking and tobacco continues to kill more people than anything else. And that's why this is being discussed. And I hope that you will do what you can to protect people so that we don't have to continue saying that tobacco continues to kill more people than anybody else. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. If you were here to speak on this item, this is your last chance. All right. That completes the public comment on this item, council members. Who wants to go first? Member Ashcroft. I will go first. Thank you to all the speakers, some of whom have already left. I appreciate you coming out. I have met with some of the retailers. I've met with members of our business associations. And I will tell you that the most compelling argument I have heard from the merchants is that these small businesses. Speaker 7: Do. Speaker 0: Tend to be owned by immigrants. There's there's a large percentage of our businesses in Alameda that sell tobacco that are owned by immigrants. And and I'm sensitive. I'm both a child and grandchild of immigrants. And one of my grandfathers was a merchant with a horse and cart. But but at the same time, we're balancing a very important interest. And that's the public health. And I was I was struck by the young man who said his dad, his parents have been able to send him and his brother to college on what they've made from their their small business, their convenience store. He's an engineer and his brother's studying to become a doctor. Well, cancer there's a tobacco, there's a known link to cancer, and there's a public health cost to that. And this is something we want our residents to be healthy. And, of course, as an adult, you can make a lot of choices. But the reason that tobacco sales and I'm not talking about flavored but cigaret sales were going down was because such effective education was done that people stopped smoking in the kinds of numbers they once did. And so tobacco manufacturers had to find another audience. And that was the young people. And and we're seeing this there's a lot of pressure on kids these days. I talked to high school students a lot. And and, you know, they turn to things like vaping to to unwind and relax. And yet for some of them and and I will say that even one of the business owners I met with told me I wish I'd never started smoking when I was 16 years old, because today as an adult, I'm unable to quit. But I what I told the business owners when I met with you is that, first of all, we don't have anything like a cigarets cheaper where 100% of your inventory is tobacco. So it's a percentage. I get 30%. Mr. Second provided us with receipts. I get that. What I've said before is that what you need to do? What any small business owner needs to do, even large business owners. You can talk about GM. You need to be nimble. You need to be flexible. Surely you saw over the years that your CIGARET sales were going down, so you were seeing less of your revenue coming in from that source. And so what I'm asking is, of course, we want small businesses, we want the corner convenience store put in other inventory, the 7-Eleven, to send you your inventory . If I'm understanding correctly, they need to do a better job for you and not saddle you with flavored tobacco in a city that bans it. And Alameda is not the first to do that. So they should have some experience. I know the one compromise position that was put to me when I met with the Business Association representatives last week was to extend the start date, passed July 2019. But we're here we are at the end of November of 2018. I mean, that's a good seven, eight months to start selling down that inventory, not ordering more. I, I mean, I will, of course, listen to what my colleagues have to say. But I think that I think it's time to do this. You know, it's never going to be something that is just clear cut and easy. But on balance, when I look at protecting the health of our residents and especially our young people, I just think that that is going to take take precedence every time. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question of staff. Do we have the data in regards to how many sales to use our city retailers make? Do we have any data in regards to retailers here in town? Making sales to youth. Speaker 9: Madam Mayor. Members of the council, Michael Walsh from the city attorney's office. We do not have a a totally accurate number of tobacco retailers in town. The the state who does issue those license will not provide that because it's considered confidential information, apparently. And so we don't have the information. Anecdotally, from the information that's been gathered both by the retailers as well as by the tobacco folks from the county. We feel that there's somewhere between 50 and 55 retailers in the community. We feel that number is. Is fairly accurate within, you know, three or four either way. Speaker 0: That was the my question. My question was, how many of these retailers are selling to youth that we know of? We have any sales? Speaker 9: Yes. We requested the police department to provide that information. And what we have is data from 2013, 2012, in which case there was 47 stores visited in 2013, of which two stores had had violations selling to minors. In 2012, there was 45 stores visited and there were nine stores that sold to minors. The police chief advises that the Special Investigations Unit, which has responsibility for this that took place in 2012 and 2013, was temporarily shut down due to staffing shortages. But the department is hoping to get that operation up toward the end of March of 2019. Speaker 0: So in the lot. So this is 2018. Did you have the most recent data you have as from what year? Speaker 9: 2013 is the last time that there was an organized what I'll call sting or decoy operation by the Alameda Police Department. Speaker 0: What about the homemade account? The county the county doesn't do any inspections. Speaker 9: The county relied on the same information, provided me the same information as the police department did. Speaker 0: So we don't have any data for over five years of whether or not our retailers are selling to use. Speaker 9: That is correct. Speaker 0: I see people smiling in the audience. Honestly, I'm not sure that that's a good response because we're being asked to actually have a financial impact on our businesses. So, okay, so I've already asked if I do have someone in the audience that may be able to provide additional information. I'm sorry, we in an order from the county point of order, so okay. So I did ask staff in advance and I did ask in regards to the county, not just our city. So this is a problem for my opinion. We should have data that is more recent then especially if the peers of the county has data. So it would be nice to have that information provided. So I want to confirm with our city manager that, correct. We don't have any data that our staff is able to provide. That's not more than five years old. Speaker 2: Hmm. Mayor, members of council. I don't have any updated information. I would defer to this former dam because I've been absent from the city for a couple of weeks now. Speaker 7: We don't. Speaker 0: Have anything. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. And maybe staff can help me with this one. Online sales are sales permitted online to the city of Alameda residents? Speaker 9: The answer is yes. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Any other council members who wants to go next? Oh, member matter, S.E.. Speaker 7: Well. Speaker 9: I'd like to move the second reading as written, because what we do know is that the leading cause of preventable death in the United States is tobacco. What we do know is FDA has stepped up its warning letters on tobacco related industries, particularly those targeting children. What we do know is we don't have any control over online sales, but we do have control over sales in the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: A vice mayor. Speaker 5: I'm going to second Councilmember Morales's motion, but with a couple of comments. You know, we heard from a lot of the retailers that they should be able to sell their license to the next person. And then we also heard from one retailer who's a new retailer who said, I have a new business. What am I supposed to do? And in many ways, the solution of allowing the licenses to continue and to turn over like that defeats the purpose of the ordinance itself. And frankly, in many ways, my concern is, is that you're just kicking the can down the road. You're saying, okay, it's going to be somebody else's problem, it's going to be the new business owners problem, and then they're not going to be able to sell it. You know, in terms of the the ratios and everything else, by comparison, we're looking at four cannabis dispensaries throughout Alameda. Compare that with the 50 plus tobacco licenses that are going to be issued. I mean, that's a substantial difference. I also think, you know, if we want to talk about real life, real life is when I was in high school driving my grandfather to chemo. That was how I got my hours, my permit hours to qualify for my license. My grandfather was a smoker. He got free cigarets when he was in the U.S. Navy. He got addicted. He ended up quitting when I was five years old because I asked him to, because it was causing me to cough when I was little and he gave it up cold turkey, but he still died of lung cancer. And it was a very painful death to watch. And that's something I wouldn't wish on anybody. And the reality is, is that we know tobacco is extremely addictive. We know that it kills and we know a lot of things about it now that we didn't know back then. And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of small businesses, I really don't think that the solution is to pass the the pass it on to the next small business owner. I also think that, you know, there is something to adapting and finding new products and things to sell. Part of having the convenience store, the local convenience stores to get items like groceries, to be able to run to the corner store, to get milk, to get eggs, to get things like that, instead of having to get in to get into a car or go across town to get different items, it's for those types of convenience items, and I think that there's still a market for that. But when we start looking at the map and we see how many convenience stores and liquor stores are located right next to each other. My question is, you know, if you can adapt and find a way to to continue your business to sell to the, you know, the local community, that that's just a bigger problem of of what your business and marketing plan. And I do have a concern about having these located near schools. I think, again, what we're trying to do is we're trying to prevent these these sorts of sales happening so close to our schools. So I'm ready to support this as written tonight. Speaker 0: And wordy. Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief because I think my colleagues stated a lot of the things I wanted to say, you know, just to kind of look at some of the the numbers. I mean, a study was shared with us by this group called The Truth Initiative, and they asked teenagers or youth where they got their jewels in the last 30 days. And 74% of them said from a physical retail location, 52 from a social source and 6% on the Internet. So, I mean, that to me is empirical data. I'm sure that there are, you know, merchants on the up and up that aren't selling, but, you know, those numbers are quite high. So these youth are getting these products basically by going out and buying them. So no matter what people say that they're doing, you know, I remember we went through this discussion with with the landlords and tenants. We always had good landlords come up, but, you know, we also had bad landlords. So we probably have good store owners and they're probably all here today. But that doesn't mean we don't have bad ones. So we still have to be able to prevent our youth from from getting these products so easily. I mean, I'll just tack onto Melia Story. I mean, there's a lot of talk about retirement. My both both my grandparents or grandfather smoked and my my mother's father. I never got to meet because he died of cancer and a stroke before I was born and he never got to have a retirement. So for all the people that are worried about their retirement, I mean, there's people that are probably sitting in the audience today that have smoked, that aren't going to be able to enjoy retirement because they they've been purchasing a product. And I think it's the only product except maybe guns, that the sole outcome of that product is to kill somebody. You know, it's to poison somebody. And, you know, my other grandfather also smoked most of his adult life and died of a heart disease. You know, four months after he retired, 64 years old, he didn't get a chance to enjoy his retirement either. I'm sure that some of these young women that that talk today whose brothers, you know, are now hooked, addicted, because a product has five times more nicotine in it in a jewel than than a cigaret. You know, they they may have children, but they might not even be alive to be able to pay for their children's education, because in 20 years, they may end up having having cancer. So they will not get to enjoy a lot of the things that people came up here and told me that they want to have the right to enjoy and the only reason they won't be. Able to enjoy that is because they use these products that were sold to them when they were youth. So I'm ready to move forward this as well. And I thank everyone for their time and for listening. Speaker 0: And I appreciate everyone else, everyone that's come out and focused on this item. I appreciate my colleagues comments. I, too, am a cancer survivor. I too grew up with a smoker at home who did stop at some point. I also recognize that the data I saw showed that 75% of the youth are reporting a purchasing from other social places, not from retailers. And the data I heard in regards to our city was that it was like 95% of our stores have not sold to youth. That is actually a very low percentage in the last five years. And as a state, we have in fact increased the age recently from 18 to 21. And so that many of the surveys are actually based on a when 18 was the limit, not the age limit, not the 21. And I do support the efforts by our state. I support the efforts by our federal government, I think as well-intended as this issue is. I also support banning the flavors other than menthol. I actually don't have a problem with cigarets that have menthol in them for an adult that someone is over 21, 21 or over that wants to go to their local store and purchase a menthol cigaret. I'm not going to hold that against them. And but I grew up in a world where we had the draft when I was a kid, 18 years old, and you get drafted. We do have an army currently, a military that's, you know, 18 years old and over and 18 years old. Actually, in our society, you can make a lot of decisions, I think, by the time you're 21. We I can respect their decision. I also want to make sure people know that I strongly oppose smoking. But at the same time, I do support adults being able to make decisions. And I am concerned in regards to what are we going to ban next? And I so I expect anyone that's under 21. Now we as a state have said, no, we don't want you smoking you over 21. I hope you make good decisions. And I and I do empathize with our businesses, many of whom that we've seen this evening are, in fact, recent immigrants to our country. And if people are going to turn around and then purchase. And we do have a lot of youth here. You should not be. If you're from high school, there's no way that you should be allowed to smoke in other states and in fact, take an actions to not to not allow you to possess tobacco. And that's, I think, actually something that our state could consider rather than making it. Making it up. Making it so that adults can't go to their local store and purchase a legal product. That being said, all those we have a motion and a second. I believe all this in favor. I am opposed and I oppose. Motion carries 4 to 1. All of you that are in the audience, we will now take a short recess. And if you brought any thing that is now trash, please take it with you. Thank you. Yeah. And that we just completed five day and now we're going to do our regular agenda items six a go ahead.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVII (Tobacco Retailers) to Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries) to Require Licensure of Tobacco Retailers and Prohibit the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11072018_2018-6113

Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution declaring November 11 through 17 United Against Hate Week in the City of Alameda in conjunction with the Alameda Unified School Board and other Bay Area cities. Speaker 0: We have speakers. Speaker 4: On that yet. Speaker 0: I have the. For the survivors. Speaker 2: I'm. Speaker 9: Well, I sound like him. Good evening. Shalom. My name is Rashid Shabazz. It's good to see you all. I want to express my gratitude to the staff and you all for considering this resolution. And I think you're intent in doing so. I think in an era of alternative truth. Fake news, truth and lies. I think it's important to distinguish between the situation and our aspiration, the tales we have, the stories we tell, and our stories and true history. I wanted to address this resolution because I think there is a few there were a few myths that were in the material. The resolution in the background. And I know there's some consideration to this, but I wanted to share some of that. First, the resolution initially began saying the United States is a nation of immigrants. And so while that may be true for some people, that's not the story of my ancestors, for my African ancestors did not immigrate here on the Mayflower. They were kidnaped and stolen and brought to the shores of Georgia, Louisiana, Florida and a bunch of other places I can't even name, because they weren't even counted in official records for my indigenous ancestors. They were already here when the settlers and colonists came. And so I bring this up because the narrative a city saloon, the narrative a city tells about itself is very important, particularly as it relates to public policy. In the agenda item, there's also some background that states that Alameda has a century long tradition of embracing diversity and respecting civil and human rights of its residents. Back in July, I gave a presentation at the. Am I going to get all that 3 minutes? Speaker 4: Sorry. Speaker 9: Okay. I don't want no showdown tonight. At the Democratic Club, I gave a presentation where I talked about history, memory, and the legacy of white supremacy and how that informs public policy, and particularly here in the city of Alameda. Some of the things. I'll get to some of the things I share, but I just want to rename something I just said. I talked about white supremacy and this is a historically based system of exploitation and oppression. And it occurs to people of color, whole nations, entire continents have been oppressed. And it's in order to defend a system that privileges some and maintains power and wealth for them as well. And I wanted to define that as a system, because oftentimes it's not called out. We may talk about hate, but we won't call and condemn white supremacy. And so when I think of what happened a few years ago to the congregants of Mother Emanuel, when I think of what just recently happened to those folks, those worshipers at the Tree of Life, we can call out hate. And I also think it's important to call out white supremacy as an ideology. And so just to quickly share a few suggestions, I sent some correspondence that talks more about the history. And for those that have been so kind to share your time and come to my public presentations on history in Alameda, you're familiar with some of the stuff, but that's all in the correspondence as well as a link to the PowerPoint presentation I gave at the Democratic Club that talks about history and memory. One of the ways I think that this history can be addressed is first by learning and understanding it, but then to address the inequalities and move towards inclusivity. I think it's important to understand what the current state of Alameda is, and one of the ways we can do that is by proper collection and analysis of data. And sometimes that does not happen. And so I want to give three actually I think I got four. Yeah. Not three examples of of how this can occur. First is examining the ranks of the staff for the city of Alameda. Each department looking at race and gender by department. Rank and file as well as those in supervisory and managerial roles. Examining the pedestrian and traffic stop data that the Alameda Police Department has been collecting for a long time, and also examining current housing programs and including race as a variable. So that didn't happen in the housing element of 2014 or in that 2015 study that the Bay Economic, whatever that group did. And so anyway, I just share that. And lastly, next week, hopefully the students of elementary school will be uniting against hate in choosing a new school name. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I have a question on the proclamation. I didn't see where it refers to 100 year history. Supporting God O OC is not in the proclamation itself. So we are voting on the resolution itself this evening. So that language was not included here. There is the language. The first paragraph speaks to is a nation of immigrants whose strength comes from its diversity. And that was an issue that was raised a step. Would counsel like to strike that? We could strike that first line. Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: Yeah, I'd be open to that. I think the intent here is really there has been a lot of attacks in recent weeks on immigrants and refugees that are coming to this country. And I think, you know, the intent was to address that and to address the diversity. But I also understand Rashid's point regarding both African-Americans who have been descendants from slaves and also from indigenous populations. So I think in light of that, in light of, you know, the other resolutions that we were proposing to do tonight, I think it's. Speaker 0: It's fine if there's a concern. And this is not language that we wrote. I want to make sure this is we share this with other cities. It comes to us. We get requests to do this. We try to be cooperative and go along with it. If someone has, I'm fine backing it, but it does. The intent is, in fact to focus on being a nation of immigrants. Member matter, S.E.. Speaker 5: I think it's important. I think it's worth striking that first line because it makes the fact that we have a constitution that is directed toward equality for all individuals, regardless. Speaker 0: Then that's the sense it would lead with. Speaker 5: I would I would like it. I think it reads better with that. Speaker 0: So then the first sentence would be, whereas the Constitution enshrines equality on all individuals, regardless of race, gender orientation, religion or political views. And we're already. Speaker 7: I'm fine with that. I also wonder if we could attach the presentation that Rasheed talked about as a correspondence item on the agenda item. So it's preserved in our archives. Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Speaker 0: Were there other was there other correspondents on the side of. Okay. And so then do we have a motion with those without change? Speaker 6: I'll make the motion. I just want to say, I think what we're what we're really striving to do with this is to say that we are we are working towards these goals and. And trying to achieve better acceptance of diversity. And everyone in our community. So with that, I will make a motion to accept. Speaker 0: All this in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Then we go to five l. Speaker 1: Final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Section 30 Dash ten cannabis to add cannabis retail businesses as conditionally permitted uses in the C one neighborhood business and CM commercial manufacturing zoning districts, and amend certain portions of the zoning code to enable cannabis retail businesses to dispense non-medical medicinal or adult. Use cannabis and amend certain portions of the zoning. Speaker 4: Code to remove the expression requirement. Speaker 0: Do you have any speakers? Two speakers. All right. And staff. Could you give us an update in regards to our city attorney? I should actually say, in regards to wasn't there a complaint of some form filed on this item?

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Declaring November 11 through 17 United Against Hate Week in the City of Alameda, in Conjunction with the Alameda Unified School Board and other Bay Area Cities. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11072018_2018-6106

Speaker 10: There was a there has been sorry there has been a complaint filed with the Open Government Commission related to this, contending that the Council's deviation from the specifics of the agenda title violates our Sunshine Ordinance. We've already opined at the previous meeting that we think the agenda was clear and specific enough to embrace the action that the Council took. And our opinion is and will be that that the Council can consider this item on second reading and adopt the ordinance. Speaker 0: Thank you. So we have two public speakers, Don, share it. And then Mark Hersman, if you want to speak on this item, please submit your CIP. Mr. Sharrett. Speaker 2: Good evening. Speaker 8: Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. You pulled the consent item, which means tonight is the time to react to that consent item. Is that the process? Speaker 0: Correct. We pulled it so that we could take. Speaker 8: Yeah, that opened it up for discussion for tonight. And we will be voting on it tonight. Speaker 0: More than likely. Speaker 8: Okay. That changed my whole speech. Yeah. Speaker 2: All right. I'll go ahead. Speaker 8: Don Shaw, longtime resident in Alameda, a retired educator. The hat I'm wearing tonight is an antique cannabis. Operations around kids. I'm dead set against that. I don't believe that they should open up dispensaries by any school. And the thousand foot limit that was put on that before has just been there for six months. Then three of you turned it around and want to come back and look at something different. Want to lower that distance? I still have a problem with child care centers having cannabis around that. And it's just to me, it just doesn't fit. But I'll go ahead here. You pulled it. Thank you. Congratulations for those who were elected in yesterday's elections. And congratulations for those who were not elected because you put your hat in the ring. I think it's commendable that we had choices in Alameda and I'm glad the election process went forward. We are basically charged and you are charged with doing what's right for all citizens. That's little kids. And not to listen to someone tell you from an industry or someone tell you from another group someplace else on what to do. You are independent thinkers. Hopefully you stay independent that way and can make up your own mind on a lot of these decisions. This is one of them. Why change something that's only been on the books for about. Six months. Why not let it play out for a while and see what happens? Look at other cities that have had similar audiences. San Leandro is a good example. And where do these cannabis places end up? Not by kids, not around daycare centers, not around someone's house who has kids there. So I'm definitely opposed to that. Don't cave in to the cannabis industry. Since day one. You hired a. Cannabis, what I believe a cannabis boilerplate consultant who came into this city and put together what was going to be the ordinances for the cannabis. Take a look at what that was. It was a boilerplate from the industry, as far as I'm concerned. You want to move forward. So why the rush? Why is the fast momentum to change this ordinance? Again, are there some violations, some of the Brown Act? Who is pushing the agenda? And again, thank you for pulling it from the consent. Real fast story was out of Peter Pan the other day and at the Halloween parade, and one of our good citizens was smoking his grass out the window of his house right by that where all the kids are. Thank you for that. Second is, I hope that you really know what you're doing as you move forward with us. And I trust the fact that you'll listen to people and consider your own mind. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mark Hersman. And then if there's anyone else that wants to speak on this item, please submit your stuff now. Speaker 8: Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Council. I sent you a letter this afternoon and I would like to read that into the record now, if I may. Dear City Leaders, as we approach final passage of the updated cannabis ordinances, it's come to our attention that a handful of local anti cannabis citizens have made a last minute appeal to broaden the definition of sensitive use sites, which require a 600 foot buffer zone around a retail cannabis dispensary in order to protect children from exposure to cannabis. As you consider this last minute appeal, we ask that you also consider the following facts. It has been two years since Councilmember Odie first submitted the referral to consider cannabis cannabis business presence on the island. We cannabis business operators have been waiting patiently and there clearly has been enough time for public comment on this issue. Retail cannabis dispensaries must comply with the following safeguards in an effort to keep cannabis out of the hands of children. Exterior windows must be opaque, with no cannabis products visible from the street. Signage must be minimal and approved by the planning department and must conform with community standards. IDs are checked at the door by a licensed security guard. Then, upon entry to the dispensary, that idea is then scanned into the customer or patient profile in the computer and recorded as having visited the dispensary. This is a state tax track and trace requirement. All cannabis products are to be tested for purity and potency and label as such, and all cannabis products must be sold in child resistant packaging. Also, the application for a conditional use permit allows neighbors and businesses within 300 feet of operation to weigh in on the establishment of a retail dispensary. As long term Alameda residents and parents of children ourselves, we at Portland Enterprises share these concerns regarding keeping cannabis out of the hands of children. Anecdotal evidence. Com coupled with scientific studies, show that cannabis has real therapeutic benefits for adult patients and a wide array with a wide array of ailments and new uses and discoveries with therapeutic use of cannabis are happening in real time. We are committed to providing cannabis and cannabis information that promotes medicinal wellness and responsible use by our patients and customers. In conclusion, we believe the safeguards noted above provide the best possible balance between safe access for adults who should be free to make choices about how they treat their own ailments and the protection of children. Prohibition has clearly failed, and we are striving to advance a solution that will replace illegal street dealers, many of whom have no reservations about supplying cannabis to our children with regulated and responsible businesses. We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive approach to this issue, and we sincerely ask that you not backtrack on progress at this final hour. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Member, Odie. Speaker 7: Thank you, madam. I just had a quick question from staff. Who's doing this, John or Debbie? John, you're doing this. So I think there was a comment from a resident about a thousand foot radius. I'm looking at staff report, page 22. It does say no cannabis business. Engaging in dispensary, retail or dispensary delivery shall locate within a 1000 foot radius of a public or private school. So we didn't change that, even though the state law says 600. And the school district requested a thousand and we kept that. Isn't that correct? Speaker 9: And John Lane, assistant city attorney, that's my recollection. I think we did change. Speaker 2: I think we went to a two tier system. Right. Speaker 7: But the comment was made that we somehow we got rid of the thousand foot buffer between, you know, the thousands to make sure that the never changed risk was not what we did. Speaker 9: That's correct. We've always had that thousand foot buffer for schools and see the as a U.S. resolution. That's correct. Speaker 3: And that would be for public as well as private schools. So all schools have a 1000 foot buffer or around schools for the location of the retail dispensaries. Speaker 0: And can you go over what's this, the footage for the daycare centers, licensed daycare centers. Speaker 3: Licensed daycare centers, 600 feet, as well as all other sensitive uses, have a 600 foot buffer zone. Speaker 0: And the 600 feet is actually the same as with the state law. Speaker 3: Is that correct? Well, the state law is 600 feet in the absence of a jurisdiction. Speaker 4: Having any buffer zone. Speaker 3: Of its own. So if if the city did not have a buffer zone around sensitive uses, it would be 600 feet by default. But the city has proactively established a two tier buffer system. That's what's reflected in the ordinance, actually. Five M, not five L The ordinance that's being contemplated as item five M would establish that two tier buffer system. And that's the second reading this evening. Speaker 0: And the two tiers is that for K through 12 schools, public and private, it's 1000. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 0: Which is more than the 600 feet of what the state requires. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 0: And then the 600 feet is for the licensed daycare centers and youth centers as defined in our ordinance. Speaker 3: That's correct. And I would like to point out that there has been some correspondence that the council has received regarding whether or not martial arts studios should be considered. Youth centers and staff does believe that there is some ambiguity around that issue. And what we would propose is to come back to council at its November 27th meeting with a discussion about that definition and with some suggested language and a draft ordinance at that time. But staff believes, as the attorney office reported out, that council can move forward this evening with the second read for the land use ordinance, as well as the regulatory ordinance. And then we would come back with an opportunity on the 27th for a robust discussion around clearing up any kind of ambiguities around the definition of youth centers. That's in our existing ordinance. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Remember? Speaker 7: Is that an appropriate motion to give through? Four, five, 5 a.m.. I mean just. Speaker 3: It's really it's really covered in five the M the regulatory ordinance as opposed to five L the land use ordinance. Speaker 0: So in regards to five L, it stuff's a city attorney's legal opinion that we can proceed with the final passage of the ordinance. Speaker 8: Yes. Speaker 0: Any other questions from council members? Speaker 6: Just want to make sure that since there was a sorry there was a letter sent in and an open government complaint filed that there aren't any other speakers. Before we make a decision on this, just. Speaker 0: Do we have any other speakers on this item? Not on the Senate, but on the next item. All right. All right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: Do we have a motion to proceed with this? Speaker 7: So moved. Speaker 6: Second. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I. I. All those opposed. No. Motion carries 3 to 2. I am. Speaker 1: Final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 16 cannabis businesses of Chapter six businesses, occupations and industry to eliminate the cap on testing laboratories allow for two additional cannabis businesses to operate as dispensary delivery delivery required within the zoning district for cannabis retail. Amend the disposition requirement to require no more than two cannabis retail businesses to operate on either side of Grand Street. Create a two tier buffer zone from sensitive uses for cannabis businesses. Amend certain portions of the regulatory ordinance to enable cannabis retail businesses to dispense non medicinal and adult, use cannabis and modify requirements for off island delivery and make other clarifying. Speaker 4: Or conforming amendments thereto. Speakers like.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (2) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, and (3) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement. (Economic Development)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11072018_2018-6107

Speaker 0: And I just want to clarify. From a city attorney or staff in regards to this proceeding, with this item. Speaker 10: This is appropriate as well. We did receive an open government complaint, but once again, as I stated previously, it's appropriate for counsel to consider this now on second reading. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have six speakers as my understanding. So then each speaker gets up to 3 minutes. Just so you all know, if we had seventh and it's 2 minutes each, but we're at six, so it's still 3 minutes each. So our speakers are Sarina chan and Don share it. Enrich Moscow with the Ryan cabal. Philip Read and then Andrew Huntoon. If you want to speak on asylum, please submit your slip. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer, members of the council. My name is Sabrina Chan. I've lived here for over 20 years and moved here so that my son could attend Alameda Public Schools, which he did and did quite well. I'm here because I spent the past 30 years in public health trying to protect youth and trying to protect the public health of everyone through tobacco control laws. So when this cannabis law came forward, I said, Why don't we apply everything we've learned about public health to cannabis so that we get it right from the start and not just rush into it. So when I saw that the vote was coming up on October 16th, I read with great interest what was on the agenda and what was on the agenda. Said that you would be adding a delivery only to delivery only dispensaries conditionally permit delivery only dispensaries closed to the public in the sea zone. So when I looked at that, I said, Well, if they're delivery only and they're in a m zone, I didn't have any particular question about it, although now I do have to. But to me, that's a delivery only location where it's kind of a company where they just get cannabis and deliver it and they do not have public access. So I was in Iowa that day and when I came back I was too tired to come to the council meeting. But had I known this was going to magically change on the agenda, I would have come the during the after public comment was closed off, this council decided to change the permit delivery only dispensaries which were closed to the public into two full service cannabis dispensaries in which the public would be welcome to come. So that would be doubling the number of permitted recreational cannabis dispensaries in this city. And in my humble experience, as someone who fights for public health policy, I've often been told whenever you have a substantive change in an ordinance, you need to start over again, come back with the proper language, and then reintroduce it so the public has a chance to comment on it. So that's why I really felt that it was a violation of our Sunshine Ordinance, which warns people in advance as to what's going to happen. And my, in my opinion, a delivery only dispensary that's stipulated close to the public is not the same as a full service recreational marijuana dispensary. So adding those to that night without public comment, I felt was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. And then just as a matter of information. All of you felt that the Ruby tablet tumbling was a youth center in which very young children tumble. So in my estimation, a martial arts center, a martial arts clinic, is a place where a lot of youth attend. So that's a definition I think we really need to look at. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Don't share it. And then Rich Moskowitz. Speaker 8: Welcome again. I get my 3 minutes. Yes, you heard a lot of reasons why on that first part. But the second part that I have in this ordinance. You're looking at changing some things that were in the original. Again, the original order that was passed and there's a lot of gaps in here that I totally don't understand. I wish we had more time to debate them. I hope that no one on your staff has cannabis interests and no one from the city manager on down, as ever been involved with cannabis industry because it looks like again, here we go, let's work work it out so those people can get what they want and do what they want in the city of Alameda. You know, you look at this thing, eliminate the cap on testing laboratories. What's that mean to go on to 20 ad to delivery only dispensaries? I can understand that one. Dispensaries again and delivery allow adult use. Fine. Adult use is legal. That's okay. Create a two tier buffer zone from sensitive uses for dispensaries and cultivation businesses. What's a two tier? Buffer zone. Two blocks. Thousand feet. 200 feet. What does that mean? I don't know who wrote this, but I think they'd better start. Explain it a little bit better to the public, or at least give the public a chance to look at it and maybe get a chance to react to it if that's your business. Better start doing a clearer. Okay. That's it for me. I don't like it. I'm speaking against it. And I hope it's more than a32 vote again. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Rich Moskowitz. Speaker 10: Mayor. Vice mayor. City Council members, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Rich Moskowitz. I've been in Alameda for 14 years and for the last year and a half, two years or so, it's been my privilege to be involved in this issue. My first exposure to Alameda politics and quite honestly, separate from the cannabis issue, I started to learn a lot about our government. I've attended a lot of these meetings and it's been an interesting but wonderful experience. Also as primary founder, one of the founding members of ASCO, the group that worked on medical law last year and the founding member of Alameda Cannabis Times to work on the recreational issue this year. And also the author of the ballot measure that we're trying to put to bed tonight. So I want to address one of the things I've heard tonight. Just to be very clear, I believe all of you are very clear on this. We've worked hard together to establish a very sensitive ordinance that has exceeded the state requirements when it comes to schools by 40%. And additionally, we've added a list of sensitive sites that's not good for the schools. Before you, tonight is the culmination of a lot of hard work on both sides. And I also want to address what I've just heard is I was personally involved last year at the Mastic Center in putting on an education program for the city. And back in July. Just one other thing to address. I heard tonight I'm not sure who is from that. One of the speakers felt that you up the dispensary's and you did it without them realizing it. But to bring everyone's attention back to the July meeting, your group passed four dispensaries and two additional deliveries. When we came back, the city staff had changed that to consider deliveries dispensaries. I was at that planning board meeting and the logic behind that was discussed there and summarily somewhat rejected without time assured. I won't keep doing. I won't go down that road. We can all look at those tapes. I'm here tonight to urge you to pass the ordinance. As it stands, the issue I'm very aware of that has come up is a clarifying issue. I appreciate the staff's position that this would be a second reading and the clarifying issue would be part of a rigorous debate, as it should be on 1127. And quite honestly, if there's something I've learned in the last two years is we as comedians are really great at a vigorous debate. So I urge you tonight to pass this ordinance and finish the work that we've all been doing here in 2018. And we've really all started this two years ago. This is not to do anything but to provide a benefit for Alameda. And as Mark Herdsman said earlier, we are very concerned that we want this to be safe. We want this to be off our streets, and we want this to be accessible to everyone. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ryan Agbal and then Philip read. Speaker 9: Hello, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, thank you for joining us tonight. My name is Ryan Agbo. I was born and raised here in Alameda, so that's 34 years. And you know, just what I'm bringing it to everybody's attention that, you know, Kansas has been cannabis has been here on the island this whole time and there's been no dispensaries. And like my cousin said, you know, the dealers that are on the street, they don't check for it. So the safest way to keep cannabis out of the hands of youngsters is to have dispensaries, because dispensaries tend to dispel dealers because, you know, people don't want to go deal with some some some guy out of their apartment. They want to go to an establishment and they want to they want to be, you know, treated with respect. So, you know, just dispelling that that whole argument that it's opening a dispensaries is going to put it in the hands of kids that just don't seem to make sense. No one goes to a dispensary and and accept. No, no one go. No kids aren't allowed in surgery. So that's yeah. That's just a a pointless argument going to the the other the other point of trying to equate cannabis to Cigarets. That's another argument that doesn't make any sense at all because, you know, there's no no kind of evidence, no kind of amendment, no kind of proof that tobacco has any kind of benefit, medicinal benefit to to anyone. All it does is harm people. So to equate cannabis and cigarets just because you're smoking something, I think that speaker should rethink that because cannabis is proven to to help a number of of individuals, whether it's cancer or, you know, even something as small as sleep issues. And so, you know, we we're so we're so quick to judge people who who use a certain medicine, but yet, you know, we're okay with going to CVS and going see a pharmacist or going to a liquor store and grabbing a bottle. And, you know, for some reason, cannabis has a stigma around it. So tonight, I mean, I'm up here to urge the city council to proceed with the second with the second reading. And also, I mean, if it's possible to maybe get the clarifying language tonight, you know, it's as simple as limiting these youth centers to businesses that cater 100% to youth. If it's something like a karate studio where, you know, for example, there's one on Webster Street, it's a taichi qigong institute. I would not consider that a youth center. I don't see kids trying to take qigong or tai chi. I mean, it's usually for adults. So, you know, there's that. Does it make any sense to try to make that a youth center when it's not primarily used for or catered to to the youth? So that's all I I've got to say. Again, I encourage you to move forward with with this reading. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Philip Read and then Andrew Hunter. If you want to speak on the side and please submit your. Speaker 8: Hi. My name is Phillip Red and I'm a local cannabis activist. I agree. Speaker 0: With apologies. I have to interrupt, but we just received another slip, which means from this point forward we have had seventh and now the time amount changes reduce us to 2 minutes and we will start your clock at the two. And I apologize that that that's the policy. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 8: I agree with everything the second speaker said. We've been dealing with this for far too long, and we've covered this exact issue in the past. We've already agreed on this, and there's no reason to change course at this point. Just to let you know a story about a city I was in for a while, Spokane, where some rich guy decided to use arcades as a way to block the Green Zone in his town. He could afford property and he just started sprinkling garbage arcades all over town. Now, city ordinance eventually kicked in and decided to make that no longer a protected use. But what it was, was one person's opening their wallet and closing the whole green zone for the city. So be careful of that happening. I don't think any Ruby tumblers are going to be going into the cannabis stores and they'll be passing a lot of bars on the way there so they get their IDs checked on the bar. Don't know really what you're worried about. I think the first speaker is kind of misinformed. There's no winners or losers declared in these races yet, and we're still 10,000 votes away from declaring a winner. He was also misinformed about the dangers dispensaries pose to kids. There are dispensaries are here to protect kids and the stores are provide many safeguards for that. And that proves that marijuana is safer than alcohol. Once again, they can go into any store in shoplift or a marijuana store or they can't even go inside the building. I personally have my own agenda in cannabis. I think that I want to see access for everybody and I have unlimited access to cannabis personally, and I've been giving away free cannabis all over town at certain fairs and events. The Beer and Wine Festival I've been in concert at The Cove. Kids are present handing out free weed. Nobody can stop me. So why don't you guys give safe access and I'll knock off the free access. All right? Otherwise, somebody else might do exactly what I do, but they'll use it as a gateway to sell harder drugs. And believe me, it's not that hard. Speaker 0: Thank you, Andrew. And Andrew Hunter and then Roslyn Moya. Andrew, and go ahead. Sorry. If you are sorry, you got can be quiet so we can appreciate those speakers. Thanks so much. Speaker 5: My name is Andy Huntoon. I'm essentially a 70 year Alameda resident. And I think that we need to recognize that there's a big difference between regulating a legal industry or nit picking a legal industry out of existence. They were confined to an island. And if the intent is that we were to have two dispensaries, one on either end of town, putting a yardstick on it and finding that they intersect by by even eighth of a mile in the middle of town is a ridiculous restriction. We're handcuffing ourselves and punishing our citizens by dragging our feet on this issue. I urge you to pit past this, and if any other regulation needs to be made, talk it over and come up with a respectful answer that accommodates the citizens of Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 11: Thank you. Roslyn lawyer. Speaker 1: Hi. Sorry for my Late Edition there. I didn't know that this was on the agenda that we were changing or increasing from, um, deliveries to dispensaries. So I just wanted to mention my being against that, mainly because I've passed by dispensaries and they look very scary. They have an armed guard person in the front with a gun and they have barred windows. It's just not something I want to see in my neighborhood. I also I grew up with people who used marijuana regularly and it just is not good for public health. We don't need that in Alameda. I think that the delivery systems can get to the people that need it, but we don't need dispensaries. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. That completes our public comment on this item Council. Do you have any mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, in the circle back? Remember Ashcroft. Okay. Thank you. Just from the top, I'm going to vote to oppose this only because I have said all along that I wanted us to go slow and start small on our marijuana businesses, because it's what I learned from attending a number of seminars and educating myself. And I was concerned about the impact that the opening up to all the different businesses would have on staff, time, regulation, enforcement. But I do want to go back to something that the first speaker said that I took exception to, and that was an inference that on our staff we might have people who are involved in cannabis businesses that might have some underhanded reason for the regulation. I think there was also an inference that we had I can't quite remember the reference to the the consultant we used, a cookie cutter consultant or something like that. I attended an all day seminar in Santa Clara and it's probably a couple of years ago now put on by that consultant. It was extremely impressive. They're very knowledgeable. They have experience all over the state. I did not feel that they were advocates, but I know city staff even better and I can impeach for I can vouch for their integrity. And so while I don't agree with everything that has been proposed and I will say to Mr. Cohen, I am concerned that I do think we made a significant change in the ordinance by adding the adult use dispensaries that weren't noticed. But I you know, I'm not the city attorney, so I'll I'll defer to you on that one. But I would never suggest that someone had a less than honorable reason. Our staff are professionals and I just wanted to make that public. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: So I think part of the fix is that we've pulled the item tonight. We've heard from everybody on this topic. I've read the correspondence. I think it's our intent to address the questions that have been raised relative to defining what is a youth center. And I will say that that to me saying, well, Ruby's tumbling is similar to a martial arts studio. Pretty sure that at Ruby's tumbling, it's marketed to people like my niece who are toddlers and doing tumbling classes. And yet, yes, there are parents that go there. They go there to watch their kids participate in classes. It's certainly not marketed to adults. And part of our intent is really to make sure that there are businesses, there are spaces that businesses can locate. I've gone to a number of meetings on this. I've been working on this issue since 2011 when I was working for the state of California. I visited a number of different facilities. I think that there are correct ways and safe ways to do this and there are best practices, and I certainly think we're working towards those. But we've also not we've also limited where dispensaries and different cannabis businesses can locate. And when we do that, we can't then say and now we're going to put in all these other things that limit the distances, such that there's no place that you can locate. Because effectively that's what we tried the first time we did the RFP. And what we found was there weren't a lot of applicants and in certain cases we had zero applicants. And what we were getting feedback from, from folks that were originally interested in locating here was that they could not find space. And when they started doing the measurements, they would be a couple of feet within the 600 feet or a couple of feet within the thousand feet, or they would be within so many feet of another potential location. And so that was the intent, at least my intent, behind the changes that we gave that I gave directing staff last time. I also think that at least again, my reasoning, the number of delivery only we had proposed to that was something that we had talked about before. My mother had breast cancer this year. She did not want to take opiates because of addiction issues and everything else. She went through several rounds of chemotherapy. I went to every session with her and sat there and watched her get chemo. I took care of her after chemo for several nights. The only thing that got her through it. Was cannabis. It helped her keep food down. It helped her. And. And part of it. She was so weak by the end, she couldn't go and pick up the cannabis that she was taking. And my mother's. Absolutely. Anyone who's met my mother, she's an SNL alum, never done drugs in her life. One of the cleanest cut people you've ever met. Absolutely hate smoking. Totally opposes it. Did not smoke any cannabis. She consumed it, but she went to a dispensary. Prior to starting chemo, she did a consultation with a couple of people at a couple different dispensaries. She tried to be as educated as she could. She talked to her pharmacist. She talked to her doctor, tried to figure out dosage. And she she went with edibles and topicals. And unfortunately, not all dispensaries provide the same products. They all it's kind of like a, you know, a boutique shop. They carry certain products. So we had to go to a couple of different places to get her medicine. And she got so weak that she couldn't go, I would have to go. And not all of those dispensaries even offered delivery. And through the delivery only services there were really limited. And she couldn't go and get that consultation and that retail experience that she could at a dispensary. And what happened between when we first started discussing this issue and when we made the decision at the last meeting, was that the state started treating delivery only operations similarly to retail dispensaries. So the state started saying retail delivery only. You have to have all you have to meet all the benchmarks of a retail shop. So you have to have all the security provisions. You have to go through all of these different steps, but you're only limited to delivery only. And so for that reason, what I what I said was, rather than having four dispensaries or, you know, two dispensaries here and not having that equity, let's go ahead and have four dispensaries total. Two of them have to offer delivery. And so in my mind, it was kind of merging what we were originally talking about rather than adding to it. And I take the security provisions very seriously. It's I don't want some place that a kid could walk into. There should be a security check. I don't know about an armed guard outside, but there should be a security check. I don't want advertising outside. I want to make sure that track and trace is followed to a tee so that we know what's being sold and to who and when. That's very important. The state has has made this one of the most regulated substances out there. That's a good thing. And I think we do have cannabis and we have a cannabis black market right now. Certainly when I was going to school, the easiest place to get it was at school. And I don't think that that's how it should be. I think we need to get rid of that and I hope that this will address it and this will do it in a regulated way. But I do want to make sure that we we have that robust conversation relative to what is a youth center and that we follow staff's recommendation to separate that out and have that meeting on the 27th. And we can have that continued conversation then. But I plan to move forward tonight with with the other changes. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 7: BRODY Thank you, Madam Chair. I would agree with pretty much everything my colleague said. I do want to have that discussion on youth centers because in the email that we received was, you know, how is staff going to interpret that? So I think the more guidance we can give our staff, the better. But I didn't want to just touch on a point that my colleague Councilmember Ashcraft mentioned. And maybe, Alan, you can help with that. I mean, staff members certain staff members have to provide like form 700 ethics disclosures, right. So if they did, can you kind of just for the public's purpose, if there was anyone who had any material financial interest in a cannabis industry or business, you know, talk about how that is disclosed. And just kind of briefly. Speaker 10: I mean, if if a person did have an ownership interest or had a significant investment in a local cannabis business, they would have to publicly disclose it on their form 700. And they if it were a member of the body, the member of the body would have to recuse themselves. If it were a member of the body, the member of the body would have to recuse themselves. And once again, this this would all be available in the in the publicly available form seven hundreds. Speaker 7: We have those on our websites for high level staff that would be making these types of decisions. Speaker 10: I don't know if we have them available on our website. Speaker 7: But we're at the clerk's office. There's a clerk so that if anyone had any questions or any concerns, they could look. And all the reportable staff have these things filed. Speaker 10: Yes, that's absolutely correct. Thank you. Speaker 0: Did any other council members want to speak on this item? I want to speak on this item. I'm actually glad that we have so many youth here in our audience today. I believe our council has been extremely responsible and trying to come up with a policy that it is as safe as possible. I've raised four children in this town. Cannabis is available in Alameda. I am. I am very concerned that we have people come and speak and suggest that it's not and that somehow we're doing something that is not safe for our students. Why? Because we actually are trying to make it safe, as safe as possible for those that use those that consume in any manner whatsoever, those that are concerned because of stigma, other reasons. And what I have in fact. So one of my girls came home from either Lincoln around me to high risk not too many years ago because my youngest graduated 2012. But a student showed up late to school who had been pistol whipped after a a deal with cannabis going wrong something about. So so I have heard stories. I have also during the time that two years I don't I don't think two years is moving fast. I think, honestly, many people, many districts, many cities have addressed this issue in significantly less than two years. We've been looking at this issue for two years in regards to so in regards to safety, we are trying to make it safe. We're trying to have it lab tested. I was going to add that during the time during the two years, I've had several people come to me and tell me that when they thought that they were buying marijuana, in fact, they bought something that was mixed and they ended up in county with in a coma. Each of them had similar stories of approximately like three days and not knowing part of their life. So there are serious consequences sometimes for which is, you know, for buying anything, anything on in the black market. So that's exactly why we're trying to make sure that anything that's consumed is lab tested so that people know it has, in fact, been lab tested. And we're trying to also have access to dispensaries, as other council members have said, so that people are able to go and and you have to be 21 or over or you have to have a doctor, a permit from a doctor, a note from a doctor or something like that. So that this is very high. There's lots of safeguards here. I am also a 11 year breast cancer now. I myself did eight treatments of chemo. I currently do treatments that are a result of that chemo. I am one of those people that am very concerned about any of opiate drugs that are prescribed. So I don't do them. And honestly, I think if we really want to tackle issues. Cannabis is not the problem. It's opiate addiction. Speaker 11: And. And. And and I'm going. Speaker 0: To say it's all of you. That's why I'm happy to have so many youth here. We're going to have to figure out a better way than prescribing opiates because we know what's happening with that. And this is your counsel stepping up and trying to be responsible. And honestly, it's not the six. And also, we did have a veteran Marine here that served in Vietnam and he has come to multiple meetings and shared his. Horrible stories of going through that whole journey, the pain and and on why he's now an advocate for cannabis. We know we have many veterans, the fastest growing demographic for this. It is actually senior citizens as they age. They have many, many health issues and they're trying to figure out a way to age gracefully and not become addicted to opiates and have to die young and have someone else take care of them. Honestly, it's trying to figure out a lifestyle to move forward and to think that people can drive into Oakland or drive to San Francisco, and that's okay that our city shouldn't be having any dispensaries here. Let me tell you, if you're doing chemo and I was doing chemo and many of you know, people that have done chemo , you know, a lot of times now we can't we can't drive to Oakland. We can't drive. We are totally dependent upon our community and for helping us that that's the reality. So distance does matter. And sometimes, you know, there's a lot of things that are available that you're not smoking. There's a lot of different things. And it is something that I that I am I am an advocate for this. And another serious problem is reducing the stigma, because, unfortunately, you have people and I've seen this and you can go to the cancer center, you can see people unfortunately, they're in very, very compromised health situations and they aren't eating. They have nausea and they won't try cannabis because of the stigma attached to it. It's really, really sad. We have to figure out a better way to move forward. I will be supporting this. I want to commend my council members. Member Odie and Vice Mayor Molly Avella are really moving forward with this journey. I also want to commend our community activists that have gone to these meetings for the last two years and we are moving forward as a community. I also want to say we did have many business people try to open businesses on the east end of town and on the farm. And I had I have heard stories of of not of the business of the seller refusing to move forward once they hear it's about a cannabis business. So we did respond at the council level and we said, okay, on the west end of town, they do seem more open to trying to help us meet this need and move forward responsibly. So we did agree that we could have two on the West End and not wait one and then one because we have to respond . And to those businesses that think that, you know, we're just going to say no and we're going to somehow keep cannabis off the island. It is here. It's been here. And we want to move forward responsibly. And I ask all of you to join us and move forward responsibly. So we have a motion. You don't want to mention it. Speaker 4: Really? Yes. Speaker 6: The other thing is, relative to neighboring businesses, one thing that is out there that I believe staff is considering and looking at is the San Francisco good neighbor policy and that that policy went into effect. And it deals with things like smoking outside of the business, posting signs that says no smoking, no loitering, things like that, making sure cars aren't double parked. Things that could relate to how safe and operational the businesses. So if if we if we were to give staff direction tonight in terms of looking on the 27th at the definition of youth centers and other things that could be considered as part of the later process and conditional use permitting, those are the types of things that we could be looking at to make sure that when something is permitted, there are operational things that we can look at to make sure that they are they continue best practices once a permit is there. And if they don't comply with what those best practices are, that we can actually take action. Speaker 0: I also want to share real quick in regards to what the appearance looks like outside of these dispensaries. Some of you have seen them. You go down to Carmel. You're going to see cannabis animals. It looks honestly like an art gallery. There are no armed guards. It's actually very, very nice. And there is a way to have these businesses in our community where they don't stand out there just like any other business. And they are responsible owners. Member. Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like to move approval of the item with additional direction to staff to come back with a discussion on youth centers and how that's going to be interpreted. Speaker 0: Second, all those in favor i. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: I suppose those. Motion carries 3 to 2. Speaker 11: And we're going to take. Speaker 0: A short recess at this time. Speaker 10: 830. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 11: Everybody. If everybody could, please take your seat. We're going to resume our meeting. Speaker 0: Oh, I should really dim the lights. Speaker 2: Here we go. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you so much. That was actually great. We're going to resume our meeting. We are now on item six A. Speaker 1: The introduction of ordinance amending a lease amendment with the maximum three year extension of the lease with CSI mini storage. The California Limited Liability Company for Building 338 608 and 60883c located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue at Alameda Point. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Ninette mercado. In the. Speaker 0: Base. Speaker 2: We use. Speaker 4: Community development department. What you have before you is a renewal of a lease. Speaker 0: With an.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (1) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (2) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as “Dispensary/Delivery” (Delivery Required) Within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (3) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (4) Create a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis Businesses, (4) Amend Certain Portions of the Regulatory Ordinance to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, (5) Modify Requirements for Off-Island Delivery, and (6) Make Other Clarifying or Conforming Amendments thereto. (Economic Development)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09182018_2018-5896

Speaker 1: Recommendation to award a contract in the amount of 286,000 763, including contingency to parties. You see S.W. Design Group for the Outreach, Planning and Design Services for the Otis Truck Drive, Traffic Calming and Safety Improvements project. Speaker 0: And we have a speaker, Joe Kaiser. If you'd like to come up and speak on this item. Speaker 4: Thanks for letting me speak. I am a resident of Alameda. I live in Otis Drive and I'm just here to voice my support for this study moving forward. I just wanted to say a little bit about myself and some other community members living on or near Otis. Spend some time being trained by local Alameda PD on how to use radar guns, and we went out and spent a couple of weeks recording the speeds of various passers by on Otis. Didn't take long. 15, 20 minutes. We would record a dozen or so people going 40 plus miles an hour on occasion. 50 plus. And I think we even caught some people going 60 plus. One of the officers that trained us to use the radar guns told us that they had recently pulled someone over going 75 miles an hour. So I definitely am happy that the city is going to move forward with plans to make Otis safer, slower, more accessible for pedestrians, for people that have to cross to get to and from bus stops. There aren't necessarily any ways to cross Otis to get to some of the bus stops without having to run across four lanes of traffic of people doing 40, 50, 60 miles an hour. So thank you for moving forward with this. I hope that the council proceeds with the proposal. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have a motion of approval. Speaker 5: Second of all. Speaker 1: I think as I read the matter, I. I. Hi there, Spencer. Yes, I have. Speaker 0: Thank you. So that completes our consent items. Regular agenda items. Six a. Speaker 1: Six a. Adoption resolution, appointing Cheryl Horowitz as a member of the Social Service. Human Relations move approval second.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $286,763, Including Contingency, to Parisi/CSW Design Group for the Outreach, Planning and Design Services for the Otis Drive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvements Project. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09182018_2018-5933

Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments from councilmembers at this time? I've seen nine and ten a consideration of mayor's nomination for appointment to the planning board. And I will be nominating Rona Rothenberg. And I wanted to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of Kent Rosenbloom and Karen Lucas. They're both two very well liked community members and can't Rosenbloom any of, you know, personally. He was a very successful veterinarian in our town and also an award winning vintner winemaker. Especially in regards to seven gels and. I really want to express our condolences to his family, his wife Kathy, his daughters, Shauna and Kristen, his granddaughter Skyler . And and in regards to Karen Lucas, many of you know her. She was a former council member who was also an activist in regards to advocating for LGBTQ rights many, many years ago. And she was also very active in Meals on Wheels. She recently attended the play was for the Meals on Wheels volunteers for a moment of silence. If you could all join. Speaker 3: Me, Madam Mayor? Yes. Speaker 4: Also, Karen Lucas served with distinction on the public utility board. She is a very, very talented woman. Speaker 0: Thank you and good evening. Speaker 3: Thank, you know.

Council Communication

Consideration of Mayor’s Nomination for Appointment to the Planning Board and Social Service Human Relations Board.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09042018_2018-5892

Speaker 1: I adopted a resolution supporting United States Senate Congressional Bill 3250, the Rent Relief Act of 2018 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for a credit against tax for rent paid on the personal residence of the taxpayer. Speaker 0: All right. And this was also a referral that counsel brought back. Tony Grim, and she's the only speaker on this item. Speaker 4: Good evening, everybody. I'd like to encourage council to pass this resolution. I know that it is symbolic, since you are not the governing body that this act will come before. But if you do pass it, you will be adding your name to a long list of city officials throughout this state of California and beyond, and organizations that are trying to bring light to this measure. And and by therefore, by passing it. As a long time renter, I have often been very frustrated by the fact that property owners get a tax break for their mortgages, a major part of their housing costs, and renters do not. And this is might be one of the things that has led to a huge disparity of income in our country. And on that subject, I would like to thank some of the members, all the members of council, but especially members Ashcraft and Frank, rather unlike the previous speaker who have been speaking out on the disparity of income in our city. And I hope that all of you will maybe go further than just speaking about it and try to get together and think of an idea that the city could offer some kind of relief to renters who are paying a huge burden of their income, maybe even 50% of the 50% of their income. There are people in Alameda doing that. I know, because I'm one of them. So in the meanwhile, thank you for supporting this measure. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have a motion. Speaker 5: Of approval. Speaker 3: That. Speaker 0: All those in favor of my motion carries M.S.. Thank you. Now we move on to our regular agenda. Speaker 1: 6 a.m. Adoption of resolution appointing. Jennifer Wood is a member of the Historical Advisory Board, Marcia Rokita and Ashish Heba as members of the Planning Board. Speaker 3: The move. Speaker 6: And I'd like to motion to bifurcating and consider them all separately, please. Speaker 0: All right. So you want to ask. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: So I'll just go ahead and call them separately then. So do we have a motion to appoint Jennifer Witt as a member of the Historical Advisory Board? Speaker 6: So hold. Speaker 3: Back and. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 0: And that most encouraging and honestly, I think are right next door, we have a motion to appoint to the planning board. Marcia Birkhead is. Speaker 3: I move? Speaker 0: Our second. Any discussion. All right. All those in favor. I. Speaker 5: Epstein. Speaker 6: Abstain. Speaker 2: Abstain. Speaker 0: Okay. So that motion fails to in favor and three abstentions. All right. Next we have the next one that I'm nominating as I share. Ashish Jha. Speaker 5: Ever so moved. Speaker 0: This. All those in favor. Speaker 4: Hi. Speaker 0: That motion carries unanimously. See you here this evening. Oh. All right. Speaker 7: So I think it's worth. Speaker 3: Okay. Oh. Speaker 0: Six. Okay. Now we're going to go to.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Supporting United States Senate Congressional Bill S. 3250, the Rent Relief Act of 2018, to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Allow for a Credit Against Tax for Rent Paid on the Personal Residence of the Taxpayer. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07242018_2018-5797

Speaker 1: Second. All those in favor i. Passes unanimously. Thank you. We are now on five j. We have a speaker on this one. Lieutenant Colonel Roger s dong. You'd like to come and speak American Legion Post 384. Speaker 3: Mayor Spencer, vice mayor of L.A., members of the council. I have been introduced to Roger Dole. I am a veteran and my father was a veteran in World War Two. Therefore, I am asking the board to support the Senate in Congress. Congress is built to remember and honor the Chinese Americans who served in World War Two. A little background in 1982 when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. Chinese were not allowed to have citizenship or bring their families here. And so by beginning of World War Two, our population has shrunk to about 80,000 people, about 120. And among that 80,000 people, 20,000 volunteered to serve in the military. And I think that most of us appreciate that. And I'd like to ask the council to strong to support the bill, to support the national governments movement to to honor those who served in World War Two. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion moved second. All right. I do want to add that is item five. For those of you that like to go back and read the resolution, as well as the staff report and the current list of endorsers, and feel free to reach out to your elected representatives to support this. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. I k Nancy Hurd. Good evening. I'm here representing. Speaker 4: Sable. Speaker 0: And sable. Speaker 4: Meat is working waterfront. And we continue to continue to have a concern about the decline of the dry boat storage.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Supporting House of Representatives Bill 2358 and Senate Bill 1050 the Chinese American World War II Veterans Congressional Gold Medal Act. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07242018_2018-5807

Speaker 4: Meat is working waterfront. And we continue to continue to have a concern about the decline of the dry boat storage. Speaker 1: Spaces from 300 to 60 at Alameda. Speaker 4: Marina in the master plan. People speaking on behalf of the developer keep trying to justify the need for less spaces using numbers that do not reflect the demand. At the last council. Speaker 1: Meeting, we all heard about many. Speaker 4: People who had actively sailed their dry boats, stored boats and moved. Speaker 1: Their boats when they. Speaker 4: Were started telling everybody to move out and because they were. Speaker 0: Going to start their. Speaker 4: Big housing development. For now, the phasing in the building plan allows many to keep their boats in the dry storage at Alameda Marina at the Eastern End for several years. And so the severe need will not really become apparent until it's time for that last phase to be built. The developer has offered to install up to 120 versa docks in the wet slips and charge the same. Speaker 1: Fee as for the. Speaker 4: Dry storage prices for those spaces. If this happens, we might have enough dry boat storage at the expense of the wet slips in the marina at $10,000 per versa. Dock. It is hard to imagine that they will not increase. Speaker 1: The dry boat. Speaker 4: Storage prices from the the prices now in 2018 for a 32 foot space for a dry boat, storage. Speaker 0: Boat is $145. Speaker 1: A. Speaker 4: Month, whereas the wet storage space is $272. So you can understand why dry boat storage is so attractive to people. It's about half the amount. But the city also shouldn't be happy with this plan because the city earns 10% on the fees that are collected. So Andrew Thomas had a very good idea of potentially using six acres of the Thailand's trust space and sale terminals for dry storage. And this is reflected in the master plan of Alameda Marina. It is not listed among the potential uses in the internal terminals master plan. We want our concern to be on record about the decline in both storage and and the fact that we. Speaker 0: Are very worried about this. Speaker 4: And we request that it be listed on the National Terminals Master Plan as a potential use of the Tri Tidelands Trust property at that location. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Do we have a motion? Speaker 5: So moved. Speaker 1: All right. So I wanted to add on this one. When I came to the planning board, honestly, before we even got there, we've had years of community input and. And I think all of us do value and want a strong marina. That being said, in some ways we have to always figure out the balance. And I really believe that our community, the developer, our planning board and our council did the best possible work of figuring out the balance of the housing that the this was private property. This part of what the the developer is entitled to, they actually did not ask for the highest number of housing units that they are entitled to per state law. Then I believe that there was great accommodation, including right up until the vote by the developer of trying to figure out how to make it work. There will be future opportunities for community members to be involved in the process. We will be looking for a boatyard operator, so there will be ongoing conversations. So please stay involved so that your voices and concerns are heard so that we do end up with the best possible project. And for those of you that and we also will have different types of housing for purchase and rent at different price points, which I honestly believe is one of the few developments in our community that where we will end up with that. So this is actually one of the few developments that I supported that was unanimous by our council. So we have a motion and a second all those in favor. I know that passes unanimously and next. We are now on our regular agenda. We have now finished the consent items. Speaker 2: Six A adoption resolution appointing Geoffrey Gould as a member of the Public Utilities Board and appointing Michael Haynes, David Johnson, Alisha Knox to call and Shannon as members of the Transportation Commission.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Approving the Alameda Marina Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for the Redevelopment of the Alameda Marina Properties Located at 1815 Clement Avenue (APN 071-0288-003 and 071-0257-004). (Community Development 209-481001)

AlamedaCC