Speaker 0: Okay. Well, Debbie Porter, you there you are. Do you want to come up and give a brief overview and then we'll hear from if it's okay with council, we'll hear from the public speakers and then we'll make our comments. Hello.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Council Mayor. I'm Debbie Potter, the community development director for the city. And the item before you this evening is a recommendation to approve a First Amendment to our agreement with a central league out to provide legal assistance to low income tenants. This was a contract that was approved in November of 2018. It was approved as a three year contract. It was funded for a total amount of $500,000, with the funding spread pretty much in equal parts across three years, about $166,000 per year. Last year, the first year of the contract was from November of 2018 to November of 2019. And at the conclusion of the first year of the contract staff, primarily myself and Michael Rausch from the City Attorney's Office, sat down with central legal staff to discuss how the first year had been, how they felt about their work scope and the service delivery. And based on the annual report, some of the quarterly reporting and conversations with staff, it was decided by both central legal staff as well as city staff, that it probably made sense to renegotiate the work scope for this current year of the contract. The second year of the three year contract staff is not recommending any additional funding or reduction in funding. Essentially, we're recommending a reallocation of funds with a revised work scope. The primary change is to modify the work scope so that there is a reduction in the number of folks served for the legal services to reduce that number and to reallocate funding for two general activities one to increase the budget for outreach. There have been some challenges in reaching some of the tenants. Low income tenants in Alameda. So Centro is proposing to do more robust outreach in this upcoming year. And then there is a recommendation to reallocate funds for an emergency financial assistance program. And that is a program that central legal has been running countywide. And in the city of Oakland since December of 2018. And Alameda tenants have been able to take advantage of that emergency financial assistance via Centro's contract with the county. That contract is set to expire in May of this year, and there is not yet a guarantee from the county whether that contract will be extended. And so the proposal is to augment those services and fund those services directly. In the city of Alameda, Alameda tenants have been the sink, the second highest users of this emergency financial assistance under the county contract. And it has been a great resource for keeping tenants in their homes and keeping tenants from becoming homeless. And that is a program that that Centro thinks that it can put to really good use in this upcoming year of of the contract. So that that's kind of a high level overview of what the recommendation is and what staff is recommending. I am happy to answer any questions after public comment.
Speaker 0: Do we have any clarifying questions about the staff report? Okay. Hearing that we'll move to. But did you have something.
Speaker 10: Else to say? Sorry. And I did want to point out that Monique Berlanga, the directing attorney, and Teresa Gonzalez, the executive director of Central Legal, are here this evening and they are available to to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Let's go to our public speakers, please.
Speaker 1: Terri Johansen and Kathryn Polley.
Speaker 8: You have to boil it down.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I would once again like to commend this mayor and this council for everything that you've done for renters in Alameda. I am a renter and I'm speaking tonight as a renter. I do feel like the renters have been one of the most vulnerable in our community. And with the efforts of this mayor and council, we have done a lot to protect people and to keep them in their homes and to thereby reduce the homeless population. That's just escalating. I think these changes of of reaching out to more community members and to offering them more services, especially the assistance when they need it, I think is a is a great expansion of the protection and the parachute. If you're going to go sailing at 100 miles an hour, the parachute and the safety net that you all have provided. So I, I commend you all for all of the protections you have have afforded our renters and hope this continues in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Pike.
Speaker 5: I want to add my appreciation to Cherise. I think you all have been doing tremendous work on so many different levels regarding Central Ago. What we are hearing since Jessica's evictions came into effect is we are getting a lot more calls, a lot more questions, not just about habitability, but about buildings being sold. I feel that now that we have just cause protections, tenants seem more willing to come out and talk about it. And the next step is, if things are advancing or complicated, we will be doing more room for referrals to Centro Legal. So thank you for having this program in place. I feel like there's a lot of progress being made and it's going to be a tremendous help to the tenants there. The changes mentioned, I think, are smart. I know that a lot of Alameda residents excuse me, a lot of Alameda residents have drawn on that Alameda County money through central legal. So that is a very positive step and to make sure that that that is continued to keep people housed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have one more and one more speaker.
Speaker 1: Lana, is Sheena.
Speaker 0: Misery Sheena.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I also want to thank you for having this program in place. My father was the one who benefited from this program, and unfortunately he's not here. But if he were, he would have said the same thing. Thank you very much. This program is very important. And now that the city made changes to the city laws to protect the tenants, it is crucial to have this help because the law will be meaningless if there is nobody to implement it. And one thing I want to say in favor of De La Rosa is our personal experience with them. First of all, they're very knowledgeable about the issues on the island. They know the ordinance and know what's going on and they are available. There are other places like, say, for example, illegal. They're very good, but they are overwhelmed. And today, the housing situation is such that all this housing services, advocacy groups, they are tremendously overwhelmed. And tenants on the island have a resource like De La Raza. Then they have that resource available to them. Sorry. And that's number one. Number two, is that having that program in place facilitates settlements. Because anytime I used to do pro-bono advocacy in San Francisco years ago, and my experience with that was any time a tenant shows up to a court house with a lawyer, then usually 90% of the time they woke up settling. And this is one of the things that we need. And with the crisis, with the homeless crisis driving people out of their home, we really need this kind of help. So thank you very much. And I hope that you support this program and this program will continue.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Recine. Okay. That's all of our public speakers. I'm actually going to lead off because I was one of the ones, and then I'll turn it over to you. Councilmember Desai and I wrote a long email this morning to Debbie Potter, and you did get back to me this evening. I support in concept the program and the having an agreement with Centro Legal de la Raza. My problem is with some of the amendments. So we know from the scope of services and from what the reason that the council voted in 2018 to allocate a half a million dollars, $500,000 over three years, $166,666 each year to El Centro to the center. The was to provide legal services to low income tenants to reduce the risk of displacement. And certainly those of us who work often in the housing arena and working hard to combat our housing crisis know that the best way to address homelessness is not to let it happen in the first place, and that's why things like the emergency funds are so helpful. But my concern with these proposed changes are threefold. One of them is Centro Legal has come back and said essentially after the first year, you know, we just didn't reach as many people as we thought we would. So pay us the same amount of money while we reduce the number of legal consultations by 5%, the number of clients served by 25%, legal representation by 50%, and providing housing stabilization strategies by 33%. And there is a proposal to include, over the course of two years, $55,000 of city money for this emergency financial assistance that we we heard Ms.. Porter speak about, which has up till now been provided by county funds. But those funds look like they're going to go away in May of this year. So certainly good to have the ability to supplant those. I feel that whenever we're taking money from the general fund, we want to make sure that it's well spent. And as an attorney, not actively practicing now, but if I were bidding on a contract for services, I would be looking at the number of clients we expected to serve, the number of attorneys, paralegals, staff, time it takes . But now, with this reduction in still wanting to be paid the same amount, I I'm I'm uncomfortable with that. But another concern I had in reading your annual report is that Centro Legal has no Asian language proficiency. In fact, they stated that in their first year they learned from outreach that Alameda has a high. Relation high Asian population, many of whom are non-English speaking well around Alameda. It's a pretty well-known fact that our population is anywhere from 33%, maybe even higher. Asian Pacific Islanders. And I was surprised to read that Central. They didn't know that until they did their initial outreach. And then in the the annual report, it was stated that additional funding beyond current contract amounts would be required to conduct a needs assessment for those communities, the Asian Speaking Communities to determine best program designed to address their specific legal needs and elsewhere. It said in the report that. But, you know, we can probably just deal with them using a translator over the phone. That bothers me, because for English speaking and probably Spanish speaking clients, they would get a person to person consultation. But if you're Asian speaking, you're going to be talking over the phone with a translator. I just think you're very vulnerable, as are two tenant representative. And as mentioned, you're very vulnerable. And so we want to make sure we're giving you the best representation possible. My modification to this agreement would be okay if you're going to keep the $500,000 over three years, but you're telling us already you're serving less clients. I would expect central legal to bring in Asian speaking interpreters to actually I mean, who are trained to actually work with folks rather than saying, oh, you can just use our phone translation service, that that's unacceptable for me. And then the third concern I have is the clinic locations and hours are not helpful for working people and those with limited mobility. So in the staff report, we read that legal consultation services at Central Legal's location are just over the Fruitvale Bridge. And those services are provided again in the Fruitvale District every Tuesday at 9 a.m.. If you were on a weekly basis or once a month at Mastic, which is in Alameda from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.. Well, in my email to Ms.. Potter, I said that formula is backwards. Central Legal should be in Alameda once a week. And I would propose I don't want to micromanage, but I would propose at a set location whether it's the first Tuesday, the month that mastic, the second Tuesday at our midpoint collaborative the third at the library that you should serve Alameda residents in Alameda because not everyone is able to hop on the bus there and get there. There are there are, you know, physical limitations sometimes. But also the fact that the clinics and the services are only offered weekday mornings is troublesome because for working people, you wouldn't be able to I mean, many working people would not be able to take time off to go and seek this legal consultation. And so, as I said, that, you know, legal representation is only effective if you can access it. So I and I know Ms.. Potter, when she responded, said that, well, they tried and they just didn't get much response at their clinics in Alameda, but now they're proposing to do more outreach. So I would say in that outreach, tell people that you'll be in Alameda every week. And secondly, it was stated that, well, you know, they do a lot of phone consultations and find that those are sufficient. Well, phone consultations for half a million dollars for three years, that that seems kind of steep to me. So I want to provide this legal representation, but I want it to be effective. And so, again, for the reasons that I've stated, unless we can make modifications, I can't support this in Councilmember de SAC. I know you also wanted to pull this item.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you. I just have some questions. Perhaps staff can respond or or the service provider. So my questions are as follows In what way does the service provider ensure that it is pursuing only those legal cases after examining both renter and land small landlords perspective? In other words, next question How does the service provider guard against situations where they are, where they are not getting the full picture from a client? I mean, what are what are the internal procedures in place? Policies, procedures that make sure that they get the full picture.
Speaker 10: So central legal. Their first recourse, essentially, or their first approach is to to talk with both the landlord and the tenant and see if they can negotiate a resolution and to not have that the issue at hand end up in court. And they did inform me that they have not yet initiated a single litigation against a single landlord in Alameda, but rather they've been very effective working to negotiate solutions without the need to the recourse of going to court so that as part of that process, there is a fact finding process where they are able to speak with both the landlord and the tenant and then evaluate the veracity of what both sides are saying. So that's their process, and they have not yet brought any litigation against any landlord.
Speaker 6: They have not brought any litigation against landlords, but they have written letters to landlords. Is that correct? On behalf of tenants?
Speaker 10: I'm. Yes, they yes, they have. And.
Speaker 0: You know, will it be necessary? Would it be helpful? Are you saying the same thing I was?
Speaker 2: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Council Mayor Ashcraft. Yes.
Speaker 0: So if you want to introduce yourself. Oh.
Speaker 1: Sorry. My name is Monique Berlanga. I'm the directing attorney of the tenants rights practice at Centro Legal de la Rosa. And I want to thank everybody for the questions. These are all very good questions, things that we've been examining internally as well in terms of how we are delivering services under the program. In response to your specific question about how do we make sure that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, if you have internal procedures or policies that institutionalizing the fact finding phase? Sure. I am aware of some small landlords who just received a letter that kind of took their presumptive position that. The landlord was wrong. Yes. Without having. Really? Interviewed the landlord or gathered the facts.
Speaker 1: So I would say that there are there are different levels of services we provide. We often at our clinics provide consultation services. We can help tenants who may not be able to write letters themselves, write letters to their landlords. But that's different from when we enter into a legal representation. When we enter into a legal representation and retain a tenant for services, we're definitely going to investigate the facts before we agree to provide any type of litigation related or long, longer extended services. So I hope that answers your questions. But in a brief drop in clinic, often, you know, we don't have that opportunity.
Speaker 6: I think. The thing that I would encourage is that, um, perhaps as that you create internal policies and procedures that if you're communicating with whomever, that you indicate that this is not a leak, you know, this is not, as you said, a legal situation. Um, a so that when a landlord gets a letter, they understand that while it might come from, from your organization or with the assistance of staff from your organization, that there is a difference between. This is a legal letter that says, hey, you've done something wrong and we're going to try to fix it through the courts. And that there's a process by which it is clearly indicated that that this is. I know this is a non-legal or information gathering phase. Sure. Yeah. Um, because I have, I do know of landlords who have received letters and who felt like what you know. I think the bigger picture is they felt like they were the big picture. Their perspective was not taken into account. Yeah. Um, so, um. That that's what I would encourage. Is that, um. That you'd be more clear because, you know, there are small landlords in town for whom it is difficult to wage their own legal case. It's not like everyone has, you know, a bundle of money to pay lawyers. So I think a little sensitivity on that part is.
Speaker 1: So so one other thing I'd like to mention in terms of our model and and what we do for tenants, which kind of goes hand-in-hand with the modifications we're proposing tonight, is we really pride ourselves in intervening early before a situation gets to the point of eviction, which is why we are proposing a reduced number of eviction , defense representations and more informational tenant education outreach efforts. A lot of what I'm finding when I go to Mastic and I conduct these clinics is tenants coming in and saying, Can you help me interpret my lease? Or I'm starting to have this issue. How can I de-escalate this issue with my landlord? What are some options I may have? What are my rights? Their rights? And we're able to intervene early at that stage or refer them to the rent board for mediation or whatever it may be. So I would say that that's that's where we're trying to focus at this point, is more collaborative efforts. But then again, we do have duties to clients to to enforce their rights and to help them provide notice as provided by the law. So I hear I hear what you're saying. And we do take we are very, very careful before we enter into a full legal representation to make sure we invest all the facts, investigate all the facts. But it does put us in a little bit of a difficult situation when we do have to often take attendance words for what their experiences.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I see this woman. You would. Would you like. Are you also from Central Park?
Speaker 1: Because my colleagues are.
Speaker 0: Okay. So is that where you're standing up to be supportive or did you want to speak? You know, if you're going to speak and please speak into the microphone and introduce yourself, please.
Speaker 2: Sure. I'm Katie Guimond.
Speaker 0: I'm going to need to look closer.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm Katie Guimond. I'm ah, research and policy analyst at Central Go. And I just wanted to make sure that I'm available for questions. I didn't have anything specific on this matter.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And then I do have a question from Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's just to stay up or.
Speaker 0: I don't know. It depends on the question. Is it discretionary question?
Speaker 9: Both.
Speaker 0: So okay.
Speaker 9: So I hear my colleague's concern regarding the language issues I used to be when I started my legal career I worked in for a nonprofit law firm. I think that it's always difficult to find the balance between the informational sessions versus the, you know, the one on one client time. I am wondering if maybe there's a way to create some sort of program to do a by appointment in Alameda where you can schedule with the language line, that sort of thing, or get an interpreter available once you've made arrangements. And I think that that might meet the needs of, you know, having the drop in hours, but also having a space within that area or working with staff to find a space where you could have meetings in Alameda with clients so that they don't have to go off island with.
Speaker 0: With respect, if you're referring to my concern with an interpreter on the line, I know that that would not satisfy my my concerns. So I would like an in-person.
Speaker 9: Well, I'm saying that it would allow them. My question is whether they could make arrangements to allow sometimes you can't get an interpreter to physically come in depending on the language or the dialect or language. Sometimes you have to make arrangements to have a call in. But if there's a space, I think one of your other concerns was having, you know, accessibility for people in Alameda. And my question was, if there's a way to kind of carve out space for these one on one meetings, also potentially in Alameda where people can schedule, because I hear the concern also regarding the times, but sometimes it's a matter of making yourself available for a scheduled appointment. And I know people often don't like to go to the to the drop in hours because they don't know if they're going to have to wait to see somebody and that sort of thing. And so if there's a process that they can go about scheduling that and schedule it, perhaps here in Alameda as opposed to going to the offices, and they can make arrangements for any sort of language if they have a language preference, that sort of thing. And what that would look like, what you do for other contracts where you have language barriers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a great idea. I think so. Speaking of other contracts, we administer several different entities, placement contracts in other jurisdictions. And as this this contract is evolving, our other contracts are evolving similarly as well. Things start in pilot and as you learn to see a community's needs, you're often modifying as you go. I would I think that's a great idea. In terms of the appointments, I don't think it would be a great use of our resources to have weekly drop in clinics necessarily. I don't I think an appointment based system would work pretty well, particularly given the timelines we're dealing with. A three day notice is a tenant may not be able to wait till the next drop in clinic. And what do they do? They call us and that is what we end up often doing, is making an individual appointment with them or, you know, giving them the advice over phone. Or if a tenant has an unlawful detainer, they have a five day response time, you know, having a set day. There will always be tenants who need services in the interim. And I think we are definitely open to some to a model like that where we are doing phone consultations but then setting up blocks of time within Alameda to meet with tenants face to face where we can if we have, you know, a volunteer interpreter potentially or an interpreter, we hire in a certain dialect present, but if not, then we can use the language line. I wish we could have staff who speak every dialect and every language that's available in Alameda. I don't know. You know, we can we can reach out to our banks for clarification.
Speaker 0: I did not ask that. Oh, no.
Speaker 1: No, no. I know that.
Speaker 0: It was Chinese specifically. And I'm not asking for interpreters for every language spoken in Alameda.
Speaker 1: Even within Chinese, though, we find that there are many different dialects.
Speaker 0: I think my colleague had some good suggestions.
Speaker 1: Definitely. I think that's something we're open to. And we, you know, we are also are open to talking with every council member about what their ideas might be for different locations, different sites, different groups. We can reach out to. We are. We're happy to spend as much time on the island as works for tenants. That's why we've proposed to outreach community engagement. We want people to know we're here or services are available. We'd like to come out to community groups and do outreach education workshops. Those type of services definitely broke into.
Speaker 0: Councilmember villages to have the floor.
Speaker 9: And then a couple other things I think working with. We do have a tenants group working with them. I think it is important to have drop in some some drop in hours scheduled, maybe not every week, but coordinating with them. They have monthly meetings and things like that. So perhaps you can coordinate with them to get the word out about it or with the housing authority as well. I think it's helpful to have that available to folks. And then there is the other question I had is your materials make? Are they do we have them in some of the known languages here in Alameda that there have been requests, some of the standard informational letters or fax, getting it translated in to Mandarin or Cantonese or other dialects that we know. We have a large population with the need.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We've in the budget modification attached to the annual report we have in excuse me, requested increased outreach materials funding so that we can contract for translation and.
Speaker 9: So that but that specific to getting translated materials and fake use.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. That that would be that would be a use of this.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then, you know, just and I know we have a diverse group of opinions up here. I certainly appreciate the fact that you're contracting with us to preserve to to provide a certain amount of advocacy for a specific group. And so sometimes that means sending out letters where you're acting as the representative of that individual, where they might feel like they don't have a voice. You're giving them that voice. And I think that's a very important role that you're playing. And that's personally why I'm very supportive of this contract and the services that are provided. I think it's it's necessary. And oftentimes it does bring people to the table to prevent further stress on on either side and make sure that everybody is abiding by the laws and ordinances that we've set forth in the protections to make sure that it's a level playing field. So I know that you've provided that service, and I thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Who's next? Councilman Brody.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Again, thanks for providing the service. I just want to make sure we're clear that, you know, your services are legal services and they're governed by the business and professions code. Right? So attorneys are by nature and by law, you know, not the finder of fact. When there's a dispute in facts. And just because there's a dispute doesn't mean the landlord is right. So your job is to represent the tenants and be their advocate. And if there is a dispute, that could end up going to a court. So it's not the job of you all to decide, you know, who's right, who's wrong. It's to zealously zealously advocate for your client, right?
Speaker 1: That is correct. And we take that duty very seriously.
Speaker 4: So I just want to make sure nobody expects that if you go to get an advocate for you, that they're going to end up, you know, proving the the other side's position. So, I mean, I look at the numbers, what, 62. So if 14% were API, that's nine, right? So do we know the languages of these nine nine folks that we're classifying? Well, we serve 60 to 62 people. Right.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are you an exhibit?
Speaker 4: I think I'm in the.
Speaker 0: Did you read the report? Okay.
Speaker 4: We served 60 to 60 legal consultations, five four scope representations, total of 62 and duplicated clients. 14% were API. It is that so that.
Speaker 1: I don't have those numbers in front of me in terms of language?
Speaker 4: I guess I'd be curious to know because I mean, are four big AAPI groups, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, and I think Korean is next. So I mean, there's not a tremendous number of languages that you need to have people available on. And it does kind of bother me that, you know, almost 10% of the folks that are four, 15%, one in seven that come to you, you know, may not speak the language. And that you know, I mean, when the mayor pointed it out, we're actually getting less for the same amount of money. And now we have to pay for this, in addition, which seems to be kind of a deficiency in the current arrangement, it seems to me that you might be able to work with us on that. And, you know, maybe, you know, on the second point, you know, maybe coming every week is not feasible for you. But, you know, there has to be something maybe in the middle. I mean, can you address some of the the things that the mayor had a concern on and maybe tell us some of those that you might be able to, you know, to help us with? Yeah, but I am concerned about the language. I mean.
Speaker 1: We're looking those numbers up right now so we can tell you what percentage.
Speaker 0: And while you're looking those numbers up, I would just add I was making notes in the margin that I don't know. I mean, we could help connect you with members of our Asian API community. I'm thinking of Alice Ly Becher, a former community county supervisor who's very well besides being native born, you know, from Hong Kong herself . But she's, she's a fluent speaker and she's very tied in with the AAPI community. There are many others too, who because I just fear that there's the numbers you serve. But there might have even been more that had the need. But they didn't know if you didn't have materials in their languages. So I thank you, Councilmember Odie, for highlighting that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I mean, are, you know, one of our elected officials Filipino. Another one is is Chinese. There's the Asian Law Caucus. I mean, there's a number of resources that, you know, you could presumably find a translator that wouldn't charge, you know. Over the roof or whatever the term is?
Speaker 1: Oh, definitely. And I want to clarify that. I don't think it's been a problem for us in our service provision of providing services in LA, in other languages. My concern is I think there are communities who don't know about the availability of our services, which is where these types of connections which we hope that you all can help us with. And you know, as you mentioned, we do have many partner agencies who can help us with the translation of materials. But our number one concern has been is focusing our efforts into those communities in trying to, in a cultural, culturally responsive way of letting them know that there are rights that exist and that we are here for them. And, you know, this is a constant struggle we do in every community that we work with a finding where the most marginalized and vulnerable communities and how can we make inroads into reaching them. So, you know, we can provide you the information. But my concern is that people that haven't come to us. Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: Still, I mean.
Speaker 1: You want me to speak to the. Oh, yes.
Speaker 4: Some of the things that the may or may have. And I didn't hear you address that. Some of those could be resolved.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. So the decrease in deliverables, I will say when we designed this, our initial proposal to the city for this contract, we looked at it and we said, okay, one attorney, you know, some portion of a paralegal, what is the maximum caseload that one attorney can carry in terms of eviction, defense? I believe we proposed 40 reps because that's kind of the responsible caseload for an eviction defense attorney. In piloting the project, we've learned that that's not the primary need in Alameda, that the primary need that we've been seen is consultation services, no people wanting clarifications about the law, people not knowing what their rights are. So we've proposed to modify, to increase our efforts there to, you know, focus more on outreach, on the tenant education, on the consultation services, trying to make inroads within the community as opposed to having kind of an arbitrary number of eviction defense cases. We want to prevent evictions. We want to provide the whole spectrum of services, not just eviction, defense, when a case has gotten to the point where there is no amicable resolution without, you know, a judge intervening, which goes along with the EFA services as well, that, you know, helps prevent evictions. So I was.
Speaker 0: Like, no, I was just going to say, because you translate the acronym for people who don't know what that is, the EFA.
Speaker 1: Yes, emergency financial assistance. So so we're not really viewing this as offering fewer services. We're viewing this as modifying existing services to meet the needs that we are finding that the community is presenting, that showing us that they need. You know, if you want us to focus only on eviction defense, you know, we could potentially do that. But we're finding in all of all of the jurisdictions we're working in, that having the broader range of services is the best way to combat displacement.
Speaker 4: I think the to correct me if I'm wrong, Mayor, but I think the two items that the mayor raised were, you know, the language availability and having to pay for that. And then, you know, the hours that being not convenient for people who live here and may also add on on language. I know we have a lot of folks that, you know, from East Africa or that speak Arabic languages and that's that's a growing population. Yes. In our city. So we need to be cognizant of that, those languages as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And, you know, again, we use our language line. It's not a perfect solution, but we do serve clients from all in. I think right now I just saw our most recent bill for our language line translation. I think we had maybe 15 different languages that we are actively providing services to clients not just in the city of Alameda but throughout central legal and it is effective in court. You know, there's been recent case law where the court must provide an interpreter in court proceedings. But interpretation is expensive, you know, to have in-person interpretation. But it is it is important. And, you know, again, we do have partnerships with other organizations where if if the need was presented, if we want to do a know your rights presentation and other language, we do have some partners we can draw upon to assist us with. But again, any any partners you can connect us with. Do you appreciated in terms of. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 4: And her answer. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So we, we've, we've looked at the numbers for languages.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So I just wanted to share that of the people we've served.
Speaker 2: One person told us that they speak Chinese, Cantonese. Specifically, one person said.
Speaker 5: That they speak to speak Tagalog specifically.
Speaker 2: And the rest were English, French and Spanish with a few people who did not report the language.
Speaker 4: So it's for two. Maybe we shouldn't be built.
Speaker 2: The way.
Speaker 4: It seems if it's only two. Maybe we shouldn't be billed extra.
Speaker 1: But we're not. We're not. We're not building extra that we do. We? That was just part of the contract.
Speaker 0: Well, we haven't even agreed on what we're going to approve as far as funding for next year. So I you know what? I have got to wrap up really quickly. So you're going to say that the vice mayor would like to make his comments?
Speaker 1: I'm just going to say, in terms of clinics and ours, you know, again, that that's a constant and we're open to suggestions or ideas. I think an appointment based system would be really great where we can do an initial intake by phone and set up an appointment based on the attendance hours, what works for them in the city of Alameda, which we we do. We are doing that right now. That wasn't highlighted in the report, but that is something we are actively doing. And we have evening clinics as well, which I have noticed that.
Speaker 0: Is that in the report?
Speaker 1: Where was that? Yeah, that's just something we do. We work actually with the law school. So we have UC.
Speaker 0: Berkeley and you have evening clinics in Oakland.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we do. And I'll tell you what, alameda tenants have been coming to this alameda me the hours.
Speaker 0: You know alameda tenants have been coming but you can't count the ones who didn't come. And Councilmember Odie referenced people from Middle Eastern Arabic speaking countries. Some of those women who are veiled will not get on a bus and go over to Oakland by themselves. And so it's part of being culturally sensitive. Let's hear from the vice mayor.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. Thank you. So I actually before you before you leave, I just what I want to just clarify my my understanding when I look at your budget. So so you you had a you had a goal of a 125 connections last year. And now this year, we're we're going to we're going to drop that to 75. But ultimately, in the end, if I if I'm reading the report, right. You actually spoke to 62 people. Is that is that correct? So, so and the exact numbers aren't that important, but I just want to make sure that's that general understanding.
Speaker 1: That's the general budget.
Speaker 7: And so this revised budget, really what you're proposing here is that you're going to do more outreach and for less money going to legal representation, you're going to you're still going to you're assuming you're still going to provide services to a greater number of people.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. There will be more touches. We think the impact will actually be greater as we're out there giving presentations, providing that knowledge into the community, empowering the community to provide that knowledge to their, you know, friends, neighbors, family. So we do think that this will be actually a much greater impact by reallocate reallocating families.
Speaker 7: So I appreciate the thoughtfulness that goes that went into this. So when I've been in your shoes talking to boards of diocese and these are never phone conversations, so thank you for your for your willingness to engage. My question is because I because I do agree that I mean, you know, when you live in a town where the ethnic makeup is 30% Chinese-American and somebody who and we've all knocked on doors as we're going around, knows that there are a lot of households out there that that there is knowing it's not even just, you know, low, low English proficiency, but but zero. I do think that that's a that's an issue that I would want to make sure is clarified if and as we move forward, how that is going to be handled both from the is, you know, I guess my question is this is this enough money for outreach, quite honestly, because it feels like printing some fliers and then dropping them off in some places and hoping people hoping people find them. So I might actually be interested in seeing if there's a slightly larger outreach in education budget that could could be used to reach some of the communities that were not current that that you've highlighted, that you're concerned you're not reaching into. Again, I don't know what that right number is or in this may be it, I'm open to that. But I would also like to better understand how, to my colleagues point that if and when we move forward with with the contract, how we can utilize city resources and whatever else to have onsite in city meetings. Yeah. I mean one of the good things about living next door to a really large city is that you have access to lots of resources that you might not if everybody was just the size of Alameda. On the other hand, sometimes there's this expectation that everybody leave the island in order to get services. And I am sensitive to especially the populations for. I can do here may not be the populations that have the flexibility, the time and whatnot to necessarily get in a car, drive and jump on a bus and spend 30 or 40 minutes traveling to a meeting. So I'd like to kind of see that addressed as we're moving forward in this conversation.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think there are, uh, you know, if there's a way to partner with some of these surrounding organizations, there are some that are actually active. They're based in Oakland as well, but active here in Alameda. Filipino Advocates for justice. Um, Asian Health Services. And some of those groups where, where perhaps it's not doing the drop in hours or something like that but actually doing a know your rights event co-sponsored with those groups where you could have breakouts in various languages and doing something like that where you're pooling resources to make it more effective and doing it maybe once or twice a year just to give the updates if there have been any updates to let people know what your work is. I'd love to see something like that. Co-sponsored with Alameda Renters and these other groups that are operating here. I think as much as we can pool resources among the different nonprofits that are doing the work, as well as our legal nonprofits and our our activists to help get the word out. Then you have multiple people in multiple platforms helping with the publicity. It's not then an added budget expense and we can really coalesce and um, rather than duplicate. So I think that, you know, if we could see that and have some plan for that, whether from a staff perspective, I know that that's something that you and Debbie mentioned in your kind of report. There was an email that you sent clearing up some information. And I know we've talked about, uh, these sort of possibilities.
Speaker 10: And the perfect example of a know your rights that you co-sponsor is that I have referred when the Chans office wants to do a know your rights event in April, and I have referred them to Centro Legal to combine their forces and do something collaboratively. So we're not having multiple events so we can get more bang. And the housing authority is working with central legal for a know your rights forum. So I think that that is exactly the kind of thing that's being looked at as part of the outreach and the enhanced outreach budget. Um.
Speaker 0: Well, finish your sentence and then I want to, I want to suggest a modification.
Speaker 10: And then I was, I was going to, if I, if it's helpful, I was just going to summarize a few of the key points that I heard this evening, which was on the interpret the interpreters. So, um, Centro uses the language, Centro uses a language line which we don't pay extra for. I mean that's part of the services and the language line. They, they do meet with a person in the room and then the translators on the phone so that they're with the client in person. And what I've heard is that the council might like to see a model where there is an initial contact and then a one on one appointment is scheduled with a time, and then arrangements can be made for an interpreter to be physically present. If, um, if that's what's warranted as a next step. I mean, it sounded like that there's either the language line or to try to identify somebody who could do interpretation.
Speaker 0: Um, so I'll answer that. Although Council, I'm going to need your indulgence for about two more minutes when my time runs out. But, um, I, I have maybe softened on an interpreter, but if the, uh, the tenant says no, I would really like someone in person translating, I think that that person could be found. What I can't agree to is adding to this budget to provide more services, more outreach. Translation I think this budget has all that is needed. I know I read that whether you could do more outreach, but it would take more funds. You have stated that they're doing less legal representation, more tenant education. So that's non attorney time. So I would I, I think this this contract is plenty rich in terms of compensation, especially for touching fewer clients.
Speaker 10: Asking for any additional compensation that the recommendation is a revised work scope with the existing the existing budget. So there's no request for additional funding from the city council.
Speaker 0: Okay. Notwithstanding what was said in the in the annual report.
Speaker 10: Well, the point that was being made in the annual report was less about the translation and more about the cultural competency. And if the central legal were to do a deeper. I've around cultural competency that that was an exercise that would require additional funding. And what they said was, however, and we're not asking for that additional funding, they were just pointing out that cultural competency is a different than just translation services. But what they're proposing is, as they do their their more robust outreach, they will be able to do some of what was being suggested tonight, such as reaching out to Alice Liberty or the and other folks who may have connections in the community that can help with that, but not for any additional funding for that exercise. That's not what's being requested. There is no additional funding being requested this evening.
Speaker 0: Council Could I have a motion to give me maximum three more minutes on this item?
Speaker 3: Um. Sure.
Speaker 6: Um. Yeah, I'll move that second.
Speaker 0: Okay. All in favor. I. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, um, I. So I take a few steps back, and again, I am stunned that an organization as well-regarded, incompetent as Central ago did not know that working in Alameda would involve working with Asian speaking, non-English speaking Asian clients. And so now they're having to do, you know, go back and make up for lost time. I'm saying that should have been part of the first phase in year one. So whatever they need to do to increase that cultural competency and there have been great suggestions from my colleagues about you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Asian health services, other you know organizations partner with other groups. But I, I feel strongly about they should do more to to do more robust outreach. But again, within that same funding envelope. And I if I'm going to vote for this proposal, I do need to see more time spent in Alameda for all the reasons that have been articulated and the um, because again, at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is keep people from being displaced. And we're hearing from our tenants that now that tenants have a little more confidence or less fear to come forward and complain about habitability requirements. It's already a struggle. People are working two and three jobs just to pay the rent. Let's not make them take time out of their busy days to go to Oakland. I think you know, you're serving Alameda. I think you should spend as much time here as you're spending in Oakland at clinics. My thoughts? Okay. Who's next? Councilmember. Councilmember Diaz.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you. I just want to make two points. First is, from a practical standpoint, the reason why we want to have more services provided in the city of Alameda is because from a practical perspective, we don't know if our if our funds. Are paying for clients from San Leandro or Oakland when they go to your Oakland office. So at least if we're in Alameda, we know that they're Alameda. So we know something about the way in which our funds are being expended. Perhaps there's an answer to that that you have. But but that's that's one of the practical reasons why if we're going to fund services, that the services ought to be in the city in which, you know, the funds are coming from. Um, the second point is, um, I certainly, uh, I want to hear more and maybe it's not for tonight, but I just want to hear more about how your organization can guard against situations, um, where you're not getting the full picture. Um, and. I certainly heard the. Part that you said that there's a clear distinction between legal representation, in which case you have to, as Councilmember Brody says, defend your client to the fullest. But I think I also heard that before you get to this phase of legal representation, there's also some information gathering that that that you do with the tenants. I think it's at that point where I would want somehow that that, you know, you also are gathering information from the small, small mom and pop landlords. That's that's who I represent. And, you know, those are the perspectives that I hear and. And you know, maybe in this day and age, you know, it's not a politically correct thing to say, but it is what it is. And so that's that's what I want to hear, is that that there is a process by which, you know, you have internal procedures in place that that ensure that that you're doing all that you can in following your procedures to get the full picture of a certain situation before you take it to the next stage of of it being some kind of legal issue, at which point in time, yes. Council Member Ody is correct. You have to represent, you know, your client as best as possible. Not all landlords are right. Not all renters are right. You know, there's a gray area somewhere in there. And as professionals, you know, we have to figure that out. So those are the two points that I want to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 4: I guess my question was to our councilman. What, if anything, can we modify in this agreement here? Like could we require a check in in 90 days to, you know, implement some of the things that we've we've asked about? Could we require, you know, 5050 splitting of the of the meetings or, you know, as the mayor or flip it, like the mayor suggested? I mean, what type of things can we modify?
Speaker 7: These are all things you can modify, though the other side might have a saying yes or no as to whether or not they'll sign the agreement.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not comfortable waiting a year. Yeah, but maybe there's some middle ground. I don't know.
Speaker 10: I mean, the item is before you tonight, and you can amend the work scope and just just I just want to address Councilmember De Sykes at one point. We absolutely know that we are serving and paying for services delivered to Alameda residents. There is an intake form that is done and the central league, our work, our contract requires reporting. So we absolutely know that we are serving Alameda residents with the city's money. So I just want to make that clear.
Speaker 6: Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 10: I was. I was. It sounds like the council might be interested in having the work scope further amended, which if we get directions, staff can do that so that we pursue the one on one appointments. And that I think what we heard from Central Legal this evening is that the the the drop in clinics more than monthly at mastic the know your rights events which are already contemplated are effective but that the one on one appointments may be the most effective way to to work with Alameda residents so that when they can be scheduled and they can have a block of time and they can schedule one on one appointments, we can absolutely provide space for them to conduct these meetings. We I think we should be able to do that. And then I think we can modify the work scope to include that. And then I would you had suggested 90 days. I was thinking about a six month check in back to the council where we could communicate, you know, a six month report check in. We can either do it as an off agenda or if the council wanted a presentation from from central legal staff, we could do that. And that might be a way to track how things are going and that they would be doing more outreach and work with translating materials. Those kinds of things are already contemplated in the work scope. And so it sounded like one of the bigger changes was the one on one appointments here in Alameda.
Speaker 0: I would add to that, I think I've said it a couple of times. I want to see more robust outreach to non-English speaking communities and then, uh, let's see, did someone else want to chime in? I just lost my train of thought to try and get it back at Councilmember Avila.
Speaker 9: I think one other thing is with or we're doing a rent registry right now, so we're going to have addresses and more information, correct. I think somehow utilizing that information or in anything that goes out from the city, including Centro's information on it, that has to happen. I know there was a delay in having that happen before, and that was on our end. And I would like to make sure that that that that is part and parcel of it, that we are also doing our our job and getting the word out about these services being available. And that not only do we note that that Centro is a resource for for tenants to call, but also that that perhaps we do that in a couple of different languages so that are our tenants who speak different languages and especially languages that we know are prevalent, that they can call Centro and that language services are available to them. So they will get they will get legal services that this is not only for English speakers. So I think that that's something that we can do on our end. And certainly we need to make sure that we're doing that because that's part of the outreach.
Speaker 0: And I'll just say there's already a line item in in their annual report for outreach and marketing. So this should be well within the scope. And what I was also going to add is this emergency financial assistance recommending $25,000 allocation the year in year to 30,000 in year three. But yet in the first year of the grant city of Alameda, tenants received $47,462 in CFA grants. So why would we then reduce that amount? This is where I would feel more comfortable just holding back some of the $166,666 for the city. And to say, okay, you do the you find out who needs this assistance, let us know what you'd have to do anyway, because we have to have ultimate approval authority. And I mean, why would we only authorize 25,000 in emergency assistance this year when last year they allocated 47,000, I would say is the need getting smaller?
Speaker 10: Well, last year out of this budget there was no right.
Speaker 0: I understand. Understood, Ms.. Potter. But again, it's the same money we're talking the same funds that we're talking about. Emergency financial assistance to keep people from slipping through the cracks. So it's looking like the city will take that over now. And I'm just saying, why allocate less for this next year than was spent last year?
Speaker 10: Well, because they've been because tenants have been able to access the county money from last November through May. The county contracts still in place. It's an augmentation now. And then if the county contract is not renewed come May, then there's the 30,000 for the following year. And it may be that one of the report backs to council can be what the county did with the contract in May to understand whether or not it's going to be a reduction or not.
Speaker 0: I'm just reading from the annual report that says in the first year of the grant city of Alameda, tenants have received 47,000, etc..
Speaker 10: That's correct. That's correct. From the County Funds Council.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 4: Let me try something. So I'd like to move approval of the item with the understanding that staff comes back in four months because six months is on break. And then so that really that means seven. So I don't think that's feasible with hearing all of the concerns that were raised today and then seeing if you could come up with some agreement or modifications we could consider at that point to amend the agreement based on, you know, further research and negotiation.
Speaker 9: If needed.
Speaker 4: If needed. I don't know. We'll see if that fly. You can always.
Speaker 0: Extend that again.
Speaker 4: Well, rather than change anything today, just come back in four months, because I'm sure everyone has heard everything that we've we've talked about. And then see if you can come up with different ways to amend the agreement in four months time that could help alleviate all these concerns. At no additional cost.
Speaker 0: So based on council comments. Right?
Speaker 4: Right. Yeah. I mean, that way we keep moving forward and we don't let it lapse or anything, but we get a sooner reaction to some of these these things because I don't like the idea of amending from the dais, but, you know, I'm open to it if my colleagues have something firm that they they think the legal services group can agree to, but just it's emotion. We'll see what.
Speaker 2: Happens.
Speaker 0: Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second discussion. Vice Mayor That's right.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So my biggest concern is four months isn't very much in time to get something here. We're going to have two months of data. I don't I don't I much as I don't want to wait until September, I really think that we should give them till September so that we can actually get some time, some time for them to to do something that they're going to be turning around. A report starting in about a month without time to have actually done anything that we're that we're looking to address. I'm fully supportive with the general motion. I would also just want to give a little bit, make sure that there's clarity on what things we're reporting back on, which in terms of in my mind is the in language, the how meetings are going and how outreach is happening and how successful that outreach has been.
Speaker 0: So are you making a substitute motion?
Speaker 7: I guess I'm asking Councilmember Ody if he would be willing to accept that.
Speaker 4: I mean, maybe if we can get it before the end of July. But, you know, it shouldn't take that much time to report out on the outreach efforts that are being done. It shouldn't take that much time to figure out which languages they need, you know, supported. And I mean, I don't know. I guess that's a question. So whether, you know, we give away X hundred dollars for assistance or we have, you know, 30 cases versus 60, I agree that we're not going to have that data, but I think there were some specific points that were raised specifically around meeting in Alameda and interpreting services that I don't know if you need data on. But, you know.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bell is going to clear this all that person.
Speaker 2: No pressure.
Speaker 0: No pressure.
Speaker 9: I'm wondering if we can get an off if if we can get an off agenda report back before before in four months and then have an A have this come back on agenda after the break in September. And I think that that that will keep us on track to have that report in time for September. And if there's if there's updates or information that comes in, it'll be it'll come in in time. For a report from staff to be developed, and it will give us an opportunity to weigh in. And if there's more information that we're seeking or more details. So perhaps it's we can amend the motion to have an off off off agenda report back and in four months and then have this agenda is to come back to us in September.
Speaker 0: How does that sound to you? Councilor Roby Okay, so we have a modified motion that's been seconded.
Speaker 9: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yes. Sunbae, can somebody say goodbye? Councilmember Vel, any further discussion? All in favor. I oppose. Abstain, said the motion passes four in favor and one abstention.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone, for all the information you provided. At this time, we're going to take about a ten minute break. We will resume at 830. Thank you. 30. Okay. The council meeting is resuming. I get that. And you know.
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I'll take that. Okay, so we are resuming, but we're going to do a little bit of. How could I ask everyone? Everyone. There would be everyone to please. If you wanted to have a conversation, do it in the hall. This council meeting is in session. Hello, everyone. Okay, so I've had a few requests about looking at the agenda. Order. Um, Madam Clerk, can you tell us you have the speaker's lists for all the different items that are still to be heard, which is to say the entire regular agenda. And it's 830. Which of them has the most speakers?
Speaker 1: Six, eight.
Speaker 0: Six, eight has five. Okay, well, why don't we start at the top of the alphabet with six? And then, um. Okay.
Speaker 1: Then six P has one and six F has two.
Speaker 0: Okay, that's pretty similar. So. Okay. We are starting with 6a6am and three. Oh, you know what? I want to I want to just announcement or just keep coming up, ladies. Um, I did have a request from staff that not all staff were agreeable to merging items six B and 60. So we are. And merging them and they going to be heard separately. See, that was easy. Okay. Six. Wow. Is this right? What? You guys are doing that to me again?
Speaker 5: No, it's it's normal place. And usually it's.
Speaker 1: It may just be a brighter group, right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. To. Okay. Okay. So could I have a motion, please, to separate items B and C, back to being individual items. So move second a second by a council member. Decide all in favor I any oppose. Abstain. Okay. Okay. So I misspoke. Powder. I am just going to have to move my chair because I can't stand that light. But keep talking.
Speaker 10: Okay. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Debbie Potter, the development director. And I am delighted to be here tonight to talk about the MRU with the East Bay Regional Park District for the Northwest Territory Regional Shoreline. And I'm even more delighted to have my coconspirator here, Amy Wooldridge, the Rec and Park Director.
Recommendation to: 1) Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Service Provider Agreement with Centro Legal de la Raza to Revise the Scope of Services, with No Change to the Compensation, for Legal Services to Lower-Income Tenant Households in Alameda; and 2) Accept Centro Legal de la Raza’s Annual Report Concerning Free Legal Services for Low Income Tenants in Alameda. (Community Development 266)