Speaker 4: I believe there are probably a number of speakers, and then we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I'd like to introduce Anna.
Speaker 0: Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 9: Well, good evening, Mayor Ashcroft and members of the city council. My name is Anabaptist, community development analyst with the Base Reuse and Community Development Department. We have a very exciting and unique opportunity to address homelessness in our city. And we thank you for giving us some time tonight to talk to you about some of the ideas that we have for how we're going to spend our homeless emergency aid program, which is also known as Hip, and I'll be using that acronym from here on.
Speaker 4: So I see.
Speaker 9: So tonight's presentation, we're hoping to provide you with some overview of heap answer your questions. Also obtain your input and direction on the cities proposal that we submitted to the county in November about the potential projects that we can explore for this funding and also obtain your approval to authorize the Interim City Manager and Social Service Human Relations Board to work together to finalize the the and implement the plan for the programs and services that will fund under this this grant. The homelessness. And this is not new information for you. What I wanted to do is just provide you some backdrop of the homelessness in Alameda County as well as in the city of Alameda , because there is a new report that was published by the County Continuum of Care S.O.S. called Everyone Home. And this report is a strategic plan to end homelessness in our county. So they pointed out that there were 5600 people who are homeless in the last point in time count, which was that in 2017, we have one coming up at the end of this month. So we'll see what those numbers look like from where we stand right now. And at this point in time count, in January of 2017, 204 people were identified as homeless in our city of Alameda and the city strategic plan to end homelessness. There's a very aggressive goal of ending homelessness, of course, but in the next five years, what they want to do is slash the 5 to 600 homeless people to about 2200 in the next five years. So we have to do our part as the city of Alameda and part of the county to to help with ending homelessness and meeting this goal. In the plan. They did an analysis of what it would have taken for the clients that they served in 2017 to end homelessness. And it's no surprise housing, whether it's rapid rehousing, subsidized permanent housing or permanent supportive housing, would have made a difference in ending homelessness. The other is prevention. We don't do enough around prevention. And actually this our clients that they interviewed who were part of their program. So there are many more prevention programs that are going on out there, including in our city that we don't know about. So we need to find out about that. And that was actually shared with us today at a meeting that I was in this afternoon. So a quick overview of HEEP. This was established last year by Governor Brown signing into law in August of 2018 and Senate Bill 850. Provided this influx of money for homeless emergency aid and it is really to address homelessness in our local jurisdictions and the immediate challenges that we have that we can address overall as a state, we are getting a 500 $500 million block grant. Cities that are large with 330,000 people or more can apply directly to the state for this money. So the city of Oakland is the only city in Alameda County that has that means that that population threshold. And so they were able to get $8.7 million on their own. And then as a county, we are receiving $16.2 million, including in that is Oakland. And out of that, $756,524 will be allocated to Alameda City. So we have a very good opportunity to address some of our issues here. On November 20th, the Board of Supervisors approved this proposal from this from the staff on this allocations. And actually, we have several mayors, including our mayor, former Mayor Trish Spencer, who is actually here. Really go out there and advocate for for making sure that we get our fair share. So thank you for for doing that. And that really made a difference. So continuing on with the overview, there's a very aggressive timeline on spending this money. So as we think about programs and services that we're going to implement, we have to think about how readily can we implement these services, because half of the money has to be contractually obligated by basically the end of this year. And we anticipate having a contract in place with the county right around March. So we have nine months to have half of the money contractually obligated and then 18 months later, in 2021 of June, all the funds have to be expended and Alameda requires Alameda County requires a 30% match. What constitute a match that still has to be worked out? So we don't have the details of that yet. But many of our cities, including ours, is really advocating for making sure that this doesn't give us any more burden coming up with cash. And so and because we do have a lot of investments already from our city in homeless services and many of our cities are are in the same boat. So we're hoping that it will be a very reasonable match requirement to make this 30%. And then also the cities are allowed to carve out about 2.5% of their funding for administration. So the hip contract or hip grant has three eligible uses. So basically broad categories. The first one is services. And including in services are things like street outreach, health and safety, education, homeless prevention activities, other services that will prevent folks from becoming homeless. The second category is rental assistance or rental subsidies, housing vouchers, motel vouchers, rapid rehousing programs, those kinds of things. And then finally, capital improvements. So building emergency shelters, navigation centers, transitional housing and what have you are under that. They use this muscle and they use this of the funding must align with California's housing first model. So meaning that, you know, if we build something, services must be low barrier because that's part of the reason why a lot of homeless people don't want to, let's say, go to shelters or go to some of these housing that will be available because of the the barriers that they have to kind of overcome to be able to access those service services. So providing housing first and then we can provide intervention, that's really very important for the success of our over the clients. There are also very specific metrics that the state is requiring for reporting purposes. So here are some of them. These are the minimum required. So we will be collecting data on number of people serve number of persons exiting to permanent housing, what have you. And the county might require us to also provide some additional data, but these are the ones that we will be collecting right off the gate. So when we submitted the proposal, it was a very quick turnaround. November six, the county issued the the request for cities to submit the proposal. Two days later they were due. And so we didn't really have enough time to process this with, you know, with the city council, the Social Service, Human Relations Board, the community. However, we knew that the money was coming down the pike. So we have some ways of engaging with some groups, including the homeless outreach team, which is we call it heart, also known as the collaboration Advancing Resources, Efforts and Support for Alameda Homeless or Cares. And this is a team that's made out of of multiple disciplines, multiple sectors, including the business associations, faith based community, the food bank , Alameda Unified School District, the community based organizations. And a lot of them are actually here tonight. And they the Alameda police, they have been very supportive. And and we meet on a regular basis. And so because they're boots on the ground, we know exactly what is needed because that's what we talk about at these meetings. And so we who have identified some of these programs and services that's really needed, that's not here in Alameda. And with this money, that's an opportunity for us to really think about what makes sense for our clients based on what we're hearing from from the streets. Also, we participated in everyone home as well as county meetings regarding Heap. And so there were lots of meetings around that. So we we were in attendance at these meetings. And then we also looked at smaller cities and for maybe opportunities for us to collaborate. So Fremont, Hayward, San Leandro and Union City, because we knew that there was, you know, the money's not going to be big. But however, are there opportunities for us to kind of partner together and leverage the dollars that we're going to get? And so we've had some meetings around that as well. So here's what we propose to the county. And I just you know, the caveat is this is more like a placeholder than it is a permanent sort of fixed proposal. The projects that we identified here, again, are based on some conversations and also looking at our homelessness report that the council approved last year in March. And the county is going to give us flexibility in moving some of these funding around. So if we feel and as we go along, that we need more money, let's say, in rental subsidies, when we can move some of those moneys around, as well as some of these programs and projects can be changed. And as we talk to the community members, business community, our hot team, and we are gathering all of those input to see what really makes sense. So. We have divided the sort of the the allocation as 20% under services. And one of the projects that we identified is maybe sharing a mobile hygiene unit with the cities of the smaller cities. I mentioned earlier Hayward, Fremont, Union City in San Leandro. And so basically we can purchase together like a refurbished bus where it's a shower facility, and then one day it can be in Alameda, the next day it could be in Union City and what have you. We also talked about a sanctioned car and RV parking. We have a lot of folks here in Alameda that are homeless, living in their cars and they're one foot from losing their car and being in the streets. So, you know, again, and they don't feel safe parking in a parking lot in the evening, especially women. I've talked to a couple of women at these dine and connect dinners that we have, and they have multiple health conditions. They're elderly and they're living in their cars. So, you know, really a big concern. So we said maybe 20% of our allocation, around 4100 $47,000 will be on services and then rental subsidies, motel vouchers, about 10%. And then finally, capital improvement. And one of the programs that we thought would help the business community are public restrooms, one on the west side and one on the downtown Parks Park Street side, because we know that folks, especially in our business community, have been complaining about the smell of urine and and what have you said? Attention is important. So some of the feedback that we received since we submitted the proposal, we are doing work on engagement, on outreach. Right now we are a funding operation Dignity and also building futures for outreach. However, we need more efforts to go into engagement because we know that to build trust we need they need to see us more often. And we have our outreach workers spending an entire day, for instance, going to Hayward, sitting with a client to apply for a job. And they need to serve more people. And so they can't really spend, you know, one client at a time. They need to really be able to serve more. And but there may be some opportunities for us to create some programs that really would provide more engagement to to some of our clients, one of which is an ambassador program. There's also a need for, you know, in this engagement, we can also problem solve around housing with this with our clients. So, you know, really trying to figure out together how we can help them get connected to housing, including maybe there may be family members not in Alameda but outside or could be a family member in another state. Is there a way that we can reunify them and and figure out a way we can help them and support them in reunification? We also want to develop, you know, another feedback that we receive is we need to encourage more landlords here in the city to accept Section eight voucher housing. Section eight, Section eight vouchers. We need to increase some of those affordable housing stock here in Alameda. So can we create a campaign using some of this dollars to do that drop in center? If we have a place for them to go during the day, then they won't be loitering around the downtown districts. We can provide services by bringing the service providers there. We can enroll them to service has right, right then and there, and we can even do some job trainings. For instance, if we have a drop in center and even though this is immediate one time, you know, quick money, can we use the money as a seed funding for a larger infrastructure project in the future? And then we have a warming shelter right now that's funded by the county. That's just a season this winter. And every winter we have cold and rainy season. So is there a possibility of kind of investing more into a more permanent warming shelter for our homeless residents and then providing the rental subsidies? It's another it's another idea. This afternoon I had a meeting with the business community, and they also came up with some ideas. The idea of having a mobile shower unit was very overwhelmingly supported. The idea of having the public restrooms, not so much. There were other some other ideas around, you know, really addressing mental health because we have clients who, as we know, not everyone who was homeless has a mental health issue, but those who who have mental health issues really need a lot of support. So can we address some of the mental health issues using this this funding? And then in terms of prevention, we have somebody from Saint Vincent de Paul who attended this meeting, and they're doing a lot of work already. And there are other organizations and churches who are doing a lot of work around the homeless. And these these organizations are preventing some folks from becoming homeless. So can we support them because they're also struggling? So can we put together some kind of assessment of who's doing what in our city and then try to provide some support for for for some of these already existing programs, including the ones that are run by volunteers. So as a next step, we would like to hear your feedback tonight and then we will continue engaging with the business associations and their members, other stakeholders. We will continue to work with the Alameda Cares and the Homeless Outreach team. We want to align whatever it is that we're doing with the strategic plan to end homelessness that the county has put out there. And then finally, we want to work with the interim city manager and the Social Service Human Relations Board to finalize the plan and oversee the implementation of this program. So if you have questions and comments, we're here to answer them.
Speaker 0: First, I want to thank Ms.. Bag, too. That was an excellent report. And you are doing such important work. You and your team are doing such important work in the city. And so I thank you for that. At this point, I'm. Do we have any clarifying questions from the council? We'll do our feedback on our discussion after we've heard our public speakers. But Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And a second to comments about the presentation. Thank you. My question was regarding the Section eight advertisement. Just say, for instance, we did have 20 landlords that were willing to provide Section eight vouchers. I mean, how would they go about doing that? I mean, is there a cap? Are they available?
Speaker 9: We don't have those kinds of details yet. We will be working with the Housing Authority on how to put some a program like that together. And so definitely engage in how best to deploy this kind of program when we go when we go ahead and implement the program.
Speaker 3: Okay. Then my second question was, so the 30% we have to come up with another say 30,000 or what is it, 210 to an $11,000? Is the the money that we allocate that we've allocated before, can that be counted as a match?
Speaker 9: That's what we're hoping and that's what we're pushing the county to consider. We have a contract with Operation Dignity, for instance, that's funded through general funds, city general funds. We also have a contract with our building futures right now. We have many other programs. If they would accept, for instance, in-kind support or in-kind match, if you count just the people who are sitting at the homeless outreach team, public works, Alameda Police Department, if we can count those, we would be way overmatched already. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember De.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for your presentation. The thing that caught my attention was your reference to RV camps. So have we as a city made commitments that we are going to have RV camps and and have we as a city move forward in terms of, you know, the policies and practices and and how we're going to deal with that. My understanding is that in some cities across the Bay Area that this isn't necessarily well-received. So I want to make sure that we have our expectations are clear and our policies are clear. And so I just want to know I don't know if the answer is tonight, but at some point in time.
Speaker 9: Also, we have not made a commitment. What was the conversation with the other smaller cities that identified this as a need? And what we had said is we can explore where this might be possible, including maybe approaching the county and having an RV park and safe parking in an unincorporated part of the county. And I know some of the cities had a location in mind, but again, no commitments from anyone. It's a conversation that we've had and we will revisit that and see if it makes sense.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And his next councilmember village, raise your hand up. Yes, please.
Speaker 8: So I did have a question and it was a question that was from earlier this week, which is the impact of the federal government shutdown on programs like Section eight. So are we putting that into working that into consideration as we're kind of exploring what the different options are?
Speaker 4: Um.
Speaker 9: Maybe I'll turn it over to Debbie Potter.
Speaker 8: I know that the the housing authority has made arrangements for the next few months, but before we advertise expanding a program, I would just. I just want to know for building those sort of questions in.
Speaker 4: Right. I think that right hand left hand coordination is always important to end. My guess is because we don't anticipate the money and the contracts coming from the county until March, we would be quite hopeful that the federal shutdown will have been resolved well before then and that by the money comes in and then we'll begin the deployment. And we would work very closely with the Housing Authority staff. They have a a team that works with really the private landlords and engaging them and marketing to them.
Speaker 8: Would we? So taking that into account, I understand that we're being helpful. Will we make alternative plans for the rest of the funding in the event that that's not the case?
Speaker 4: Yes, and this is one I think that will not be a high dollar amount, because it's really a marketing campaign to encourage the private sector landlords to step up and take Section eight. So, yes, we I don't think we would undertake something that we think isn't going to be successful because of other ways, you know, that we can't control like the shutdown. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Both very. Did you have any questions at the same. All right. Thank you very much, Inspectors. So at this point, we have three public speakers on this item. The first is Mr. Pat Nagle, and you will each have 3 minutes to address the council.
Speaker 7: Mayor Ashcraft and city council members and all of you. My name is Sister Pat Nicole. I am a member of the Alameda All Faiths Coalition and also of the Heart Cares team. Many years ago, a young spiritual teacher invited us to live our lives by loving one another as ourselves. Sometime later in his journey, he was met or joined by other spiritual leaders who also shared this value. Love your neighbor as yourself. And love. Is that what unites all of us? We're experiencing that love today here in Alameda. My outreach to our brothers and sisters who are without shelter and who are living in the streets and in their cars. This reality is close to all of us, not only in our personal lives, but also in our lives communally. I have experienced the Dine and Connect Meals, which are held monthly for several months, and I have witnessed and felt the trust building and the engagement, the signs of acceptance and trust in our community of unsheltered friends. And really the love of the generous group of volunteers who keeps this dinner going monthly is a witness and a testimony to the people of Alameda. We're at a juncture now with the heat money that's coming and what will really help us and what will really serve to base what we do and the love that binds us all together. And that will be engagement will foster that engagement and sense of belonging and acceptance among all the possibilities. I urge consideration of a day drop in shelter. Of course, homeless and providing homes is the major need. And I expect to see from all of you and all of us an aggressive effort to provide shelter for everyone. It's their right. If that's not possible, then let's have a day drop in shelter. Folks would love to come and connect and hang out and just rest for the day and get out of the cold and smoke. If we have any other fires, I know how hard some of our community members worked during the fires. That's it.
Speaker 0: That the time is that. Thank you, Sister Pat. The next speaker is Liz Varella. Liz. And after that, our last speaker is Marguerite Bashan.
Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Liz Barela.
Speaker 8: I am the executive director of Building Futures. We provide homeless domestic violence and housing services here in alameda.
Speaker 4: I have to second what Sister Pat said. I think we have done a great job in the city of being creative and leveraging our resources and using the community to help make things possible. This heat money is really a chance for us to imagine what do we need? What seed we need a plant for infrastructure to help homeless people that live here in Alameda live a dignified, safe life until they get into housing because of the housing crisis, that may might take longer than we think. And so I think we have to think that way. How do how are we going to support people living on the street? When I say living, that means they're doing everything we do in our house, everything we do.
Speaker 8: In our bathroom, everything we do in our bedroom.
Speaker 4: In public, outside, in front of us. And so how.
Speaker 8: Does Alameda want to address that? What do we want to build?
Speaker 4: Daytime.
Speaker 8: A daytime drop in center will be great. A low threshold navigation center. A shelter where people can go.
Speaker 4: That would be great. Those are the kind of things we all need to think.
Speaker 8: About and invest in.
Speaker 4: So that we so we use the $700,000 and really make a difference for not just the people who are living on the street, but our community making us all safe here in Alameda. I really.
Speaker 8: Am encouraged that that we will make the right decision here in Alameda and that.
Speaker 4: The city is really talking to the right people. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. My mission.
Speaker 7: Thank you, mayor and council members. I'm Marguerite Bouchon. We provide with Operation Dignity. We provide transitional housing out here and in Oakland for formerly homeless vets. And we also do street outreach here in Alameda and in the city of Oakland. We're doing some of those the community cabin sites in Oakland as long as well as outreach I second in support everything that has been said thus far I we have an outreach worker here every day. I just spent a little time with her today to kind of get an update. She kind of seconded some of these ideas and the challenges. You know, there's a couple challenges we don't. The good news is there's not a lot of people when you think about what we're dealing with in Oakland and you think about Alameda, it's a very different situation. It's doable. Finding people is hard. So getting people to services is difficult because it's difficult to find people. Getting people to leave their stuff is difficult because that's that's what they've got. That's their, their worldly possessions. Getting them to come somewhere for the day is hard. So when you think about solutions, clearly housing assistance is great and that's really important. Daytime drop in center warming, shelter, good ideas. I would like to see it so that it's more like maybe it's a navigation center. It's something that people can really come and stay for days on end. And there's meals potentially. We do that in Oakland so that they can kind of get out of the elements. They feel safe and then you direct services to those individuals. And we have found that to be I mean, it's you know, it's incremental. It's one person at a time, but we are having a positive effect when we're doing that. So I would just say sanctioned sites or something like that, drop in centers, those are so important. The last thing I want to say is we had a really great story today. So my outreach here spent the entire day working with a young man who's living in his car here in Alameda with his girlfriend. And her goal today was to get him connected to social services and get food stamps. So right before I left, she came back and said he got the food stamps and they offered him a job because he's bilingual. So he's going for an interview tomorrow. So once again, it's one person at a time. But, you know, it's a dedicated effort. If we really see it through, we can. I think we can. We can do it here. So I thank everybody for their time. And I think all the agencies we're working with.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It's our last public speaker on this item. So now we will add to our discussion of the council. We've we've seen the presentation, we've read the staff report. Who wants to who wants to lead off on this one? Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 8: Think ultimately starting at a place of compassion and recognizing just basic human dignity and providing access to it are kind of the the central focus of all of the things that have been put forward is different ideas. I do like the idea of trying to see where we can accomplish a number of different things through one action . I think, and I certainly appreciate the work and I know the work that went into this because there is a quick turnaround time and there were a number of different other elements going on and outside forces trying to, you know, that were complicating the conversation a little bit politically. But $750,000 is not a huge amount of money. And so I do think we we should kind of think big about how, you know, what are the real needs of the of the population that we have, but also recognize the constraints of this funding and then think about how we're going to provide ongoing services, how do we start something, do it successfully, and then give it room to grow? And so I do like a lot of these ideas. I think to the extent that we can combine and I think things like, you know, if there's an opportunity to expand the warming shelter so that it becomes a drop in center than you have access to restrooms, you have access to food, you can allow for that engagement. Those sorts of things seem like they can accomplish more than one goal. And I think sometimes we start out by throwing out a list of solutions rather than sitting around and defining the problem. And I think ultimately where I get at with this is that the problem is, is basic access to simple things. That allow for people to retain their dignity regardless of if they're housed or unhoused. And so, you know, access to clean facilities that are safe so that you can use the restroom, so that you can be safe , that you can be warm. And the elements don't stop necessarily just because it's daytime. And so that is a concern. And I think where we can, like I said, overlap and be efficient in terms of providing a number of different things in one place. That's what I would like to to focus on.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So we just go down the line, Vice Mayor, and that's why you're on.
Speaker 6: You wanted to go.
Speaker 3: It's up to you.
Speaker 0: We'll go down the list.
Speaker 5: So thank you for this. And I want to thank staff for answering a number of questions I had before the meeting. You know, I think this is an interesting list. I guess the way I've come to think about this, these are one time funds and one time funds. I would I would I do appreciate is that the staff's proposal in the Shrub proposal really does focus the one time funds on something that would be built and then permanent. And I think the more that we can use these funds for permanent long time use rather than short term. But unfunded operations, I think would be good, which is not to say that we shouldn't look at some sort of rental subsidy work, but I think the more that in Vice Mayor Vella said this as well, the more that we can use this to build something that can continue, I think the better. You know, the public restrooms on two Main Street areas is one that kind of raises some concerns for me, not in that it's not needed, but I worry that it's going to have one of two impacts. It's either going to become something that is that is built and people are kept away from. So it just becomes a public amenity for shoppers, which is really not with the uses here, or it's going to become a place where where people congregate because it is a place that they can use facilities and what not. And if we were to go forward with something that that referred to, it was looking to build restrooms, etc. I would like to see some sort of operations plan and commitment from both the business associations and the and the city to use it as a, as a site, you know, for the shared, the mobile hygiene unit, etc. , and for offering services and connecting with people because it will become a working in San Francisco. I can tell you that they do become site gathering sites, not always necessarily in a bad way, but the city, I think, has learned that as they do, you need to be there to offer services, connect people and then get them the further services that you need with it. Similarly, I very much appreciate the creativity of partnering with five other cities, two or four other cities to get a mobile hygiene unit, which I do think is likely needed. Just making sure that if we were to move forward in that we have some sort of a use agreement, we have some very large cities that would be partnering with us, and it would be an unfortunate thing for us to spend a fifth of our our money on a fifth of a of a RV that we get to use once or twice a month. And so I would be looking look, looking for for how that is. I think because of seismic issues in one area, we do have a very vacant building that has been vacant for decades across the street looking at it, even if there are some sort of shorter mid term solution that could be used for navigation center or something like that at the Carnegie the old Carnegie building, I think if there were some way to use some of this funding to to put something in that could serve people for through the cold, cold days, etc., I think could be a be a good use. We've been unsuccessful to find anything else to do with it, and it's not providing much other than architectural beauty, which it will continue to do, whether it's a navigation center or not. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Daszak.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I really appreciate the partnering that our staff is doing with other cities. And in Alameda County along the 80 corridor, I think, you know, we should continue to dialog with them, share resources. And so I think that's an imperative. So I want to definitely encourage that. I would say that, you know, you know, keep a keen eye on on discussions regarding a dedicated RV park that's sanctioned by the city. You know, I have seen articles on television news where, you know, sometimes that doesn't turn out to be what you think. And and so we need to be careful about that, that that would be the only thing that I would encourage. Well, thank you for the partnering and thank you for looking out for Alameda Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. And I guess my thoughts on this are very similar to the three speakers. I mean, I'm not only informed by that, but, you know, I agree with a lot of what they said. I think and I think the vice mayor also, you know, encapsulated I'm sorry, I'm still not changed. Councilman Rivera, you know, encapsulated the value statement, you know, that we want to make sure we provide dignified services to our neighbors regardless of whether they're sheltered or unsheltered. So just quickly on the matching, you know, I prefer not to go back and use something we've already spent to match, because I think the purpose of this money is to provide require us to come up with our own funds and have some skin in the game. I don't prefer that. We don't try to say that we spent public works money or police money or fire money to do this, that that we actually go out in the next budget. You know, a lot of our one time money is basically transfer tax, which comes from the sale of real estate. And the sale of real estate often leads to increases in rentals by the new owners. So a lot of the cause of some of these folks that are homeless, not by choice, but because they've been, you know , priced out of their housing. So I think that finding a way to use that money to, you know, complement this this program, I think, is the appropriate use of of one time money. So I think I would be more inclined to lean more towards services like the three speakers we're talking about than, you know, two bathrooms. I don't think, you know, this is one time money that I don't know if we'll ever see again. So spending 70% of it or a half a million dollars on and two restrooms, I don't know if that really helps our our unsheltered neighbors in the way that the three speakers described they need to be helped. You know, there are you know, as the vice mayor, I got that one right. As the vice mayor stated, you know, we do have that building across the street that the city could use, you know, for I don't know what these cost, but, you know, you could put up a temporary trailer somewhere to help have a temporary navigation center. And I also think we do more on rental subsidies, because if you if you kind of drill down into the numbers, it was, what, 18, 18% of the folks in Alameda County were homeless because of make it the exact term that was used that it was prevention. So to me, that means folks that were forced out of their houses by or their housing due to, you know, inability to pay the rent. So if you say Alameda, okay, we have 204, you know, 18% of that's about 20. So I mean, that to you know, if we give rental assistance of one $2,000 check, you know, that's only 36 people. So that doesn't really you know, that doesn't really help. And I'm concerned about Section eight because every time I propose an idea to incentivize landlords to provide Section eight, like the mayor of Oakland did with with her incentive program, I'm told that there are no more vouchers. So, I mean, if that's really true, then I don't know if I'd want to spend money to advertise something where there's there's no vouchers available. So I'd like to see more more services in the showers. You know, again, the vice mayor made a point, you know, we all take showers every day unless we choose not to. So I think our our homeless neighbors and our unsheltered neighbors should also have that opportunity. And not once every three days, once every four days, you know, or three times a month, if we if we get a van. So I appreciate the partnerships with other jurisdictions. You know, I think we need to make sure we take care of folks and make sure they have the same opportunity, that they're not denied that based on, you know, their status of shelter. So those are my comments. I could see more towards service and rental subsidies, less towards bathrooms. And I appreciate that our business community, you know, didn't like that idea because, you know, solving the homeless problem is to provide people with housing and services. It's not to make it more convenient for our business communities. So they have people shuffled off somewhere where they're not seen. So I appreciate that, that they share that value. And I they made those comments. So again, thanks very much. Great presentation. A lot more work to do. And I'm glad that we had an opportunity to, you know, at least take a dent into the into the problem.
Speaker 0: Thank you for all of your comments here in mind. So since we've mentioned Oakland and the mayor of Oakland a couple of times, I will share that. I've had the honor and privilege to meet with Mayor Schaaf a couple of times just since taking office, and that Debbie Porter and I met with her together on my first day in office. And one of the things that Mayor Schaaf mentioned that Oakland is doing is when there is an apartment building or some multi dwelling unit that. Is up for sale. The city has looked at it and in some cases has bought it with funds that they have allocated. And then the city can turn around and turn it over to an operator of affordable housing. Some of it is Section eight, but some of it is simply affordable housing. And and this is a way that the city can increase its stock of affordable housing. And one of the benefits there is, besides the fact that the need is huge, is that it takes much less time to rehab an existing building than it does to build from new. And so and I think that in addressing homelessness and and other housing issues that are all part of the housing crisis we're in, there's no one immediate solution. We we're going to have to go after a number of different solutions, and we can do that in something that's happening in Alameda. And I was very encouraged to hear about this. I had a nice meet and greet with the planning and transportation departments this afternoon. And among other things, they shared with me that in the last year, Alameda has approved 49 permits for adus that's accessible dwelling units or granny flats or the cottage or the, you know, the backyard or the basement unit. And and some of those are being built or being or going up as we speak. Those also are ways that we start to house people more quickly. So that's that's one of the of a range of solutions. I am all for the mobile hygiene unit and I think it's really inspired. But bear in mind, Alameda would probably get it one day a week, I'm guessing, since we're one of five cities sharing it. And that's fine if, you know, you could you could make do with a shower once a week. It's better than not at all. When it comes to restrooms, you can't use restrooms once a week. And so I, I understand the argument that one time fans maybe it doesn't make sense to to use them to provide public restrooms in our downtown areas. At the same time, I have had multiple conversations with representatives of both of our business districts, West Alameda and the Park Street, downtown Alameda Business Association, complaining to me about the issues of human waste when people have to relieve themselves or sometimes choose to relieve themselves, but for for lack of other opportunities. So at some point, I would love to and I do believe that this council is going to probably vote to authorize our interim city manager to meet with the the departments that are looking at how to apportion this money and for what uses. But I would like the question posed to the business community help us be a part of this solution, because I do think the need is there inspired idea that someone put out about maybe the warming shelter that is currently being housed at the Christ Church. And huge kudos to that congregation. Now, all the other faith communities that are helping support that effort that we can't really realistically expect everyone to find their way to Christ Church to use that one bathroom that's there on the porch. As you go into the this the community center, the social hall, the idea of the Carnegie Library, I saw that, I think on social media something today, and I've heard my colleagues discuss it. I think that's certainly worth looking into. And something that I heard discussed somewhere in a in a conversation and I'm not going to remember where exactly it was, but was a mobile laundry facility because people also have a need to wash their clothes in, you know, the homeless population, I know a lot of them want to work. They have opportunities to go to job interviews, but they don't have clean clothes or the ability to clean up. So if we could also look into the possibility I know I've heard some some discussion of how to address that. And and, yes, I think services are very important. Mental health issues need to be addressed. But you should always we should also ask ourselves, I mean, if you were having to live and fend for yourself on the street and for your your family, can that push you into some mental health issues? So prevention is certainly key. We we need to do a lot of things to make sure we're providing more housing stock for people who need it, keeping our current renters from being pushed out of their homes, onto someone's couch, into their car or onto the street. And as I've shared with a couple of mayors, I attended the Alameda County Mayors conference last week. And. And I said to, well, the mayor of Berkeley and I rode Bart back from Dublin and had a nice conversation. I said, we we can't, on the one hand, brag about California being the fifth largest economy in the world and have thousands of our residents sleeping under freeway overpasses in form fields, in parks. We can't do that. And so every city and Alameda is one of them has to step up and do its fair share. Councilmember Vela and I will be in Sacramento this week on Thursday, because we are both members of a statewide policy committee for the League of California Cities and Housing Community and Economic Development. And we'll bring back some inspired ideas from our colleagues around the state. But anyway, I'm I'm very I'm very grateful that we have this opportunity to to spend this money. Let's yes, use it as an investment seed money and go after the the programs that will help keep people from needing to have warming shelters and to get in out of a cold, rainy night like tonight. So thank you very much. With that, do I hear your hinted. Councilmember ballot?
Speaker 8: Yes, I did. Want to follow up on something. I think we've talked about these mobile units, but and I and I understand that we want to be able to bring these different services to folks. But I guess when I was talking about kind of trying to find efficiencies, you know, having visited the warming shelter that we are using and that has been designated and there was considerable amount of resources put into establishing it as a warming shelter. You know, is it you know, are there things possible like getting a washer and dryer that could be that we could use this money essentially to pay for to get that installed there that could be used and available for use. Is there a possibility of expanding the bathrooms there? I mean, those rather than building new facilities elsewhere, is it are there opportunities for those sorts of capital expenses that we can invest in, something that's already been established where we can make the facility into a better facility and perhaps try to negotiate extended hours, those sorts of things. I do think that, again, this is a small portion of money. I agree with with Councilmember Otis statement about putting new, new money towards this. And I also think that a lot of the issues in the underlying issues that have been raised and concerns are going to be ongoing conversations, even though this is one time money, because we know the need is not going to go away. I just would like to see us use this efficiently so that we know and we can figure out if we're on the right path and where we would need to expand things as we move forward or what's been successful and what hasn't been, or how can we improve it. And I do think our former mayor, Trish Spencer, for going to that Alameda County Board of Supervisors meeting, because this money was not an automatic give. And it wasn't just that we had to put in the application, but we also had to make our pitch for why Alameda deserved our cut. And I think it gives us this opportunity to have these sorts of conversations. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'm just going to come in on the idea about possibly expanding services at the women's shelter. I think that we should also give consideration if there's room for a laundry facility and maybe there is, but washers use lots of water. And so I think we would also need to give consideration to helping with the water bill lately.
Speaker 8: I support.
Speaker 0: That. Yeah. Okay. Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just just to follow up on that, know, I think we should also consider partnering with our school district and see what they may have as far as ideas, because, you know, homeless children do go to school. And, you know, one idea I think they did it somewhere in Oakland was washers and dryers and schools, you know, and that may be, you know, a relatively cheap solution that can we can also partner with. And you know, that that may help people out as well.
Speaker 0: Thought and I know I believe I just appointed is it Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember de Soto? Are you the appointees to the ESD subcommittee? Yes, my memory serves me correctly. Do you know when your next meeting is?
Speaker 5: Or 28.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: I think it's actually been continued to February 13. That's what I.
Speaker 0: 13. So maybe whoever puts the agenda together could get that on the agenda. Okay, lovely. Okay. Any other comments? So what we're looking for tonight, if I recall correctly, is this is a recommendation to provide direction on the city's proposal for the the hip homeless emergency aid program and authorize the interim city manager to work with social services Human Relations Board to finalize and implement the city's programs in. Services. Do we have a motion to incorporate? All of our suggestions is.
Speaker 8: So moved incorporating the suggestions raised tonight by my by this council.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's all right. We have a motion to have a second and second by Councilmember de SAC. All in favor.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: All right. Passes unanimously. Thanks, everybody. Yes.
Speaker 5: I sit there for a few people on January 30th. Everyone counts. The county's homeless count will be happening. That is a volunteer led effort to make sure that we actually are aware of how many folks are living unsheltered in Alameda. You can if you just Google, everyone counts 2019, you'll go right straight to the page. It's an early morning, but it's something that's pretty quick, easy and actually very fulfilling. You can take care, take part of.
Speaker 0: I think some of the slots are already filled. I don't know if they all are, but for some census tracts they are. Yeah.
Speaker 5: The website has that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. Okay. So moving on. Oh, councilmember design.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you, Madam Mayor. The next item, I will have to recuse myself because my house is roughly 20 feet away from a site where that would stand to benefit from this proposed item. So I've been in discussions with the city attorney, and he had agreed that I should recuse myself from this item.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you in a bit.
Speaker 7: Yes, I will.
Speaker 2: Actually, I'm going to work. I brought my computer.
Speaker 0: We're not checking on you. There's brownies.
Speaker 1: It's a public hearing to consider. Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Section 30 Dash ten cannabis to add cannabis retail businesses as a conditionally permitted uses in the C one neighborhood business and C and commercial manufacturing zoning districts, and amend certain portions of the zoning code to enable cannabis retail businesses to dispense nontraditional or adult. Use cannabis and amend certain portions of the zoning code to remove the dispersion requirement and repeal ordinance 3228 and introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 16 Cannabis Businesses of Chapter six businesses, occupations and industry to eliminate the cap on testing laboratories allow for two additional cannabis businesses to operate as dispensary delivery. Delivery required open to the public within the zoning districts for cannabis retail. Amend the dispersion requirement to require no more than two cannabis retail businesses to operate on either side of grants to create a two tier buffer zone from sensitive uses for cannabis businesses. Amend certain portions of the regulatory ordinance to enable cannabis retail businesses to dispense non-medical or adult, use cannabis and modify requirements for off island delivery and make other clarifying and conforming amendments thereto. And repealing ordinance 3 to 2 seven.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And who's doing the the presentations that interim city attorney Michael Roche.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor and members of the council. I'll give the kind of procedural issue as to how we got here or why we are here. And there are members of my staff and also from the Base Reuse and Community Development Department here to answer any substantive questions that the Council may have about the the two ordinances in question . My background in November, the City Council adopted two ordinances concerning the cannabis business in Alameda and those ordinances are now in effect. A complaint was filed, however, under the City of Sunshine Ordinance that the agenda titled for those two ordinances when the Council considered their introduction in October of 2018, that the agenda title did not reflect certain provisions in the ordinance that were subsequently introduced that evening. And then those ordinance, as I mentioned, were adopted on November seven. The Open Government Commission conducted a hearing on that complaint, sustained it and as a remedy, held that the ordinances were null and void, and that the Council may consider reintroducing the ordinance as following a public hearing . Our office had advised the Commission and the Council that the Sunshine Ordinance that the Commission did not have the legislative authority to render the the ordinances null and void. But given the decision of the Commission, we feel at this point that it would it would make good sense for the council to reintroduce the ordinances and then eventually adopt them, if that's the council's desire. And that as a consequence of that, the two ordinances in question that the Commission felt should be null and void would be repealed when the new ordinances were adopted and became effective. We think this is the the most expeditious way of resolving any potential legal issues concerning those two ordinances. It carries out the spirit and intent of what the Open Government Commission did, and for that reason we are recommending the course of action as set forth in your agenda report. I'll be glad to answer any questions about the procedural issues in the. And members of my staff and the Community Development Department are here if there are questions about the substantive provisions of the two ordinances.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Roush. Do we have any questions on procedure of this item?
Speaker 3: Just a quick.
Speaker 0: One. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Two quick ones. So if we approve this today, we still have what we have today. Right?
Speaker 2: Correct. If the council introduces and subsequently adopts the ordinances, it will be the same as the ordinances that were introduced and adopted back in 2018.
Speaker 3: And if we don't approve this today, we still have what we have today, right?
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we just as a matter of aside, I mean, is there a plan to come back and talk about the Sunshine Ordinance and where it may conflict with the charter in the Constitution?
Speaker 2: That is correct, I think. I think that that is a matter that I think that when you make your appointment with to the new city attorney, that is certainly one of the things that she or he may well want to take up, both with the council and the Open Government Commission to see if there need to be any amendments to that ordinance. I think that would certainly be in order. Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Clarification on your response to Mr. Rudy. Mr. Ash, you're saying that regardless of how the city council votes tonight, the previous. The previous ordinances will stand either with a new number or the way they were.
Speaker 2: Correct. It is it is our officers opinion that those ordinances were properly and legally adopted and that the the commission did not have the legal authority to render those null and void. We would rather not get into a debate or get into a conflict issue with respect to who is correct on that issue. And so our recommendation is to reintroduce the ordinances as as approved, as it were, and repeal the two ordinances in question. And so to get to the same place as where as if the complaint had not been filed.
Speaker 0: I might not be alone in wondering why we're even bothering to go through this exercise. If the outcome is already known.
Speaker 2: Well, the the certainly it will take three votes of this council to reintroduce this ordinance if the three votes aren't there. I do agree that the current ordinances will stay in effect, but it does then raised the specter of a potential legal challenge somewhere down the road, which is what I think we would like to try to avoid.
Speaker 0: I see. Okay. Any other questions?
Speaker 3: Just two more.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, just to be clear, the item of youth centers is not on the agenda tonight.
Speaker 2: That is correct. It is not on the agenda.
Speaker 3: And if we were to say change this ordinance by I don't know, I'm not even going to throw out a hypothetical but change anything in there. Then we could run into the same issues we had with the original complaint that was filed with the sunshine.
Speaker 2: If the Council wants to amend substantive provisions of what's in front of you, it would be my recommendation that we would not take have the Council not take any action tonight to introduce anything, and we would bring that matter back to the Council at a subsequent meeting for reentry for introduction.
Speaker 3: Okay. I appreciate. Appreciate the answers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or clarifying?
Speaker 8: Councilmember Vella and the reason that that you're saying that it stays into effect, that has to do with Article three of our charter where it vests all the powers to the council to make those decisions. Is that what we're relying upon?
Speaker 0: So I will I will leave it to the city attorney to make sure that you're staying within the framework of the agenda item.
Speaker 8: I'm trying to understand why we're essentially why we're here.
Speaker 3: I think you asked.
Speaker 0: It was almost a rhetorical question.
Speaker 2: And the. We provided a a confidential memo to the city council, which laid out in some detail all of the reasons why we felt that that the legislative that the commission did not have that that authority. We provided a somewhat truncated version of that to the commission so that it understood what our position was. I, I don't recall specifically if Article three is involved, but it was part of the memo, then the answer is yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. By spirit, not white.
Speaker 5: I have a I have a couple questions, I guess. I think it would be good for us. And I mean, try to be careful there. The Open Government Commission was set up specifically to oversee to provide citizen oversight of the city attorney's determination. And I guess I'm confused a little bit on how that didn't come back to the Council for reinterpretation. Ed, I mean, I don't want anybody reading, so I wonder if we shouldn't try to at least address that piece before we wait three months to hire a city attorney in case there are future open government. So I'll just leave that there. My question is, especially given what you've just suggested, we have two questions. We're not approving anything related to any applications that are out there, correct?
Speaker 2: That is that is correct.
Speaker 5: And so any action we take tonight will not impact. Applicants that are out there that we have we have we have a successful applicant. There's an applicant who has been successful any as we are not taking action. He's I'm trying to I feel like I've gotten multiple different answers. And yet we just had a council member recuse himself because tonight's action was going to directly impact the financial well-being of a specific applicant and therefore somehow perhaps his own. And he says that you agreed and encouraged him to recuse on that. And so I'm trying to I'm trying to square what our action is doing, because I think it's important. The last time I listened to all the candidates, this is my first cannabis hearing. I was actually hopeful that this would be done before we got here.
Recommendation to Provide Direction on the City’s Proposal for the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Work with the Social Service Human Relations Board to Finalize and Implement the City’s HEAP Programs and Services. (Economic Development 001)