Speaker 1: Thank you. And so I think we have as is Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Maxwell are you the team is going to present.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 4: Yes, actually, Ms.. Butler is going to present on the.
Speaker 1: Perfect welcome, Ms.. Butler.
Speaker 2: Getting the Madam Mayor and members of city council. The City of Alameda lacked sufficient housing space for our unhoused residents. Staff recommends that the city use its real estate assets to provide emergency shelter for approximately 32 unhoused residents in three vacant properties located at Alameda Point. Staff invited to organizations, the Bay Area Community Services and Village of Love to submit a proposal to offer emergency housing at three at the three vacant properties. The two organizations were selected based on their depth of experience. Stop interviewing both organizations and found both of them to be capable of offering emergency housing. Staff is recommending Batts to operate the city's emergency housing program based on Box's history operating parable model and their strength of the writing proposal and their high caliber of interview responses. In addition, Batts is highly developed, has a highly developed program model that supports placement of program participants in permanent housing. Batts also has extensive experience successfully providing homeless housing in single family scattered dwellings throughout the Bay Area. Emergency homeless housing programing is designed to promote and support placement in permanent housing. Generally speaking, six months is a typical timeframe for a person to be housed in emergency housing. That period is sometimes more and sometimes less. It is particularly crucial to provide emergency housing prior to the opening of the transitional supportive housing blocks that the services will include one meal a day and food for individual meal preparation, case management, referral services, housing, navigation services, staff oversight and supportive services. That's will also dedicate 300,000 of its annual budget towards flexible funds used to prepare and place residents in permanent housing. Here are staff's recommendations. We're recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a budget to appropriate $2,836,047 in American rescue funds, ARPA funds to pay for the MAX contract, and 300,000 for startup costs such as furniture , linens, a vehicle and minor remodel and repair and minor, minor remodel and repair 2 to 3 homes. Staff further recommends that city council authorize the city manager to execute a two year agreement with banks for amount not to exceed $2,536,047. Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Alameda County for heat interest funding in an amount ranging from 30000 to 45000 to help support the remodel repairs in these three housing houses. Excuse me. This ends by presentation.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Miss Butler. Do we have any clarifying questions from council before we go to public comment, which I assume we have public comment.
Speaker 0: We do.
Speaker 1: We do. Okay. I'm seeing none. Why don't we go to public comment?
Speaker 0: We only have three speakers so far. The first is Curtis Thomas.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Thomas. Speaker Thomas, are you able to unmute?
Speaker 3: I'm sorry you're.
Speaker 2: Here. You're great here.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm one of the city's residential tenants in the ranch homes, townhouses and big whites at Alameda Point. While we support assistance for unhoused individuals, it is only.
Speaker 4: Fair that other neighborhoods in.
Speaker 3: Alameda and Bay for Island besides ours bear some of the risks and externalities of the city's plan to combat homelessness and housing insecurity. Why are these efforts almost entirely concentrated in our neighborhood? We are already dealing with a large uptick in crime and quality of life issues here on the point, as a result of the city concentrating homeless outreach and permitting encampments in and around us. The proposed three emergency shelters to be installed in homes here housing up to 32, rotating short term adult residents at a time in the very midst of our family oriented neighborhood is cause for concern to myself and many of my neighbors, especially those with children. It would be far more acceptable to the current residents of this family oriented neighborhood of the city, housed families in these units. Instead, I work in affordable housing, and although the majority are well-behaved and deserving tenants, I can tell you that even in the permanent housing stage, there are outsized issues with drugs, violence, theft, psychiatric breakdowns and other unnaturally type behaviors. To place three emergency shelters in two of the big White Houses and one townhouse on top of allowing encampments and concentrating the bulk of the city's homeless. Outreach here is unfair to us since the city is our landlord. We deserve more input into this decision as intimate stakeholders. I ask that the decision be delayed until proper stakeholder input is received. If this is allowed to go through, it would be more than fair for the city to reduce our rents, to compensate us for taking.
Speaker 4: On a far larger share of the risks.
Speaker 3: And externalities than any other neighborhood in Alameda. And because reducing rents for the city's own tenants would also align with the spirit of the city's plan to alleviate homelessness and housing insecurity, thus reducing the odds that our tenants, that their own tenants become unhoused. We are the city's own tenants. Please prove that you care about us too.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: And a back test.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker bagged his.
Speaker 2: Evening again here. And members of the City Council, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about this item, which, as you know, I definitely support.
Speaker 1: Any.
Speaker 2: And all options of housing is good for Alameda to really address the issue of homelessness in our city. I see a deliberate on this item to establish an emergency homeless housing program in the city, which I think is long overdue and I hope you will support. I would like to suggest a couple more items to consider. Number one, please hire more staff to run the city's social services and homeless services programs. Having one person, from my experience, to carry out existing programs to now manage some new and major projects in homeless housing. And by the way, this is just one of the many projects this person will be juggling with. It is not sustainable. I want to give a shout out to the community development team who are willing to drop everything to provide support to this position. But they have their own jobs and they also have full time for full work. So other cities similar in size in Alameda has entire teams or divisions dedicated to homelessness services. So please, I urge you to look into staffing services for social services and homeless services. Right. And then second, while I applaud this long overdue effort, this is a temporary solution. So please continue to work on permanent housing solutions for the unhoused. It is estimated that the government spends an average of $35,000 or more per year per person on a chronically homeless person on the streets. In comparison, providing permanent supportive housing costs about $12,800 per year per person on average. So, you know, it's a no brainer, I think, to to really look at a homeless permanent housing solution for the homeless. And finally, I want to thank you. You've always been supportive supportive of projects for our unhoused. And I urge you to continue making ending homelessness a.
Speaker 1: Priority in the.
Speaker 2: City of Alameda. So thank you for your time and for your effort in this in this really journey to end homelessness in our city.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Stephanie, changed.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. Speaker Is it China's hard? Welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hello, Kitty.
Speaker 1: We can hear you just fine. Go right ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hello. City Council members Mayor Ashcraft and city staff. I am a resident of the one of the family homes on Alameda Point. And I sent an email earlier today to each of you. And I appreciate that some of you have responded to my concerns about this project. However, I'd like to reiterate and elaborate on some of the points I made. First of all, as the project currently stands, this is not scattered off site housing. This is clustered housing. Alameda Point is a community with mixed housing. We have more than 200 units of permanent supportive housing that is wonderfully managed by the Army two point Collaborative. We have a domestic violence shelter. We have transitional housing trailers, and we have traditional family housing. And in this mix of housing, the we have seen really good outcomes from other residents who need support. The two point neighborhood, however, has become disproportionately burdened by the housing policies of the city. It seems like whenever we have a need for housing, the first the first stop is Alameda point. And I'm sorry. Let me that's okay. The newly formed unhoused encampment over as they have formed over on the estuary has increased foot traffic through the neighborhood. We are taking housing out of the rental inventory at this point. And. Excuse me. I'm sorry. So the plan is actually removing housing as it stands, as in rental, and it is not adding housing. The point is largely comprised of historically disenfranchized populations, and my main concern here is that there has been no community.
Speaker 4: Input.
Speaker 2: On this subject. And again, with a neighborhood that has been largely disenfranchized, it seems like this is the one neighborhood who has not been engaged in the process. Oftentimes when we've had other housing issues come up, other neighborhoods have been engaged. And I'm very concerned with the lack of involvement once again with Alameda Point residents. They have seen it. They have seen their voices and heard in a lot of different communities, in a lot of different venues. I think that that's I think the active dismantling of this community is going to further disenfranchize a lot of our residents here and it's going to entrench the segregation policies that are are are cropping up for this. The solution I. I'm going to ask the council to delay the vote on this until we can have some meaningful community dialog and let the voices of Alameda point to be heard. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: We now have.
Speaker 0: Reached the limit of being over seven speakers, so the time will now drop to 2 minutes per speaker. Okay. Next speaker is Dee Dee Lewis.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Lewis.
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: We can.
Speaker 2: Well. Well, I want to just thank you all for all the hard work you are doing. Providing housing. Housing and dignity, I think, are both human rights. And there is no clear cut path to making that a reality for everyone. I also live on a block of Pearl Harbor, right near one of what we call the big whites that I am reading. What house? 11 kind of a rotating residency of 11 tenants going through various programs to kind of get their get themselves together and be able to find permanent housing. And 11 or a single family home just seems like a lot. If we've learned anything from MTV's The Real World. Even seven strangers living in a house was a whole lot of problems. And 11 just feels like we are not necessarily setting these residents up for success. I would love to see housing insecure families come into this neighborhood. I know through some of my work with AUC, we do have plenty of families that that would be a great fit here. I also was very excited to hear about the bottle parcel and some of that work and I'm hoping we can have some of that continue maybe on Bay Farm as well and kind of share it in this one. I you know, I was hearing a lot of like we're one island, we're one Alameda. And, you know, it's great that we have a lot of those services in our neighborhood, but I think it would be nice to not have all of them in our neighborhood. And I will see the rest of my time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Ake you speaker Lewis our next speaker. And by the way, we don't see time. Everybody gets 2 minutes and you use it or not. But thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Amy Benjamin.
Speaker 1: Good evening, speaker. Benjamin.
Speaker 2: Hi. I too am a resident of Alameda Point, a block away from one of the proposed sites. One of the great things about our neighborhood is that it is a very family oriented neighborhood and it is also affordable housing. One of the reasons that we did move here with our three children was so that we would be able it was one of the only places that we could afford to live. But it's also a childhood that they have out here, much like the eighties, where they can ride around on their bikes and they're barefoot, running from house to house and day and night. And I don't worry about it at all. However, I feel like if we have 11 to 13 people in a single family home directly across the street with a rotating. I don't know with rotating people coming in if they're going to be changing it up every six months because it's emergency housing. It's not permanent housing. These aren't people that are going to be endeared to our community or part of our community per say, because they're not going to be investing in it. I don't feel like I would have that same sense of safety. I don't feel like I would have that same sense of well-being. Having my children just out playing feral and free range. I think that if we had family housing here, that it would be more than welcome refugee housing more than welcome. But to have just people that are coming in for like a moment isn't really necessarily something that feels like it's in line with our community that we have here. And we do have a very strong community, as you can see from the letters that have been pouring in all day. I also would like to say just on a similar note, that the bottle parcel tax is very well thought out. I mean, having Gensler on board, having all of the things put together, having people from that staff here to talk to us was really reassuring and lovely that this doesn't feel like it's as put together. And I would also like to.
Speaker 4: Have the vote delayed en masse until there can be more discussion.
Speaker 2: And that's it.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Speaker Benjamin. Okay. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Craig Mia.
Speaker 1: There is Mr. Myatt, right.
Speaker 3: That's correct, Mr. Myers. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Your council members and mayor. I wanted to say I'm. Redevelopment is near and dear to my heart. I'm a real estate developer and advisor. I was responsible, started revitalizing downtown San Jose, downtown L.A., Albuquerque, and also responsible architecture of the and airport commercial properties. I started development groups of marketing companies, and I've also gone about 100 years of single family housing throughout the Central Valley. I'm also on the board of the East Bay Overland Institute, and I'm also just been nominated as one to the state of Indiana for Project Infant Family Services as well. So I really care about each other and I'm also rivers and it wouldn't be much. Unfortunately, I can't support this venture because it is not fitting with the historical charter. This particular district is called a historical district and the city actually picked a color scheme so that when we change the legacy for this particular historical area and this area was issued for single families and should be preserved because of the policy. Number two, I don't like about this a stream segregation of services. The point I wanted to see that the transit ought to be dispersed around the city. I'd like to see a study done on geospatial mapping illustrating the number of units and location roughly on the Alameda. Third thing I dislike was like a lack of transparency. I just found about this yesterday. And this was like there was no public comment. There's no noticing in the residence. We have no idea who's actually managing the facilities or what's actually happening. I've moved in here because as a fan community, I have a daughter. I like to have my daughter play with neighbors, which should be all the families and kids not loving adults and also living in the big white 11 people is not really nice. I've had family members over and love and time.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Your time is up. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: William Smith.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Smith.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the Council. As I mentioned earlier, I've been involved for over three decades with housing in Alameda, and I've really watched how it's become an issue. We could predict predicted, but now that the predictions have come true and regarding the the housing that you're talking about for this item, it's emergency housing . It's not permanent housing. And so it's a contract for two years. So if it doesn't work out at this particular place, it can be revoked. And it's emergency housing. It's needed now. It's needed for people today. And so that means that we will have less consideration about some of the other things regarding concentration at Alameda Point. That is a problem, but it's only three, three housing units. And the place where we will really get after that is coming up later on the agenda. The housing element is affirmatively furthering fair housing and that's where things based. Housing opportunities are spread throughout the island and that's the place to really address that. And three units, 3 to 3 homes, one way or the other is not a major issue on for for reform, firmly furthering for housing. And then the other thing, what you commonly hear, we we're a family neighborhood and we only want families here. Well, that's a that's a common thing I've heard for all three decades. And we have to have places for single people. Many of our own kids grow up. They're not they're not married right away. They need a place to live. They need it. So we need to work in all different kinds of people and all the neighborhoods and integrate them together. So I'm definitely would suggest you go ahead with this, but be sure your staff at absolutely the best do a high quality job because if you don't I would be supportive of the neighborhood and turn and and closing it down in two years when it comes up for renewal.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker Smith, our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Dennis Anderson.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Anderson.
Speaker 2: Well, again, I. Okay. I do agree that the island does need to share in the responsibility to help our unhoused neighbors, but not for the reasons that some previous speakers mentioned. Alameda The entirety of Alameda is a family neighborhood. So, you know, I live in the East End. There's families here. There's homes here. Put it here. I don't care. But you know what? I'm hearing a lot of my neighbors on the other end of the island saying is that this, you know, offering services to unhoused people is going to bring in crime and make their kids unsafe. And that's not true. When people are receiving services and are receiving care, they are part of our community and they do have an investment in maintaining that community. So I'm just really disappointed to hear some of the things that I've heard from people. So but yeah, put it put it over here. I don't you know, I'd love to have some new neighbors and, you know, welcome to my community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Speaker Anderson. And I just want to remind people that you are all entitled to make whatever comments you want to make. We try not to comment or disparage what anyone else said because your your comments, that's your truth and and your perspective. And we we value and learn from all of it. Further comments, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: We have one more speaker, Josh Guyer.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Guyer.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Me being other council members, I also note I want to echo everything that Janice and Bill said. For me, this is it's a it's the emergency housing. It's in an emergency. And so we need to make accommodations. I am sympathetic to people who live in an Alameda point that if it appears in their would be corrected.
Speaker 4: Thing, that appears that there's a lot of different kinds of services that are concentrated there. As Bill said, we're going to get to that and in.
Speaker 3: The next item about how to concentrate both opportunity and this amenity across the island, because that's what is required of us by affirmatively furthering fair housing. But I'm sympathetic to that. But I did want to point to one thing that I noticed at least three speakers reference and Bill running up to.
Speaker 4: The idea that there's a.
Speaker 3: Family neighborhood in that that there were there would might be people who are unlike.
Speaker 4: Families who would be in proximity to our families. And that would be.
Speaker 3: Somehow inherently wrong. I want to just as Bill said, I want to draw attention to the fact that I mean, either either people are inherently have inherent value and they have the inherent right to dignity or they don't. And if and what determines that and if they do, what determines that value is not whether they're a member of a family or not. People have value.
Speaker 4: People deserve dignity. And there's a lot.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, there's a there's a lack of available dignity right now. And we we're trying to make it a little less lacking by providing housing here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker Guyer And I believe we might have another speaker.
Speaker 0: They just put their hand down. Sorry. Oh.
Speaker 1: We don't have another speaker. Okay. With that, I am going to close public comment on item seven A and council. We are going to take a little break because we've already exceeded my two hour zoom rule. And so it's 942 that's come back at 955. Okay. Quick break. Some of us will put in eye drops and look away from your screen for a little bit. 955, we'll see you back here. Thanks, everyone. Counsel, you'll want to mute and probably turn off your cameras. You can just leave and log back in.
Speaker 3: It's.
Speaker 2: Hi, John. Good to see you. I think it's best to.
Speaker 3: It's.
Speaker 1: Hello? Hello.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 1: Hi, Laura.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So I understand we may have a guest.
Speaker 2: Yes. Max is here, and I believe they will. People, evil people. Death. Excellent. So Jonathan Russell Apax has joined us.
Speaker 1: There he is. Welcome. How are you?
Speaker 3: I'm doing well. How are you?
Speaker 1: Great. Let me just check in with our city clerk. Madam Clerical studio's count. I've got one, two, three, four, five. Okay. And we've got a city manager. City manager? Hello, city attorney. We've got. Okay, man. Everybody just keeps moving around. So are we. Are you ready to go, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 0: Yes, we are.
Speaker 1: All right. Welcome back, everyone. We are back from our break. And so we and we finished our public comment. We are very fortunate to have been joined by Jonathan Russell of Facts, which is Bay Area Community Services. I just want to introduce yourself, Mr. Russell, that will make him available for any council questions or counsel. We could vote to give Mr. Russell 5 minutes to give an overview of his program. And I'm going to assume that you were listening to the previous discussion and could perhaps address some of the concerns. Councilmember Spencer, Jesse, Angela.
Speaker 2: Yes. I'm happy to make a motion to give him 5 minutes, I guess.
Speaker 1: Okay. And that's the second by Councilmember Knox, who I.
Speaker 3: Think.
Speaker 1: Perfectly had a motion, had a second, maybe. We have a quick roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Rotation.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Or a spencer. I next like.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: She's there somewhere.
Speaker 0: He is. She's there. She's just juggling. So we can we can skip the.
Speaker 2: I'm an I, and.
Speaker 1: I think we've got a majority, so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and start. Thank you. All right, welcome, Mr. Russell. In 5 minutes, tell us everything we need to know.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Madam Mayor. And council members. My name is Jonathan Russell. I'm the chief strategy officer for Bay Area Community Services. Just briefly, I have the five, ten, 15, 30 minute version, so I'll I'll do the five minute max is a we are a nonprofit provider rooted in Alameda County founded in 1953 in Oakland as a group of 12 concerned churches came together and said, we want to provide for the needs of our community long before things like social services existed in any government sector form and really have evolved from that rooted, community based place. We are now a large nonprofit that provides 40 plus programs across the behavioral health spectrum and homeless and housing services in seven counties. Again, most deeply rooted in Alameda County. Here as a chief strategy officer, my job is spending a lot of time on council meetings like this and also working with lovely city staff like Lois and Lisa and Veronica to develop interventions that work and address and end homelessness. And so back as an agency, we provide a lot of homeless services. We serve over 17,000 people a year across all of our programs and housed thousands of people a year across our programs as well. So we are deeply deep believers in a housing first model and a harm reduction model and in a dignified, uplifting and empowering approach to our community experiencing houseless mess. So this program is unique in that it is located in a scattered site, kind of in large home setting, which Backes is also familiar with. We operate about 300 units of scattered site housing in neighborhoods across Alameda County, single family homes, the majority of those permanent housing. But we've also operated an interim way. This interim housing program model is also a model that we've been operating since 2013. Now in eight programs that serve over 800 people a year across those programs all together. Now, now that we have eight and eight different cities, all working with local jurisdictions, all deeply committed to doing not just interim work, but housing that turns into permanent housing. So we've been very fortunate to be able to have 80% on average of the folks served in these interventions, transitioned to permanent housing from interim housing, which, if you know anything about the numbers, is is pretty good. It's so we we we joke that not joke, but we make it clear we don't operate emergency shelter. It's not just about the shelter and rest of it, it's about a housing pathway. So we have had we have housed over 1500 people through this intervention alone since launching these programs that have really grown since 2018. We have an interim housing program in Berkeley and Hayward and Fremont, two in Oakland just to name the Alameda County program. So happy to talk more, understand the community concerns. We are deep believers that it is about seeing our unhoused neighbors as part of our community. And so how can we address everyone's concerns? Work to destigmatize and work to provide the supports we know we need. I do want to just lift up one community member comment that I think is critical for all of us to realize, and the evidence bears it out. When we provide services, we don't bring problems, we alleviate them. When we provide and wraparound folks in our community, we alleviate problems for businesses, not create. And so I do just want to say, you know, these these are complicated issues, but these are our neighbors and these are models that work. And I'm not just saying that because because Max is involved. I'm saying that because I just I appreciate the community's commitment to providing the services. And we deeply believe that the neighborhood is the best place to do so. And so a model, though unique, that is not a big single project that's over there in this industrial park or what have you, which very often, as we all know, sometimes emergency shelters are there is there is value in doing this in a community , in a neighborhood setting. And it's an opportunity for us to wrap around and be a part of that process of transformation and destigmatizing. So that's my that's my impromptu representation. Happy to take any questions or talk more specifically about the service model and anything else there in.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Russell, you did a good job of sticking to your 5 minutes. Among the concerns we heard from residents is that some of them are just learning about this. This concept wasn't communicated to them ahead of time. So we can't turn the clock back. But now that we're here and assuming we have the opportunity to move forward, how will backs work with the neighbors? What is your communication model for? For neighbors? Because I think our our speakers raised some very valid concerns. And go ahead, Lisa. Maxwell. Ms..
Speaker 4: Maxwell? Yes. I'd like to be a Navy admiral, please. We have scheduled a community meeting to to share ideas and get questions on the 29th of this month at 6 p.m. at the club. We have that space preserved, so we'll send out further information. It's already on the city's website. So that'll be our initial offering.
Speaker 3: And opportunity to.
Speaker 4: Engage with the community. We can certainly do that again if folks feel like another would be warranted.
Speaker 2: I also understand from Mr. Russell and he can.
Speaker 4: Elaborate on this if you'd like, that once.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 4: Assuming that we go too far with this program, the community members would have easy access to reach.
Speaker 2: Out to backs.
Speaker 4: If something arose that they found to their disliking and wanted to communicate a concern. So there will be a continued line of communication between the service providers and the community members.
Speaker 1: Maybe Mr. Russell can amplify that. When when was that meeting scheduled?
Speaker 4: It's on the 29th.
Speaker 1: Right. But when was it?
Speaker 4: We just played it together because I wanted to have an opportunity to address concerns. Until we got through this evening, we weren't sure we had a program. So we will move forward with that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we will. Well, look forward to hearing more about that. So. Back to Mr. Russell. So Ms.. Maxwell mentioned that Access 24 seven for neighbors who have concerns or questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely. I think probably we again, we believe deeply that this is a community conversation. And so it needs to be a community investment, not that everyone's kicking in, you know, physical dollars do it, but value and commitment to the process. And that comes through conversation. So we definitely want to make ourselves.
Speaker 3: Available and.
Speaker 4: Ongoing. If this were to move forward and backs was the operator to ongoing concerns. We do provide 24 hour services for emergencies and for residents. I don't I don't know if I have a 24 hour line for you. I want to talk about this thing at 3 a.m., but definitely will have an avenue in which to ask those questions and be accessible to to make available ourself both individually and in a group space, in a neighborhood meeting space to talk through these things.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure I understand you, but if a neighbor I understand from reading the staff report that there will be someone overnight on on these properties. And I assume that someone who is staying awake and overseeing things as opposed to also being asleep. But if a neighbor were concerned about some issue arising, some perceived serious issue arising out of one of these properties. Could they not access someone from Baxter? Who would they call? Are they call community development? Anyone can chime in here on staff.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, we certainly will have that stuff. And so it could structure it. I'm more bit like, Hey, I want to have a meeting and talk about this and stuff like that. That is, is probably a business hours thing, but definitely we will have staff that is doing 24 hour services on site and I think certainly could make that available through through either reaching out directly to us as a service provider in the midnight hour or of course, if it's an emergency or a crisis or reaching.
Speaker 3: Out to crisis response as well.
Speaker 4: But I defer to the city on that.
Speaker 2: There will be a staff person in each house 24 hours a day. If there is an immediate emergency there, that person could address that.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: And awake as as bright new risk.
Speaker 1: Okay. And again, this is a concern coming from a neighbor. Is there a phone number? Is there more to be determined?
Speaker 2: There will.
Speaker 4: Be. We can share phone numbers that will cause the that the will allow people access facts. Okay.
Speaker 3: Emergency concern.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council members questions. Comments. Councilor SAC.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I think what was very helpful was the contract that was provided. And I just want to make something clear in the contract on the services that is going to be provided. There's a section called program noncompliance protocols and a basis for a discharge from the facility includes. The first bullet point is possession of weapons. The third bullet point is assault or other violent behavior. The fourth bullet point is theft. The fifth bullet point is destruction of property. So those bullet points when we're talking about a thought, assault and theft. Are we talking about and the destruction of property? How are we talking about that? Does it have to be proven in a court of law? I mean, how is it going to be? And and if the assaults or thefts are against not fellow clients, but against neighbors, how how how is this taken into account? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Great question. So the the.
Speaker 4: Noncompliance protocol, again, and this is sort of a process we use across all of all of these programs that that do this intervention, that provide these services, of course, as written is relative to events internal to the program that we would then manage the investigation, which would be, you know, bringing all parties to the table in terms of what happened, including witnesses, including staff, including the rest. And if it was determined that there was violence or serious threat of violence, for example, as one of the things you selected, then we would develop a discharge plan in which to find another opportunity quickly and sometimes immediately, depending on the level of risk and the level of need for that individual. So that's kind of an internal to the program, not at the court of law, but certainly at the back senior leadership with all relevant parties giving voice to and doing that internal investigation relative to. I think that we would definitely want to hold the same standard relative to outside that particular home community, the broader neighborhood community. But that would, I think, the determination around if it was something like that, that would need to involve the, you know, the local authorities to the area that they are in the sense that we don't have purview into ourselves over over all of those issues. But we would certainly hold the same standard and the same sort of compliance standard, regardless of who it was impacting in the community in terms of the program or otherwise. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hey, other questions, comments, Councilmember Spencer and then Councilmember Knox. Right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. So my first question is, will this house alameda unhoused. It's that 100%. That's the plan.
Speaker 1: You want to explain why this max time is better?
Speaker 2: Yes, I'd be happy to.
Speaker 4: The reason being that we are using ARPA funds and that those funds do not come with a obligation to go through the county's system or to house folks outside of the city. So our priority and our focus will be our own Alameda research.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Will there be any general fund moneys used for this? ARPA funds are being used for this. No, no, not at this point. Thank you. The community outreach. So I appreciate that. This organization, your organization has been around since 1953 and is community based. Why has there not been any meetings with neighbors to date?
Speaker 1: Ms.. Maxwell, do you want to take that?
Speaker 4: I'd be happy to. Yes. We were not sure that we actually had a program to discuss with them. We wanted to make sure that we had city council buy in. And as I mentioned, we've got one scheduled for the 29th, so we can take that feedback.
Speaker 2: So my concern with that is that's after the vote. So I'm not quite sure how what the point is of reaching out to the neighbors after we have voted on this. This is not I thought we were being asked to vote to approve the program today.
Speaker 4: We are asking for that. Councilmember Smith Spencer, I apologize if I interrupted you slightly.
Speaker 2: And during our community.
Speaker 4: Meetings, my understanding would be we were going to get feedback. And if that allowed us to in any way tweak or modify our program to deal with some of the concerns we could possibly consider those options. There was some suggestion that we could work work in.
Speaker 2: Okay. So we did hear from members of the community of concerns of having 11 and they may be wrong on the numbers is that 11 people per home. That's correct. It is 10 to 11.
Speaker 4: We spoke with two potential service providers. They both came up with the exact same number of folks that they would be interested in serving in that environment. They will configure the rooms to be shared. And although this is not considered current, this is not considered to be, you know, dorm style housing. And in fact, Max was permitted to continue operating a comparable program during the pandemic by the county. They do observe protocols for COVID safety, and they do space folks out in rooms. Some of the rooms in these homes are pretty large. So it will just depend on the size of the room. But they also intend to use the living room as a additional sleeping area in order to maximize so we can serve.
Speaker 2: So my understanding is these houses have three bedrooms. Do any of them have four or five bedrooms? How many bedrooms are in these?
Speaker 4: The two. What we refer to as the big lights each have four. And then they obviously tend to use the living room. So that provides for that. There's multiple opportunities. There would definitely be a little less amount, less people in the townhome. It just has three bedrooms.
Speaker 2: Okay. But if it's five, if it's four plus one rooms and we and you're going to house 11 people or ten people believe it's five and four. Excuse me. So is it two people per room, though, or is it sometimes three?
Speaker 4: It's from typically two, I think there could be a possible occasionally three, but I think two is going to be the preference. The living room, though, is a little larger. So the reason I'm hesitating is I think that may be or the additional person.
Speaker 3: Could.
Speaker 4: Potentially be because they could be spaced out adequately and not in that area.
Speaker 1: Mr. Russell, is there anything you want to add?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that the living room could provide a space where it could actually be it's a very large space about the size of the house I live in right now. And so that could be split up into even two rooms itself. So our goal would be to have appropriate distancing with two to a room. And if that remained, one large single space would be more spacious than some of the individual or smaller groups by having three people. So that would kind of be a let's design it out and see what the best amount of space is potentially for the living room.
Speaker 2: And then where is the person that is the supervisor? Are they one of the 11 people?
Speaker 4: So they're not living onsite, they're working three shifts a day. And so the staff are working between and in the home. So there's additional space that goes beyond the living quarters in which both for staff to operate and to be shared space for folks in the dining room, which would be a kind of common living space and an additional space in, in, in the rest of the home. So the onsite staff would be not in anyone's bedroom. They would be operating in the common space. And the majority of the services are community based. So our care coordinators, which are doing the case management, developing the housing plans, would be working with folks in the community as they plan their transitions, and that would be, of course, the services during the daytime hours.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So we also heard preferences for families, some sort of families. Do you have back? I think there was a speaker who works with the school district. Do you have accommodations for families in any of these homes?
Speaker 4: I can address that question.
Speaker 1: Of Maxwell Place.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have we heard that concern.
Speaker 4: Earlier from both the community as well as the council members. And we investigated that little to the extent that we had and we and we spoke to that executive director backs to the extent that we had say three families we could potentially is one of the townhomes for families that's that's not out of the range of possibility . However we also spoke to Operation Dignity non story building as is most familiar with our current unhoused population. And they are of the opinion that based on their experience that we don't really have a great.
Speaker 2: Number of.
Speaker 4: Truly unhoused families in Alameda. And the perspective of the school district is slightly different because the mayor can slip into laws and parameters for what constitutes homelessness for difference. That means they could potentially be house service accounts or things that they have a roof.
Speaker 2: Over their head.
Speaker 4: But to serve classically homeless, truly unhoused individuals, if we're looking for families that are not terribly many in Alameda, but we can leave that possibility open.
Speaker 2: Okay. So this will be three homes with each with approximately 11 people living there as individual adults, it sounds like. And I think the three homes are within I'm going to say, I don't know. What is the distance that you think? All three? I think it's about a half a mile. That sounds about right to me. So then I'm going to swing back to what other examples does Backes have of having three homes within a half mile of each other? You 11 individuals each.
Speaker 1: Mr. Russell going to take that?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So we operate this interim housing program of varying sizes. We have programs that are currently operating with a census of 25 all the way up to programs that are operating with the census of 160. None of those current programs have the exact configuration that this program would have, though comparable census, comparable room arrangements and what have you. So the the we do not operate the current equivalents in terms of the where these houses sit in the neighborhood. I will say of the current non interim housing scattered site programs that we operate that are permanent housing of which we operate well over 20 homes in Alameda County of permanent housing. Some that have existed, I'm happy to say, since the 1970s and have been continuous operation with folks that are formerly homeless living in those homes do some of those are well within a half mile of each other and some further beyond. And there's a team that works and provides the scattered site services across all of those homes. So it's certainly something you've operated.
Speaker 3: For decades.
Speaker 4: Now. Well, before I was on this earth in some of those cases.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's all the questions. Well, actually, so there were multiple requests that we delay the item and have the community outreach first. Is there a reason why the decision needs to be made tonight as opposed to after having the community outreach meeting?
Speaker 3: I would be.
Speaker 4: Happy to take that one. My. I believe their agency is around the fact that we don't currently have a single mentor for unhoused community members. And we were trying to move expeditiously to create an opportunity to house some of these folks, particularly since we're in the bad weather months. And our goal was to try to roll the houses online and make the available for people to move into probably one after the other one in particular is far closer to being ready and together. It's been a little bit more of a step up. So honestly, the goal, the urgency, and it's just around trying to help as quickly.
Speaker 2: As we can. So which one is the closest to being ready? Do you know?
Speaker 4: One of the big whites. And I don't remember the address of it.
Speaker 2: I don't remember the address either.
Speaker 3: It's what.
Speaker 4: One of the two big lies. So I believe it's on Pearl Harbor and I could be wrong.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then currently the amount of so these and I think these have all been rented recently and have just recently become vacant. So what is the average rents that the city has been receiving for these properties?
Speaker 4: I believe that the big lights are approximately 20 $800 a month. I calculated the total and it came to around 80,000 a year for the three homes and only the one is currently in a condition ready to be rented.
Speaker 2: The one on. And it is on Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 4: Oh, thank you. The other two would need to go through a bit of a tight air before they would be available.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then we also receive complaints about from people who are current renters in the big lights of those homes have not been maintained that the city has actually done a really poor job of maintaining those homes. And and we heard tonight from a speaker that seems to think that they should get a reduction in their rent of 15%. What does the city seem to think about offering a reduction in rent to those homes?
Speaker 1: So I just want to double check with the city attorney. Do you have any advice for us on discussing rent reduction?
Speaker 3: I am assuming the council member is asking this to understand the amount of rent that is being foregone in these opportunities. Is that correct, Councilmember?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: I as long as the council member is considering the amount of rent being foregone as part of the analysis, and I think minimal questions in that area probably complies with the Brown Act.
Speaker 1: So asking about the possibility of reducing current residents rent comes into that scope.
Speaker 3: I am assuming the council member is trying to understand how much rent revenue is. Rent is at stake for for approving this item. Is that right, Councilmember Spencer?
Speaker 2: Yes. Well, we heard from a speaker that raised the concern. Also, there have been multiple comments online of the loss of revenue to the city. And how does that then how can we afford this program and other programs?
Speaker 3: And so my advice would be that, you know, questions would be tailored to how revenues would be lost if this program went forward versus, you know, continuing to rent out the rooms, you know, instead of going forward with the program. I think that would stay within the agenda.
Speaker 2: If staff doesn't want to question, I'm fine with it. I can ask another. So I'm sorry, Miss MacLeod. Did you want to offer anything?
Speaker 4: I was just going to share that. The rent range that I just was looking back at my notes is more like 28 to 30 $800 a month. And I have an I understand from my high you are asset management professional that we are somewhat below market currently. And so I know that you know, she would probably have some concerns. I don't put words in her mouth about a further rent reduction, but I know that she doesn't think we're right on mark at this moment.
Speaker 2: Okay. But earlier I thought the answer is that the city would be losing approximately 80,000 from the rent revenues from these three units. But if it's 20 to 3800 per month, and I think it actually for three units is actually higher than 80,000 lost revenue. And sounds.
Speaker 4: Like you're.
Speaker 2: Correct. So does the city know what the last rent was for each of these units?
Speaker 4: I don't have. That's not my head. I can certainly get that information for you. I think two of them, like I said, haven't been immediately rented. They're sitting for a little bit.
Speaker 2: And then does the city have any other properties across the island other than. And we heard concerns about that. Could we as a city have housing across the island where it can stop filling when when a property becomes vacant, that then it can decide that it's going to put this housing in it?
Speaker 4: None that I'm aware of, which is why we were attempting to utilize this opportunity, because it's a rare thing for us to have homes that we already own that could be potentially used for this opportunity. There wasn't really an intention to cluster the things on the West End. It just happens to be where we have assets.
Speaker 2: So does the city have homes anywhere other than the base? No, we don't. Not to our knowledge.
Speaker 4: No, not that I'm aware of at all. I don't believe so.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'll just throw in that. The idea of a housing trust that we've talked about.
Speaker 2: Before.
Speaker 1: Is something that would allow a city to buy up, say, a foreclosed property or a property for sale at a good rate anywhere in the city and use it for such purposes. Other cities have done this. We don't have a housing trust yet. I think I saw councilwoman actually. Did you have your hand up second and then we'll go to you, Councilmember. Okay, Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: That's why I didn't think I want to start my start my comments with a discussion I have with the city attorney, which is that I did want to notice that unbeknownst to me, my son announced that Max hired him on Friday afternoon, which we are very happy and proud of. In making that announcement, there are no financial we have to determine there are no financial recusals required. And I'm going to continue in this conversation. But I did want to but I did not need to. I wanted to put that out there just so that it would stick out there in the open. My comments are pretty short. I actually came into this meeting generally having no comments other than that. I think it sounds like a great program that I'm excited to support. I do want to pick up on Councilmember Hirsch Spencer's concerns about the outreach not having been done ahead of time. I will acknowledge that we are pushing staff to move forward as fast as possible to address homelessness and whatnot. And sometimes we drop balls and make mistakes, whether by thinking we'll do it later and whatnot. I'm going to say it just for the neighbors listening. I think this is an effort. This is one where I think we did not do this right. That said, I also think that we can move forward, work with some good neighbor, good neighbor agreements. And I know there's a city meeting set up to kind of discuss what that can look like. And I continue to be supportive of moving this forward. I do also want to say to the conversations, because we've had a number of the conversations about these, you know, where are a lot of these things happening and why do they end up in the West? We have done the city inventory. We discussed it maybe a month ago here at the council, maybe six weeks ago. We also have given direction to staff to start looking more proactively at how we can find sites and make sites available in the future. It will likely take money, but I did want to see it continues to come up as there is a concern among speakers who come. We are aware that right now because of the Navy leaving, we have a lot of available things that we can use that that give us opportunities to move quickly when we have our few quickly years late, when we have a housing crisis and the ARPA money gives us that opportunity. And so, you know, we can be aware that, yes, things are landing maybe a little bit more heavily than we would choose if we had more options on on the West End. But we are also giving our staff direction to really start finding ways to help move things east as well so that, you know, all of our neighbors, our neighborhoods are being provided the services for our unhoused and folks needing support. So thank you very much and thank you for for this work.
Speaker 0: Oh, you're muted, Mayor.
Speaker 1: Hello. I'm muted, counselor. I guess you're next.
Speaker 4: Okay. Continuing on questions again, I think we should focus on the agreement, the contract that we are being asked to enter into. So again, focusing on the services, which is Exhibit A under a site management. There's a bullet point that states bullet point any complaints received from the business community? Including but not limited to the businesses adjacent to the site or in the general vicinity. That bullet point would be a thing that the provider has to immediately notify the city about if there's any complaints. Now, is there any reason why we can't include residents? That bullet point just focuses on business community. So that's a question.
Speaker 1: I'm only laughing because I emailed that same question. Council member.
Speaker 4: Good catch again. Same thing. Bullet point provider agrees to immediately notify the city should any of the following a clearer bullet point violence or credible threats against staff or other program clients. Again. What if there is violence or credible threats against residents? Shouldn't the service provider notify the city? Final question, and this is more to the city. Once we get a series of these notices, what then? Okay. Thank you. The first two questions were for the provider. The last question was for the staff. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, Mr. Russell. Do you understand, Mr. Council, everyday folks questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, we'd be. We'd be happy to. To the degree that we have the ability to to sort of determine that community affecting relationship, obviously the presumption, again, thinking internal to our purview within the program or to business, just generally defaulting to those those relationships in which there's an effect on adjacent business. I think we could apply that same principle to whatever the surrounding community is to the degree that we're aware and able to confirm. But even in unconfirmed cases like this has arisen, looks like it needs to be investigated. That investigation would need to include those that have authority relative to the neighborhood. And we would manage and comply from from bringing whatever program related information that we need to bear. So happy to do so. I think that some of that is the boilerplate language that needs to be rightfully modified. And thank you for looking down to the letter of the contract, contract and the staff.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: What do you do with the information?
Speaker 1: Give me 1/2. Councilor Harry Spencer. Miss Maxwell or Miss Butler. Did you want to?
Speaker 4: Certainly. I was just going to suggest that as to the contract, if counsel is inclined this evening to give instruction to proceed, we could we could include potentially direction to modify the contract to address those concerns of counsel and based on their excellent concerns. We could also potentially make sure that we have an opportunity for parting ways to the extent that you know, things where we're going poorly with the program and we had an excessive amount of complaints that we could have a conversation about specifically with that look.
Speaker 2: And it looks like.
Speaker 4: Just a couple of suggestions for the contract.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I want to just hear from councilmembers we haven't heard from yet. And I see the vice mayor's hand. Is that the vice mayor of l.a. And then we'll go back to councilmember spencer. And I should ask, though, how some of our days are. You did have the floor. Had you finished all your comments and questions, you were okay. Okay. Back to you guys. Me Mavela.
Speaker 2: So, you know, I think we've kind of raised a number of questions about what would it cost? And it looks like on the on the upper side of things, it could cost that we would be potentially foregoing around $45,000 a year worth of rent or something like that per unit. But right now, these are three units that are currently not being rented, meaning that we're already forgoing the rental income on these units. And I think, you know, I mean, this is and then my second term on council and I remember during my first term, we had a number of folks that were coming to meetings saying, you've got all these empty houses at only two points. Why can't you use those to, you know, as housing or affordable housing or emergency housing? And now we're trying to do that and we're hearing, no, not there. And I think, you know, I certainly would have liked that we had done that. We had we would have done the outreach ahead of time with the neighbors and those folks that are in the vicinity. I think that that's really important work to do. I would like to see that, you know, I'm glad we have one meeting scheduled. I hope we can also schedule additional meetings if we need to, to allow for opportunities for questions and answers. But I also want to flag the fact that. You know, for years there have been suggestions that we do exactly what we're proposing to do. We just now have the funding to do it, and we also have the open units that are going to be in a place that are suitable and habitable. And I think the other thing is we've sat through meetings where we've asked how many people need emergency housing, and we know that that number is very high and it's growing. We also have asked at other meetings how much we're spending when we have, for instance, an air quality issue, when we when we buy hotel vouchers. And this actually gives us units in the city of Alameda. It gives us beds in the city of Alameda for these emergency needs. And I think that this is so critical and I'm sitting here, I've got the heater on in my house. You know, I've got and we're starting to see the weather change. It's getting colder out. We're seeing we have the with the atmospheric river occurring. This is really an opportunity to make sure that we have those emergency beds available for people who reside in the city of Alameda. I also flagged the similar things in the in the contract. And, you know, I don't necessarily think we have to say that issues raised by residents, but perhaps just we can just keep it general and say neighbors or people within the vicinity. You know, I also want to note that we have in the contract requirements to keep documents, to keep reports that that information should be made available to the city, that those are official records. I mean, there are significant reporting requirements that are that are part of this contract, I think. And, you know, I think our staff perhaps could could make and or create an opportunity for a review if there is some sort of incident that's documented. And you know, I think that there this is really an opportunity where we're kind of I think there's an opportunity for us to really come together as a community around these units. And so, you know, I think that that that I would like to see that happen. I would like to see community buy in. I think these meetings are a good start and really allowing for space for us to have this conversation as a broader community. So I want to put that out there. I understand I know some of the folks, some of my friends live live out there. And so I understand that the issues that they're that are that they are raising. But I also know that these are very compassionate individuals. And if we sit down and speak with them and really engage folks, we can get to a place where where we can we can add these beds and we can do it without delay . So I'm ready to support tonight provided that we set up an opportunity for that community input and not just limited to the one meeting and that we make some some tweaks to the the contract being proposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you both very well. I can't, however, decide.
Speaker 4: Two questions. First question is, is there any reason why we can't move ahead with one of the three in the first year and judge its performance, then move with the second and third? If, if, if? Is there any reason why we can't do that?
Speaker 3: Question.
Speaker 1: I a miss Maxwell.
Speaker 4: I would ask if Mr. Russell could assist with that, because I have some concerns that the economy is a scale, one that would make one home operation of one home of interest backs. I question that, and I don't know the answer to it. Yeah. I think we I think we would just need to look at what that what that would look like operationally in terms of the economies of scale, sort of to to invest the infrastructure to operate the project. It certainly is the volume that creates, I think, the the efficiencies, the economic efficiencies and which is to say nothing of the sort of community impact relative to the need. But that's it. That's of course a separate determination. So I think that would be looking at the at the ability there to do so and then what the what the cost difference would be in that. I think there would be just from, you know, as any business model small you have you have an inherent staff that you have to have no matter how big it is. And then you you scale up incrementally from there in some cases. So it would just be looking at the cost structure and the impact. And I think but we're happy to have whatever conversation that the council would direct with city staff if.
Speaker 3: There was determination along those lines and.
Speaker 4: See what that looks like. Thank you, Mr. Russell. A second question. The second question for staff is, could we actually put together language that kind of says, you know, all these notifications that we're getting relative to what I just referenced, those sets of bullet points, you know, what is the could we actually put language tonight that says what is the level, the threshold level at which we would have to make some serious decisions in terms of go, no go or or does that have to take some more time? I would suspect it has to take some more time to put together. But that's a question for staff, legal staff or program staff.
Speaker 2: I believe.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know that we can do it on the fly, this thing. I think it's a very doable request. I think we could come up with language that gave us the opportunity to make an election. The program wasn't working in this location to the extent we had a, you know, an agreed upon amount of material problems. But I think we'd have to craft language, and that would certainly be the assistance of Mr. Sharon's office. Okay.
Speaker 1: I know. I see the vice mayors had it, but Councilmember Harry Spencer's had her hand up for a while. So let me take you first, Councilmember Harry Spencer, and then we'll go to.
Speaker 2: The vice mayor. Thank you. So I did want to follow the members of the contract language. And just at the beginning and it's towards the end of the contract has what the noncompliance protocols are. But for those that are listening on TV, I want to say it says only the following reasons may be used as a basis for discharge from a facility. And the first one is possession of a weapon at the facility as opposed to possession of a weapon, not at the facility. And it continues similar to that possession of illegal drugs on the premises. However, apparently possession of illegal drugs not on the premises is not you may not be removed from the facility for that. So I think it is important that, in fact, I agree with I, I believe I've heard at least from a couple of council members that this contract provides that outside of the facility, we also would not want people having possession of a weapon, possession of illegal drugs, assault or violent behavior, theft, etc.. So I think that contract should be modified before or before we approve this item. I also do think it's important to have the meeting prior to agreeing to this and having community input. I think that the rents could actually be higher than what staff has provided tonight, and I think that these homes, at least one of them has been rented very recently and is just not. The city has not rented it out and is holding it here. But I would make a motion that we delay this decision until the next council meeting, which is immediately after the meeting with the public, which is is it's not that far away. It's already December, I believe the date is December six, which is then following the community outreach meeting. And at that time, I think this contract could be sorted out. I think the and and I don't think it is at all appropriate to proceed without the community outreach first. I think it's unfortunate that this has been brought to us without that. I really in regards to staff's comments that we didn't know we were going to have the project or not, so we didn't meet with the public in advance moving forward. And I think it's always important to reach out to them first before it comes here so that then we they get to be part of the process. They get to have their questions answered in advance. And it doesn't really put us in this position of hearing from so many people that they felt like they were excluded from the process. So I do move that. We bring this item back at the first next council meeting. Outreach.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we have had a motion to continue this item or bring it back in December. Do we have a second?
Speaker 4: I'll second. It was comment.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: But I could I could wait to comment because I think Vice Mayor Vella wanted a question questionnaire.
Speaker 1: Well, we're going to have a if we don't have a second, we're going to move on. Okay. Discussion. Do we have discussion or should we just take a vote? Okay. Discussion. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: My discussion is this. I think that this is a project that we can all be very, very proud of. I think 11 per unit is a little too high. But but to the extent that we tighten the contract, I'm willing to do it. I'm willing to try. We are in that housing crisis. But but I agree with Councilmember Herrera and that maybe we should kind of, you know, as they say in sewing measure twice before we cut once. So I think maybe a delay until next council meeting would be in order to deal with kind of the range of issues , contractual issues that we waste on. So that's why I'm sticking.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any further discussion? Let's have a roll call. Madam Vice Mayor, please. You.
Speaker 2: So, you know, I think this this point is not necessary, hasn't necessarily been highlighted enough. But we have over 200 individuals as of our last point in time count that do not have housing in the city of Alameda. That is 200 people that are being forced to sleep and shelter outdoors that we are we are saying, you know what, we need to we're going to go ahead and wait. Even though we identified in our five year strategic plan just a month ago, we reiterated and passed that plan and we said this is a priority. And so I just think we are saying these things from the safety and security and warmth of our own homes or our city. You know, all of us are housed and have housing here in Alameda. And I just I yes, I think it's important that we have these conversations with the neighbors. I think that we need to make sure that we have a contract. I do not want to delay this. And so that's why I'm not going to be supporting this motion tonight. Okay.
Speaker 1: If I could stop you, because we're going to have to take now. We'll get back to you, Vice Mayor. We've got to we've got to do a quick roll call vote here, and then we have to do a housekeeping vote because it's coming on 11:00, believe it or not. Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second. I'm sure there's no more discussion because we need to take a quick roll call vote. And Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: So I.
Speaker 3: Am.
Speaker 0: I said, sir.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Max.
Speaker 3: Right now.
Speaker 2: Avella. Now.
Speaker 0: Mayor, as you.
Speaker 2: Know.
Speaker 0: The motion fails 2 to 3.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, Council what? We have to decide and we got to do it quickly because at 11:00 we all turned into pumpkins. But we've got to. So whoever said we were going to get through this whole calendar, I yes, you're right. But what we might well say, we've got these items remaining. We've got the housing element is seven B, the general plan is seven C and parking management is seven D. Who wants to make a motion councilmember? Not quite.
Speaker 3: Well. So I'm going to preface this with I would like us to consider putting we have a fifth to Tuesday between now and the seventh. This the seventh is going to be vision zero and a whole bunch other stuff. We there is no way we are getting through the work. So what I'd like to I will make a motion now for, for this part of the calendar, but I'm really hoping we can consider calling a special meeting on one of the two Tuesdays between now and the seventh or another day. To hear the rest of this agenda. I would like to move that. We hear item seven, which I think is probably one of the shorter items. I do not think we have time to even begin talking about the housing element or the general plan tonight at 1051 and any of the referrals that are remaining as long as we end before midnight and with the idea of moving the rest of the items to a special meeting.
Speaker 1: But we could hear regular items and go up to midnight. Is that what you're saying here?
Speaker 3: Seven D and then the and then the in any outs any referrals that that got we just got out of the way that we could that that that fit in the end there's only going to be 15 minutes or something by the time we get done with all this. I don't think we're moving too fast on this stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, I am. Okay. I'm not going to support moving to referrals tonight, but you have made your motion. Do we have a second? Was that you, Councilmember de SAC?
Speaker 4: A second was a quick comment. My quick comment is I agree that the housing element and general plan should be a special meeting. I think most cities do it that way. That's my second.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree. I think we're going to have a hard time around the Thanksgiving holiday because key staff incentives, council members may be out of town.
Speaker 2: Myself included.
Speaker 3: So we.
Speaker 1: Could try. Okay. However, we need to, we need to take a vote. Okay. So. So Councilmember Cox why made a motion council Desai his seconded it. Let's take a roll call vote. I'm sorry. We have a discussion cast over here, Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Just real quick, I will not be supporting this. I would rather just continue and at least start the draft housing element so that we could. We start towards that. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Okay. Vice Mayor Vella.
Speaker 2: I'd be supportive of finding a way to add a meeting in between now and the next meeting for the housing element.
Speaker 1: But it couldn't be on a Tuesday because we wouldn't be able to have everyone we need. That's my.
Speaker 2: Point, but I'm happy to try to see if we can find a day. I'm not saying necessarily necessarily a Tuesday, but we will. We could ask for OC.
Speaker 1: We have a motion before us. Councilmember Knox. Right.
Speaker 3: Okay. We need four to have already said they are not going to support it. So I'm going to withdraw my motion and make the following motion that we were and we finished this item. We direct staff to find a time that works for the most council members possible between now and the seventh to hold a special meeting . And I want to be really clear in my language that I am saying that most council members like this is if somebody has to miss the meeting or whatever, then it has to. If has to be me, it has to be me. But we've got to get our work done and I feel like it's because.
Speaker 1: We only have a few minutes before this is all going to be moot.
Speaker 0: So may I say something? Sorry.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Yes? I'm so sorry to interrupt, but you would need to identify that date and continue these items to that date, specifically tonight, because we don't have time to notice another meeting. So you would have to the date would have to be set as part of the vote. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Your muted Catherine's just a presence question we only need to make the decision before 11:00 to hear new items. Can we not get to figure out the date after 11:00? Yes. For a continuation.
Speaker 0: Yes, you can do that after 11:00. But I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure it was clean.
Speaker 3: It's good to make sure. Gives us a little bit more time and breathing in whenever it's up.
Speaker 1: To you and to contemplate the motioned Councilmember Harry Spencer was suggesting.
Speaker 3: I don't see a value in starting a conversation on the housing element and then stopping and then at some random time in the future, having public comment come in. I, I just that you're going to have different people there, etc.. It's late. I don't. Should be a special meeting. We're going to have half a few people are going to comment.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. I'm going to limit the editorial comment just because we've got to get something that four people agree on or when it hits 11:00, we just finish this item. Is that correct, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 0: Right. To finish this item. And then you can do that. City Manager Communications. All communications.
Speaker 2: And telecommunications.
Speaker 1: Okay. So in 4 minutes remaining, does anyone want to try to offer a motion? Vice Mayor of L.A. You're pretty good at that sort of thing. Or council rehearsed better. Perhaps the two of you. Quickly.
Speaker 2: I wanted to make a motion that we could just continue until midnight and start with this. The next item. Which is the housing element. It's a draft, and I think we need to start it. So people can we start thinking about our feedback and where the staff is?
Speaker 1: Okay. Anybody anywhere? Councilmember Vela Well, everyone, a second or a tweak or something. Quickly. Vice mayor, any thoughts?
Speaker 2: I would prefer that we just continue that item, the housing element item. I my preference isn't to start it.
Speaker 1: And would you continue it to that item six on the next semester?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Is that emotion so moved? Okay. Do we have a second counselor and not quite chime in? How can we make this better?
Speaker 3: I think that's going to be a multi-hour conversation with Vision Zero and everything else. We just put three other items before everything like.
Speaker 1: We got it.
Speaker 2: Can we? Okay. So can we, can we continue it to a special meeting or. We have to we have to take the date tonight. I have to pick the date.
Speaker 1: Or we can look we could agree to take one more item after this. And then after that we can discuss the date. Is that correct, Madam Clerk? But we've got to make a decision about what to.
Speaker 2: Do after the.
Speaker 0: 11:00 vote is just if you want to have a new item after 11. Correct.
Speaker 1: How about we take that parking item after about 70?
Speaker 2: How about we start with item seven? I'll make that motion. Okay. After this.
Speaker 1: Okay. Do we have a second?
Speaker 3: I'll second that.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's have a roll call vote. Does everyone understand we're making a motion to continue this item and then take seven D and then we'll look at dates. Okay.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Um, so I'm ready to proceed, sir.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Not quite.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I i.
Speaker 0: As the.
Speaker 1: Ashcraft I that.
Speaker 0: Carries by 4 to 1.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: With 2 minutes to spare. Oh, my gosh. Okay. Where were we? Who did I cut off? Was it. Is it you, Madam Vice Mayor? I think.
Speaker 2: I think the last motion failed. And so we were going to. Perhaps make an emotion. Well, no, we're we're.
Speaker 1: We're moving we're moving forward. We just passed that motion. We had four votes. We're going to hear more than 70. But you're talking about this item, the seven a?
Speaker 2: Yes. So my I was just making the point about the the the fact that we have over 200 unhoused individuals. That number has continued to grow in double digit percentages year over year. And we're in winter months. We know that there's weather events and everything else happening. And, you know, this is economy of scale, but at the same time, it's phasing it in. We're not we're not opening up all of these units. So I would like to move support of this with a direction to staff. And I know, Madam Mayor, you still have to give your comments.
Speaker 1: As I've just like. But yeah, you go ahead, make them.
Speaker 2: I'd at least like to get a motion on, on the table with, with, you know, with the comments around the contracting language being change, because I think that that needs to there needs to be some amendments there and then also that there be direction to have more than one community meeting, because I do think that that that will be needed.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: I will second that motion and I will offer a comment. Shall I offer comment? I will wait for you, Madumere.
Speaker 1: You better wait for me.
Speaker 4: I will wait.
Speaker 1: If you want to stay on my good side. No, I appreciate everybody's comments and. And staff. And I appreciate Backes getting here in a hurry. Thank you. This is what I think. And I have had the privilege of visiting a site that backs Rand. And I've also talked with the mayors of Brooklyn, the mayor, the mayor, Brooklyn's one mayor, the mayors of Brooklyn and Oakland, about the incredible success they've had with backs at housing sites that that are run as co-housing in different neighborhoods where they've been able to buy up housing and and rehab it and it it's worked really well and the value of using an organization like Bax and congratulations Councilwoman Oxlade and your son working for them is they they have the track record. I didn't know how far back it went, but I know how extensive, especially in the housing crisis it has been. And and I just have to a really quick aside, when we visited the navigation center in Berkeley, which isn't this at all, it's like two dormitory style. One is for men, one is for women. There's, you know, bathrooms, communal bathrooms for men and women and a garden and all that. But talking to the residents there. There was a fellow we talked to who was a professor at Cal who had, you know, fallen on hard times, had an illness, ended up homeless, and yet this was, you know, getting him back on his feet. It's just there are so many ways that people become homeless. But I agree with everything that has been said about it would have been preferable to do the communication piece ahead of time. I also want to remind us that we stretch our minimal staff pretty thin. And so they this this I mean, there are only so many hours in a day to do these things. It's not a reason to delay this project because, as has been noted, we have a housing crisis. It's been a long time coming, you know, waiting to do something like this. And so I think that knowing that we're working with back at a trusted and experienced provider gives me a lot of confidence. However, what we also learned from doing these field trips in San Jose and Mountain View is it is critical to have good communication with the neighbors, to have a team, to have an advisory committee. The neighbors deserve to not only feel that they're being heard to be heard. And I fully expect them to be open minded and to allow themselves to be persuaded to learn more. But that road goes both ways. So communication is key. We're a little late starting, but we'll catch up. We'll get there. I'm confident that staff and personnel are capable of doing that. I did hear some neighbors talk about encampments in the area. I haven't this week been out to the area, but staff I do expect staff to be on top of that. I am really pleased that the day center is now open overnight. I just ran into Joey Harrison, who who runs a facility last night at an event. And he was so excited to tell me that two individuals who'd been previously sleeping out in public somewhere, they had eventually persuaded them to come. And they're sleeping overnight there and they come and go during the day. And it's made a huge difference. So please, let's go out and reach out to the folks in these encampments, get them connected with Village of Love. And, you know, maybe we can even get them into some of these programs because they you know, the neighbors raised this. And it's a concern. And we don't want people sleeping in encampments. We want them sleeping sheltered. And the other thing I just want to throw out, it's an idea that I learned about from the League of California Cities webinar on addressing homelessness or homelessness solutions. The City of Riverside has a expansive homelessness outreach program, and one of the things they've done is they've created a registry almost like if there is someone's getting married and they have a registry or, you know, something, having a baby. But what it is, the whoever they contract with has a wish list of the things they need to furnish these various units and they put them up there. It's it can go through Lowe's or whoever, you know, printed these sort of things. And community members can go on to the site and buy these furnishings and furnish these sites. It's just a way to promote community awareness and also a little buy in to a very, very valid program. The the only thing that I would add, other than what's been said about making sure that there's also a mechanism for dealing not only with businesses in the area, because really there's more residences in the area in any problems they might be having with the residents of these homes. But is also I do not support using funds, ARPA funds to buy a car for this program. When I asked the question of staff why a car? And they said, well, you know, some time back staff would drive it because sometimes people need to go to a doctor's appointment or to the DMV. That's fine, but we don't need to buy a car. We can contract with a local taxi company for taxi vouchers or something, but a car, the city using RPA funds to buy a car. And the insurance issues we don't usually are not in the business of transferring people. So I would respectfully ask that the purchase of a vehicle not be included if at some point it just becomes indispensable. But buying a car to go to occasional appointments doesn't seem like the best use of these dollars. I'd like them to go further. So anyway, I am. I'm really excited about moving this forward. I also have. Said to staff that to the extent that there are families available and families couch surfing, in my mind, maybe there's some legal reason they can't use it. But these are homes with yards of backyards and places for kids to run around and there could definitely be a co-housing model. I think that's possible. So just keep that in mind just because I think it's a lovely opportunity. So I am ready to go full speed ahead on this. Councilmember Dysart, back to you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. You know, if I can just speak to the residents who live in the surrounding areas, I certainly hear the concerns that you have raised. And so I think to the extent possible, try to scrutinize the contract that we we have before us. And I do believe that I found some shortcomings in there. And I think I have to trust our staff, both our city manager and his staff and our city attorney and and his staff, that they've listened to the concerns that not just me, but everyone else on council has raised, and that we will strengthen the contract that's before us. I do think that this is a rare opportunity to quickly address the homeless crisis that we're having, not just in the in our area, but in our city itself. And so, again, with the arc of funds that we have available, we can do something that we had never we had not been able to do before . But I think you're right, though. I think the the contract has to be strengthened, because I think there are some areas in there that seem to be obvious in terms of like making sure that we contractually include the concerns of residents along the lines that we had discussed earlier. So that's why I'm going to support this. And, you know, I think in the end, Alameda point, especially the big white area, I think as a city, we'll all be better for it to have a mixed community that that we're we've been contemplating for Alameda point not just the big whites area but also around city and other places.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Desai. Councilmember Harris Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. So I will not be supporting this. I think that it's truly unfortunate that we're not doing the public outreach in advance prior to this. I also do think that the community has been asked to. I think it really is already a mixed use community. And I think that we I think that they raised legitimate concerns, but I think that they absolutely needed to be involved in the conversation before this came to us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Madam Vice Mayor, just want to restate that motion, please.
Speaker 2: I had moved too to move forward with with this with the comments relative to addressing the contract as proposed from the council and then also requiring that there be more than more community engagement meetings so that there can be responsiveness to the community concerns raised. Madam Chair, I don't think your your request to remove the funding for the car. That's fine with me. I don't know if I need to amend the motion, but I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I would appreciate if you would. Okay. And so Viceroy Villa made the motion she submitted in council every day. So you certainly didn't. You? Okay. Thank you. Okay. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: And so every day shock.
Speaker 0: Over Spencer. No knocks like.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: Rella high.
Speaker 0: As the Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: High that.
Speaker 0: Carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 1: Thank you all. Thank you, staff for putting this together. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Thank you to the neighbors for all your insightful comments. We heard you, and we will heed you. And we will be looking forward to hearing from you more and incorporating your thoughts and comments. So this is an important first step, big step forward. Yet another one tonight. So. Okay, everyone go forth and do good work. Thank you so much. All right. We are going to quickly change.
Speaker 2: Gears.
Speaker 1: And move to item seven D. Madam Clerk, while we're changing the scenery, could you please introduce this item for us?
Speaker 0: A recommendation to reorganize the city's parking management program and parking fund and adoption of related resolutions.
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement in an Amount not to Exceed $2,536,047 with Bay Area Community Services for Emergency Homeless Housing Services for Up to Two Years; and
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Alameda County in an Amount Ranging from $30,000 to $45,000 in Homeless Emergency Aid Program Interest Funds to Assist with Remodel/Repair of City-Owned Housing for Use as Emergency Homeless Housing; and
Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Budget to Appropriate $2,836,047 in 2021 American Rescue Plan Act Funds (C99300) to Receive Contractual Services from Bay Area Community Services and Funds to Remodel/Repair and Provide Fixtures, Furniture, Equipment, a Vehicle, and Supplies for the Emergency Housing. (Community Development 10061833)