Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Provisions to Section 4-32 (Firearms and Weapons) of Article V (Firearms and Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Safe Storage of Firearms and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions; and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Provisions to Section 4-36 (License Requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers) of Article V (Firearms and Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Firearms Dealers to Provide Video Surveillance and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions. (City Attorney)
Amending the aluminum visible code by adding provisions to Section four. Dash 36 License requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers of Article five, Firearms and Explosives of Chapter four. Offenses and Public Safety requiring firearms dealers to provide video surveillance and enhancing enforcement provisions. Thank you. And I believe you are assistant city attorney. Mr. Assistant, yet. Not Aziz Ansari, where two deputies, they say, didn't come to the city attorney. Right. Hopefully soon. All right. Good evening. Oh, I can't say we have to do labor negotiations in. Class. Where it happened. Session. So do your best. Thanks, Mayor. So good evening. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Monitor Hung. I'm a deputy U.S. attorney here at the city attorney's office. We're here this evening to discuss certain proposals for firearm safety. Previously on November 19th, 2019, Council did discuss various ideas for firearm safety and directed staff to bring back actions for potential adoption of the Council's high priority items from the November 19th meeting to our address today. Staff's recommendation this evening is to introduce for first reading two ordinances amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding provisions to require safe storage of firearms in the residence and to also require firearm dealers to provide video surveillance. During this process of evaluating the various possible firearm safety proposals, we've had discussions with many stakeholders, including various Alameda community groups as well as Big Five, and we appreciate their input and their efforts in promoting gun safety and helping Alameda become safer. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the country's leading policy organizations dedicated to gun safety, has issued a letter supporting the two proposals before you today. And we appreciate that letter. I'd like to now discuss how these two draft ordinances are currently written. First is the safe storage ordinance, which aims to reduce wrongful, intentional and unintentional discharge of firearms, including suicides, and to help reduce stolen firearms. Specifically, it requires that firearms be stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock unless lawfully carried on the body of a person. We are mindful of the Supreme Court case of Heller v Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to use the firearm within the home for self-defense. This ordinance allows for self-protection because its safe storage requirement does not apply when a firearm is lawfully carried on the person. One thing we'd like to note is that the ordinance applies to safe storage within the residence. If counsel would like to give direction regarding expansion or contraction of that. We are happy to take that direction. The ordinance does propose several possible penalties, including administrative citations, up to the maximum amount allowable under the code currently, as well as infractions or criminal prosecution. One item that I'd like to highlight is that the ordinance does have a safe harbor provision that protects gun owners from criminal prosecution under the section. If they do report lost or stolen guns within 24 hours from which they knew or should have known that the gun was missing. This safe harbor provision is intended to encourage prompt reporting of any lost or stolen guns. The second ordinance before you today is the firearm dealer video surveillance ordinance, which aims to deter and resolve any issues of straw purchases, which is where an individual purchases firearms on behalf of someone else who may be ineligible and which may lead to firearms being in the hands of unsafe individuals. This law may also help solve a deter other crimes such as theft or battery, which may occur on the premises of the firearm dealers. The ordinance specifically requires video surveillance of critical business areas such as where firearms and ammunitions are stored, sold or transferred or carried. It also requires that facial features of purchasers or transferees be recorded and stored. The ordinance does recommend that the does require that the video record at a rate of 15 frames per second and that images be stored for one year. And the ordinance also would require a conspicuous warning that the premises are being recorded so that people who are coming into the premises have fair warning. I'd also like to note that these two audits are only the first round of staff recommendations. We do have current efforts ongoing regarding organization of a community event, specifically a safety fair, which would be targeted towards not only gun safety but other general safety proposals. This feature is currently being discussed to be held some time in April, but it's very tentative and I think further discussions are ongoing between other staff departments and members of the community. So further updates may come and that day is obviously very flexible. We may move that. And I'd also like to to note that the council's high priority items, the other high priority items from the November 19th meeting, we are very much still considering them and evaluating them. That does include funding for gun violence, restraining order, education and outreach training initiatives regarding training, not only how to use firearms, but also how firearms and domestic violence and substance abuse and mental health issues are intertwined and requiring separate display and sales of firearms. And so these items do require additional time for evaluation, given that they do require more operations, administrative and resource considerations. And so we will further collaborate with other city departments and come back with further proposals. With that said, if you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you and Mr. Hang any questions of the staff report for grew as speakers Council member DASA. Thank you very much. You mentioned that you had obtained input from Big Five. Did Big Five give any comments with regard to the way in which weapons are store displayed? Particularly with regard to maybe having a designated area that's separate from. Did they comment on that at all? No, I can't remember. We have still to figure out how we should approach that. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple questions in the. The sales surveillance ordinance. It indicates that video surveillance would also be directed toward the parking lot of Big Five. So say I was pulling up to go out and buy a yoga mat, getting out of my car in the parking lot. I would be video surveilled for that. It's possible that audience is not so specific as to what extent the parking lot would be surveilled. But the way is currently worded, you know, subject to input from the chief of police, which the ordinance does allow for. It's very possible that pastor buys around the parking lot area may also be captured. And, of course, counsel can give further direction on that provision of the ordinance. Okay. And then how does the requirement of videotaping inside the store with facial features recorded? How does that work with, I think, another policy that this council has weighed in on about not wanting facial recognition technology used in our city. How do how do we square those two? Sure. I am not sure to what extent the previous decision was regarding general facial recognition. What I can say is that specifically this could be narrowly applied to only be at the premise of a firearms dealer and it would not apply elsewhere. Certainly, if council feels uncomfortable with that, also, we can generally just allow for facial recognition. That's right. Just for videotaping of the general premises and not be focused on the facial features during a transaction. One thing to know is that because of the way that straw purchases are done in order to help resolve and deter those crimes , it may be helpful to have the facial recognition. But of course, that's completely up to council. So it is big five and Alameda have some history of facilitating straw purchases. Not that we're aware of that. Of course, it's it's really difficult for us to to track that without having additional data and also looking further into it. I see. Okay. Any other questions? Clarifying questions. Mayor? No. You just saying. Yeah. Yeah, that is the question. Okay. You mentioned I know we received a letter from I think it was safe, safe Alameda with some requests. Did staff have a chance to look at those proposed changes? And, yes, we have. And so I believe safe Alameda did send several proposals. Um, so there are a few proposals to add a couple of additions to the preambles. But, um, perhaps it's best use of my time to, uh, and of course you can, we can discuss more that preamble if needed. But there are substantive changes include changing section four, dash 32.3 currently, which requires proposals to require safe storage of firearms in residents. Safe Element has proposed changing residents to premises such that this would also cover presumably commercial premises, and they have also proposed to require keeping firearms to also be unloaded when they're stored. Staff's staff believes that premises is a broadening of the ordinance as currently constructed because it would apply not only to the residence but also to commercial premises. Um, this may open the ordinance to further challenge, um, with regards to keeping the firearm unloaded while it's stored. We also believe that may significantly be open for challenge due to the Heller case that I previously mentioned, which does allow for firearms to be used for self-defense. And an argument I believe could be made that if the firearm was mandated to not only be locked and stored away or disabled with a trigger lock, but also unloaded , it could significantly hinder what the court has found to be the Second Amendment right. There has also been proposals from State Alameda to, uh, remove criminal penalties and to only have civil penalties. As previously mentioned, as currently worded. We are proposing the maximum civil penalties and the fines cannot be any higher than currently proposed. Of course, if council would not like to have criminal penalties, that's something that we can change. And as for the video surveillance, they also had a few other comments. Um, I think most primarily that they would like the currently as worded the audience requires that the camera system be triggered by a motion detector while during off business hours. They would like that to be a minimum requirement such that video surveillance could, um, at the discretion of the firearms dealer be on for the entirety of the day. They would also like for the images to be stored on the premises for longer than one year and also require offsite backup of the images and how they're stored. Um, and a proposal that, um, during the sales strike, during any period of, in operability of the video surveillance system, that the licensee shall not conduct any sales or transfers. And so looking at these, these are a little bit stronger than some of the other video surveillances that are currently out there and have withstood previous challenge. Um, I think, you know, it's certainly doable. I think whether or not to, to expand on certain of these requirements, whether or not it's advisable or whether or not it's operational, operationally feasible for the firearms dealers. I don't have a comment on that. Okay. I'm Mr. Shin. Just to add to Mr. Hong's point, we on the issue of premises. We did look into it and we also had, even before receiving that, had a thought about what that means with respect to the regulation at issue. The proposal in front of you essentially just precludes folks from having arms about within their residences that are not either worn or safely stored. And this is consistent with regulations elsewhere. We recognize that there may be places that the council may want to slightly further regulate. For example, the locations right outside of the residence, for example, a garage where you may choose to include in the regulation, and further, you may even decide that arms should just not be stored in places where when people don't live in, because that is more risk when it comes to theft, because you may not go into it depending upon where you use your garage for or your storage facilities on your residential premises. So we do have language available to you if you're interested in further exploring that point, and we're happy to display it for you now or any other time. Mr. Shen how would you contemplate enforcing that sort of regulation? And so enforcement of this and this entire ordinance on safe storage is not going to be by police officers inspecting homes. It will be enforced by essentially self-reporting. And the enforcement mechanism will be one whereby there's not going to be a an overall regulatory scheme. I'm happy to defer to the police chief on any further comments on enforcement he likes to share. But I think the way we envision it is that it most likely would only occur when it's post hoc, where something has occurred and someone has reported it to the police and information is volunteered. But as I raised in a communication with your office this morning, if tragically and we hope it doesn't happen, but a teenager got hold of a gun inside their home and committed suicide. We wouldn't criminally prosecute or we would have discretion. I would hope not to criminally prosecute. The. Parents because I can't imagine you could punish them any more than had already occurred. Prosecutors have the right to exercise their discretion, not to prosecute any case. Did someone else Healesville or did you have your hand up or just. Okay, um, I'll just remind everyone that we're supposed to keep our hands away from our offenses for health reasons these days. Sorry, I was in a meeting yesterday where they told us we were all handling our faces and we were okay if we don't have any further clarifying questions from the Council. Thank you, Mr. Green. Let's go to our public speakers. We now have four Dave Breslow, Krystal Lo, Pilotto, Jonas Stockland and Kelly Co. Members of the council. Thank you. I'm Dave. You want to be sure to speak to that microphone? We've tried to, you know, hear you. Thank you. I'm Dave Frost. I'm retired technical executive, primarily focused on the storage industry. I now teach firearms. I'm a firearms instructor and safety instructor. There are a number of heartburn issues that present themselves on this. First of all, I like the intent. All of us want a safer society. We just want things that work. And the issue that I have is that I don't believe this proposal has gotten the type of input and review that it really warrants. One is, I can't find anything in here that's really going to work. I wish that weren't the case. Our suicide rate in the country has gone up by a third. We've spent millions and millions on prevention, and it's not working. Safe storage isn't going to reduce suicides. We've seen this. The data is clear on this. It will prevent or discourage, I should say not prevent, but discourage children from getting access to certain children. But I hope you know that it's on YouTube. If anybody wants to look a six year old entering, unlocking a cable lock or gun lock, you can shoot a firearm with a trigger lock. Most cases, if there's a round in the chamber, the trigger lock has enough play in there. You can normally pop off one round. That's why I recommend cable locks. What I do recommend is that the council take a deep breath on this one. Direct staff to conduct some information, gathering session sessions and furthermore move forward on proposals that do make a difference. I've made two efforts to contact the police department today. One voicemail box was full and I didn't get a receipt. Answer from the chief. I don't believe that our police offer what many do, and that is provide free gun locks, free gun locks, safety training, all of these kinds of things. I'm aware of what the community service program offers, but I've looked at it and frankly, there are other programs that are free that are so much better . So what I would recommend is that we do a number of things and avail ourselves in the community to free things, also establish criteria. What is it that we're trying to accomplish our murder rate here? Homicide rate is very low. We had nothing. And the let's see, we had one of the most recent period, nothing before that one before that. Nothing to to zero. I mean, it's not going to get much better. I don't have data on gun thefts, but I don't see much in here that's going to make a difference, which is why I recommend that we move forward on those things that do. And I would love to work with staff on how to make this happen. And that includes grants most recently. The announcement I got was three weeks ago, over $400,000 was committed to various departments for this kind of thing. So the money is available. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm wondering with. Thank you. You may be seated, please, chief, for Larry, do you wish to comment at this time? This is kind of although. He didn't put it in the speaker slip, but he was referenced. So I just briefly would like to respond to the speaker last speaker's assertion that he did not get a response from the police department. He emailed me this afternoon at 1214. I replied with an extensive reply. 3 hours later, he may not have checked his email, but he has it. And in that email I informed him that the number he had called was not to the person that he was trying to reach. And I provided the correct number and answered all of his questions. So I'm sorry that he did not see that and misrepresented the fact that he did not receive a response today. Thank you. And while you're up here, do you have any other comments about anything in the audience or to one to. Well, Mr. Sheen, I agree with him wholeheartedly that the enforcement piece is not going to be done by the police department. Uh, we we don't we're not going to be knocking on doors. And I mentioned this to the council when we talked about it a few months ago. The Fourth Amendment would prohibit us from just going into someone's home unless they gave us permission to do so. And that in all likelihood, if a gun was not safely stored and an event occurred as a result of that, it would not be known to us until after the fact. And then we would be pursuing whatever avenues, you know, whether criminal or administrative that would need to be taken. But we wouldn't know that until til after the event. Thank you. Anything? Council on South the chief. What? We have him up here. We can always come back. Thank you. And our next speaker is. Crystal Lo Parlato. And then join us again. Good evening, council members. My name is Krystal Abelardo. I'm a member of Safe Alameda. A community group started right here in Alameda. And I also volunteer as the California state legislative lead for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense. First, I want to applaud the Council for being proactive about gun safety and gun violence prevention. And also thank the city staff for the hard work that they've done on this already. Ordinances like these save lives and getting them enacted here is a core priority of our safe Alameda Group. We do want to raise, as noted, just a few potential provisions for your consideration, the first of which is really that we would like to see the criminal penalties eliminated from the safe storage ordinance. Criminal penalties and ordinances like this can have a disproportionately negative impact on people of color in terms of who is most likely to ultimately be charged and convicted within the criminal justice system. Disproportionate sentencing and the disproportionate impact that a criminal record can have on future opportunities for a person of color. We understand the desire to pass laws that have real teeth, but believe that desire can be balanced against the downstream consequences of a penalty provision like that. So it was excellent to be informed that the civil fines are already at the maximum allowable amount, so that that certainly can stay as as is from our perspective. We are aware that the Safe Harbor provision relies on criminal penalties as currently drafted as an alternative. We would be open to reduction of the civil penalties as the tool that incentivizes reporting of theft or loss. Instead of relying on criminal penalties as the ordinance is currently drafted. Additionally, as mentioned, we would love to see the Council consider expanding the scope of the safe storage ordinance to all premises instead of just residences. The basis for that is that when addressing the risks of a gun, getting into the wrong hands from theft or the risk of unintentional shootings, the same reasoning holds true for firearms that are not stored securely on a business premises. As for those in residential premises, and we'd like to see the ordinances scope expanded to reflect that to the extent legally possible. Of course, limited exceptions could be spelled out for premises controlled by law enforcement or other reasonable exceptions. And just briefly, with respect to the firearms dealer surveillance regulations, as mentioned, we have given city staff some feedback on those. But also want to separately note that we find Councilmember de Suggs idea of regulating the placement of firearms within a store to be very compelling, and we'd like to see the Council explore such a regulation. Thank you again for giving this issue the attention it deserves. And we do hope that, you know that members of the community strongly support these ordinances. Thank you, Mr. Stockton. Next. It. AVM, Jonathan Coughlin, a. Alameda resident, a parent, an. Attorney and a concerned citizen. Thank you, mayor and council members, for opportunity to address you. This is a complex issue, obviously, and not something that can only be addressed at the local level level. We need our our state and federal partners to also make some movement on that. And I would urge you, whatever you do, in addition to the local ordinances, we urge you to support, to urge our leaders in Sacramento and Washington to make some changes, we need big changes. One of which I would like to see is a change to the law that permits Californians to buy a new handgun every 30 days . This has got to be increasing the flow of firearms and into the into the hands of the wrong people. As to the measures before you today, I would say I urge you to support them. I'm a member of Safe Alameda and would echo the points made by the previous speaker. I would want to mention those a question about adding the unlocked provision. That is something that the Giffords folks support. And if you're concerned about litigation, they are you are spot on in terms of what is something that will survive a challenge. Previous speakers suggested the first speaker suggested that these measures would not make a difference. That speaker also did not suggest that there was any downside to these measures and the point that there would be no way would make the difference. L mean, it does have a low homicide rate, but if one. Locked firearm. Prevents a depressed teenager from getting access to that firearm, this is all worth it. That's all it takes. So I would urge you to support these ordinances. And we're looking as if Ahmed is looking to work with you, the city, further on additional measures, two of which come to mind. That might be up next. One would be liability insurance requirements for gun sellers, making sure there's sufficient liability insurance, and also an ordinance that would restrict the locations of for gun dealers to keep them in places that would be away from where our children congregate, away from parks, away from schools, some safe distance. So with that, I would say please support these audiences with the changes recommended by the previous speakers. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. Kelly Cope. And then we have Rodney Spooner. I wanted to thank our city council members and our city staff for addressing this issue in our community. I do or do I? My name is Kelly Copeman and I'm a Alameda resident and a parent and part of safe Alameda. I urge you to support this legislation with the recommendations that Krystal. Pilotto had. Recommended. We realize that gun violence is a complex issue and that along with suicide and unintentional injury, we hope that we can work with you on the underlying issues of gun violence and suicide and unintentional injury as well. There are there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws do reduce all firearm safe self injuries, including suicide attempts among our youth. So there is evidence for that. And we do have a gun theft problem in the city of Alameda. There has been more than 220 guns stolen in the last ten years from homes. These are guns that are coming from our homes into the hands of criminals. We need to do better than that. And we hope that we can continue to work with you on this issue and the underlying issues. Thank you. Thank you. Rodney Spooner. Our next speaker is Rodney Spooner. Mr. Speaker, there. Good evening. Hello. My first time, so I'm a little nervous. First, I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that any loss of innocent life is a tragedy. Um, one in particular, that's. That's near and dear to me is the Kate Stanley, the daughter that was killed by an illegal alien. And I don't want, you know, my comments to be misinterpreted because I don't intend any disrespect to anybody. The first duty of government should be to protect the citizen. Each of you swore a sacred oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. And as I'm sure the city attorney knows, that Madison versus Marbury. Marbury versus Madison. 1803. Um, any law statute ordinance that's repugnant to the Constitution is void. So the Second Amendment basically states in part that the right to keep and it's the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I feel that this is an infringement. I feel, you know, the Second Amendment has been infringed quite a bit. And I got up off the couch to come to this meeting today. So in the ordinance, it does say that the gun, gun violence and gun injuries have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety. I don't disagree with that necessarily, but I disagree with the significant, um, it does have an adverse effect, but you know, define significant compared to what? Unsecured firearms raise the risk of injuries from wrongful. Firearm. Discharges and suicides. Accidental discharge. That plus the last. Whereas trigger locks and lock boxes do not prevent firearms from being easily accessed. Did not prevent firearms from being easily accessed in case of emergency. What is an emergency? Emergency is time is of the essence. And the fact is that I'm sure the officers here should be familiar with the Wheeler drill, which basically is a danger zone, 25, 21 feet. And to be able to cover that distance takes only like 1.5 seconds. So time is of the essence. Um. Looks like I'm I'm actually running out of time. The trigger locks on YouTube. There's any number of YouTube videos that, you know, tell you how to disable a lock and in, you know. A short time. Thank you, Mr. Speed. Thank you. And is that our last speaker? Okay. So we're going to close public comment and we will move back to council comment. Actually, I did have one clarifying question of from the staff report. There was this reference to and I think I actually mentioned it in my email, I asked you who is organizing the April 25th, 2020 Safety Fair? Because I believe two of us in the Council, I think Mr. Odie and I are both out of town that day, and I do think this is a topic that's of interest to the entire council. So I know there the city attorney's office has not actually been involved in organizing that. If I could ask, I believe Chief Roll, I already may have more information. Oh, okay. Welcome back. Mm hmm. Mayor and Council Members. The April 25th date is not etched in stone at all. We by we, I mean the police department. Uh, Jennifer Williams from the school board, Kelly Cope, who just spoke to you a few moments ago from Safe Alameda, Sarah Henry, McKayla Parker at the police department. We've had several meetings discussing the concept, the concept of having a community safety event and trying to have it far enough out that we can plan and have a have a decent event, but also work within various schedules in the school calendar and whatnot. We were looking at late April, but it's completely flexible. Everything in that event is in the preliminary stages. Okay, that's great that we, the Council all shares the same fabulous staff person who, as I tell Michelle Kirkman, she knows my schedule better than I do. So she's a great place to start for getting the council on board. And I would think that this is I would hope that the organizers would like the council there, too. So thank you for that clarification, but I appreciate it. Um, three things. Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, I want to clear that up. Okay. Councilman Brody, I'll start. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank everyone for speaking on this and the work of our staff and just to kind of I know Debbie did a nice review slide of of West Midway, so we didn't do a review slide. But to remind people when we talked about this idea, you know, last year there was a town hall that the mayor and then Vice Mayor Vella where we're attending on this issue. And then we brought it back to the council this year, I guess it was last year, but it was this term. You know, we had just experienced another school shooting. You know, we still hear daily incidents of, you know, accidental children dying and, you know, guns used in suicides. So that was the background for when we first talked about this. And, you know, I think I said something and I think everyone agreed that, you know, if the new norm is now these these shooter drills and telling kids they need to get bulletproof backpacks, I mean, that's just to me, not acceptable. So with that backdrop, we continued the work that was done with the first town hall, with the second town hall. And then we invited the district attorney to also come and share some of her information. And I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the report that her office put out. But, you know, when we talked about areas that we could focus on, you know, safe storage was the number one area, one, because it was something we could actually have an impact on. And two, because of the issues Mr. Schenn talked about, you know, there's a lot of preemption in this area. So, I mean, you look at the numbers in that DEA report and, you know, of the crime guns that are used in our county, 17% of them were legally purchased in our county. So to me, that's an astonishing number because people are always saying, well, you know, all these guns that people are using are not legal. Well, they were legal at one time. They were stolen and then they were used in a crime. So if there's a way that we could cut off the supply for bad people to get guns that were purchased legally, then I'm all for it. So that's why I think first the straw purchasing thing is going to make sure that every sale that's done in Alameda is done legally. I appreciate the the the suggestions of my councilmember colleague, Mr. de SOG, to move that. I mean, there are a lot of different products that we don't want our youth exposed to, and we put them in separate spaces magazines, videos, cigarets. Things like that. So I don't know why if a ten year old goes into a big five to buy a baseball mitt, you know that they should be exposed to a row of what looks like semiautomatic weapons. So, I mean, I I'm sympathetic to the fact that, you know, a lot of this stuff, like the police chief said, is after the fact. But, you know, so is the discussion on license plate readers. I mean, we wouldn't know if somebody should be tagged to have their car digging with a license plate reader until they've committed a crime. So I also appreciate the comments that were provided about criminalization, because we're not trying to criminalize the legal possession of firearms. What we are trying to do is to prevent those legal firearms from getting into the hands of people that shouldn't have them. So I think every responsible gun over a gun owner probably agrees with that statement, because the more that these guns get in the wrong hands, that the higher risk that someone else, not us, is going to do something about it. So I think we all should be in agreement on that. As far as the videotaping. You know, I think I remember if the police didn't come out with a thing wrong, but we did a ban on facial recognition software, which was automated facial recognition. The police still have the opportunity to look at a surveillance video and maybe look at a driver's license and do a manual compare. And I think that's what this type of situation would lead to, that if there's an audit to make sure that these are not straw purchases and that the right person is buying the gun that says they're buying it, you can do a compare and then you pass the audit and then every then everyone moves about their day. So I think I said the criminal penalty. I like the idea of the premises. I don't know to what extent we can do that because we kind of I thought when the suggestion came that it was about businesses, but then we talked about garages and curtilage and stuff like that. So I don't know if that's, you know, I don't know where that lies in the in the scheme of things. Maybe, maybe I'll just finish and then you can kind of of of talk about it. So and then, you know, Johnno in his comment, you know, if we could save an Alameda one kid from committing suicide by keeping a gun locked up for an extra 15 or 20 minutes or whatever. To me, that's worth it. And conversely, if we can save, you know, one kid from accidentally stumbling upon their mom or their dad's gun, that the mom or dad thought was hidden away. But kids find everything. They know where everything is. Trust me. Then to me that's worth it to. And I again would think that anyone who says they're responsible, law abiding, that these are the type of, you know, commonsense rules that they would want because, you know, nobody has I think the mayor said nobody wants, you know, a tragedy in Alameda and that those are the type of things that we're going to try to work on to prevent. I wish we could do more. You know, I don't think we should have criminal penalties if you violate this. But, you know, I think we should consider something like strict liability because if you're negligent in leaving your gun and letting it get stolen or lost, then and you don't report it, that's a problem. That is a crime. And then lastly, on the DIA's report, I think Kelly may have mentioned this. You know, the stats are in that report. I think it's 88 that guns were stolen in Alameda from 2012 to 2018. I don't I don't have the ten year number, but I added them up and it was 88. That's a lot that's a lot of guns that are in the stream that shouldn't be. And they were all presumably purchased legally and now they're, you know, not in the legal stream. So I'm happy to support these and I'm glad we were able to do something. I look forward to hearing my my colleagues comments and I hope we can incorporate some of those suggestions from safe Alameda. I'm going to constitutionally, Mr. Shinn to comment on some of the items Councilmember Odie raised. I believe Councilmember Ody had a specific question with respect to premises. In our premises. Or premises. So our recommendation is that not reach commercial at this time, but we do have language ready for you on all premises on residential. I'm going to ask Mr. Hong to at least load it so that if the Council's interested in looking at it and it's a fairly small change to the ordinance that we believe would satisfy some of your concerns and it might be a reasonable middle ground to take and I believe it's now on the screen. I'll just read it to the council. Essentially, we would change section four, dash three, 2.32 to indicate that no person shall keep a firearm within any residence or upon any residential premises unless the firearm is stored in a log container or disabled with a trigger lock within a residence. And. And the last part is important because. We're what we're regulating is that if you want to store a firearm on on a residential premises, whether it's a garage or a storage bin, you just can't do that. You have to leave it in the residence where people are living, where presumably there's more supervision. And then just for clarification, Mr. Chan. So the firearm under this section could be either stored in the locked container or disabled with a trigger lock? That's correct. In either case, it has to be inside the residence. Okay. And then to a point Councilmember Odie raised of, you know, 88 guns stolen and I think six years was the number. But if the owner of that firearm under this proposed ordinance were to report it as stolen to the police within 24 hours, then they don't have any liability. Correct. The safe harbor provision, as proposed, would absolve that owner of liability. Okay. So just trying to understand, how does that help us here, I guess, is the rationale that the quicker it's reported, the quicker it might be found. Because it's not it's still a stolen gun at the end of the day. And presumably someone you know is stealing it for ulterior motives. That's right. I think it really is to encourage reporting so that police officers can be made aware as quickly as possible, so that there is an opportunity it could be found. Or if there is a related crime that police is already investigating, then it would provide them with additional leads. It's a balance. It very much is like everything else about this legislation. Okay. And then another question about the ordinance. Who who reviews the surveillance video to make the chief of police. Okay. And the chief of police was was consulted on this ordinance, I take it. And here is the chief of police. Now he has something to say myself. Back up. Oh, come on, officer. We're having open mic night tonight. It's not going to be the chief of police. It will be the chief of police. Designee. Designee? Yes. Yeah. If we if we were to have an occasion to review a video, it would be somebody in our investigations division. And and and on the issue of a straw purchase, I just want to clarify, the straw purchase might be legitimate at the time of sale. It's it's that the person that legitimately buys the gun knowing that gives it to a person who's not eligible. So we wouldn't have we would have video of the person making the legal purchase. The straw purchase would be something that would be proven through an investigation away from that. Presumably didn't take place on camera, correct? Yeah. So just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Vela. I just have a question actually for our chief. One of the proposals that was put forward by one of the speakers was providing storage units in private in private vehicles for our police officers. Is that is that something that we do already. For in their private vehicles? No. But I have a very specific restrict restrictive policy about how they store their guns, whether they're on or off duty. Thank you. So they're responsible for that. Thank you. Yes. That was my that was my only question for you. At ease. I did have a question for the city attorney about storage units and safe storage of weapons and storage units. The reason I bring this up is a very good friend of mine from high school went through a very difficult period in her life and a lot of it was related to drug use. She's since been sober for over a decade and completely turned her life around. But she was somebody that was arrested ultimately on a number of gun charges and she stored her firearms that she was holding for, not her firearms, but for somebody else. And she was storing them in storage units. And it was very common for her to have storage units. And this was while she was committing a number of different crimes and kind of running with a not great group. And so I just was curious. Obviously, this language is written, wouldn't cover that. But is that something that we've looked at? And the question was about requiring and stored in a storage rental storage facility. I guess I have two questions. One is, could we prohibit guns being stored in a storage facility or is there a way to regulate that? Because oftentimes storage units are used to store these sorts of things and they're not locked up. And so if the question is, could we just preclude guns from being stored at all, or is it safely stored as in trigger locked or in a locked container? If the council's interested in regulating gun storage beyond residential premises, then I think our recommendation that you would continue to require safe storage instead of prohibiting storage altogether and prohibiting storage altogether is more legally challenging than you. Simply indicating that if you're going to be storing it in a commercial location, it still needs to be similarly safely stored, which is locked container or disabled with a trigger lock. Okay. And that's something we could pass the ordinance as written tonight and have staff look at the commercial storage aspect and come back to us at a later time. Absolutely. We'd be happy to take your direction. Okay. That would be my preference would would be to look at that and look at what the options could be. I think as a as a new mom, I'm learning all sorts of things. One of the things that I'm learning is I used to think my parents were overbearing and not very nice when they wouldn't let me just spend the night at people's houses. But, you know, now I'm thinking about things like, does the other family keep weapons in their house? And if they do, do they store them safely? Because it's not just about the kids in the house. It's also about the kids that come over to visit and how they might play together. And some of the saddest cases that I've worked on in my legal career involved youth that were playing with a firearm that was not stored safely. And so I think that that's you know, if we if we can prevent that or make it more difficult, I'm all for it. And if there's, you know, if this will do that, then I think that we need to take that step. It might not solve all of the cases, but I think it's a step forward in the right direction. I also think that, you know, in terms of preventing guns being stolen, you know, it's 88 reported stolen in that report. Those are the 88 guns that we we know were reported. And I think, obviously, we've you know, one of the some of the cases that come up, I also in my day job represent law enforcement. And some of the things that come up with them are where there's stolen weapons being used to commit a crime or children who have teens who have stolen the weapons from their parents or from the parents of a friend. And those those things come up often. And I trust that our police are working with I know that they coordinate with other law enforcement agencies. And so I would assume going back to the straw purchase scenario and that sort of thing, just as much as a straw purchase is going to be at issue. A lot of times what we see is these sorts of things where potentially a youth has actually stolen a weapon from another household. And that's why I think that the the report requiring the safe storage means that people are aware of where their firearms are kept. And I think you. Can't have one without the other, because if you don't require the safe storage, then they're not keeping tabs on their weapon. And if that happens, then they're not going to even know if the weapon is gone in order to report it being, you know, being not no longer in their possession. So I think we have to have both. We have had a number of forums on there, at least two forums on this. From a city perspective, I think this is a evolving area of law. And so I would anticipate that there's more, you know, as things develop, if there's additional laws that we become aware of that that pass constitutional muster. I look forward to hearing those, but I want to make sure that whatever we have is going to be enforceable and that we follow up on the enforcement, because otherwise it's just an empty promise to our community. And I don't want this to be one of those things that we don't follow up on. Other council comments. But as mayor. I want to thank the staff for bringing these two items forward. I will hope, hopefully at the end. I love to hear what's happening with the other 21 items that we asked and I would like to it sounds like, I guess another question, it sounds like staff is working with Big Five as our only gun seller right now on the concept that Councilmember de Sugg mentioned. So I was going to ask why that wasn't clear. If it sounds like those those issues are ongoing, but I think that that was something that we all unanimously supported when it was recommended. And I continue to to to support that. For me, I think almost everything has been said that that that I might say on the the proposed language, it's on the screen here. This would be my preference for moving forward. I think if the idea is that we want to, you know, hew very closely to our legal lines for making sure that people have access to legal firearms for personal safety reasons, keeping it to the residents makes sense. And if our goal is also to make sure that that there are eyes on these and they're not just lying around then and not keeping them, you know, in a, you know, often a shed somewhere where people might not look at them for four months or even notice that they're gone, probably seems like a pretty common sense and not over burden overburdening requirements. So my preference would be to make this one change here. I can go both ways on the criminal. I think that personally, if we were going to go forward with criminal penalties, I'd like some sort of annual reporting so we know what is happening with these with these so that we're at least keeping an eye on it to make sure that there aren't disparate impacts that we can identify. But if it's the will, the council to start off with those administrative penalties, I would be supportive of that as well. On the commercial language, after conversations with our city attorney on the issue this afternoon, I think it's very I do think it's very complicated. I'm very supportive of trying to figure out what that means. And I think the storage one is probably a clear line forward on how we do that. But so I can't support the moving residences to premises today just because I think it will get us into a place where it's incredibly complicated and we need some more thought on that. So but I think it's a fabulous job. I want to thank the city attorney's office for their work on this. Thank you. Councilmember Design. Great. I'll just keep this brief saying that, you know, we're entering into new, new areas because this is what mothers and fathers of Alameda, children especially want us to to do. You know, everyone feels empathetic or sympathizes with what's going on nationally. And and I think what the staff has put together is some common sense first steps with regard to trying to do something a little little something here in Alameda with regard to stemming gun violence. So so thank you very much, staff. And also thank you very much to the residents and to those who are especially committed to this issue. The folks in the back especially. We thank you for all your input. I think we're following best practices, walking closely with what the the former congressman's outfit is, is is encouraging with regard to stemming gun violence. Of course, I would have loved to have seen language with regard to the way in which guns are displayed and sold within a retail establishment in Alameda, especially if there is a retail establishment that happens to sell soccer balls and tennis balls. Oh, and also there's all these guns all at one place. I think there is ways in which perhaps the city of Alameda can create some new new ground in terms of of regulating sales and as a councilmember. He had said, you know, we regulate. We certainly regulate the display of certain items like it's within our ordinance, I think is municipal code 30 dash dash nine, I think. So, you know, the as I call, you know, guns represent such a brute force that it's just not just, you know, there not any other athletic gear like like soccer balls or or soccer balls or tennis balls or tennis rackets. And so I think they really call out for for cities like Alameda to regulate the way in which they are displayed and sold. And so so I would love to see that. And hopefully maybe other cities will do that, you know, because like across the United States, you know, I think Wal-Mart sell guns elsewhere. So but I think, you know, we've got some great first steps. And I really thank the residents for coming out and being so passionate about this issue. I don't think we went overboard with regard to people's Second Amendment rights, but I think we did more than do nothing and sit on our hands. So I appreciate everyone's assistance in moving us along into new territories that that Alameda City Council is venturing into with regard to the type of ordinances that we're crafting. Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Oh, I spoke already. Oh, you already spoke. Okay. Okay. So mine is you did you started. I think he's don't. Let me go get. Yeah. Now okay. You've 2 minutes and 28 seconds so I'm in agreement generally speaking with my colleagues. And I do think everyone who's worked on this issue at the city attorney's office and in all who who brought forth this report, I my kids, my twins are now 28. But I do remember and I've spoken about this before, it's something our pediatrician talked about, you know, asking, do we have guns in the house? And and I'll share that. My husband is a former deputy sheriff when he was putting himself through law school. And I wasn't too aware of it. But he mentioned at one point when I was pregnant that, you know, I still got my service revolver. And I said, where it is, is in the dresser drawer. And I said, Oh, well, we're about to have two babies, so let's take care of that. So we had a neighbor on the street who was actually a police officer and we talked to him about it and he took it off our hands and disposed of it. So, I mean, we do want to keep our kids safe and there's so much that goes into that. And in a lot of ways it gets more complicated as they get older. But we certainly don't want, as Councilmember Vela noted, children inadvertently coming upon and an unlocked weapon. I would feel better if in the sales surveillance ordinance the language about surveillance cameras directed at the parking lot was not there. I'm with Councilmember de Saag. I would like staff to bring to us what's possible about where the guns are sold. And it shouldn't be right behind the counter where I'm going to bring my that I bring all my purchases to. You don't get the big five a lot. But they do have they do have things that I buy, but it shouldn't be right there. But I think it's a bit of an overreach to videotape people in a parking lot who could be there for a lot of different reasons. So that would be my ask. I don't know how the council feels about videotaping folks in the parking lot just because they're in the parking lot. I'm in agreement. You would agree with taking that language at parking lot language? Yes. I'm seeing nods of the head. The well, Councilman Brody, thank you. What was the what do we hope to benefit from from that type of surveillance? And that'll be the question I would have. Because I mean, I'll just elaborate. I mean, I would imagine that if we somehow had an ordinance that moved things to the back and then we could limit the surveillance to just that area. Sure. Cassandra, you know, you've been looking I the tennis racket. I think the parking lot would be outside. Right. And it's the parking lot that would be shared if I'm going to Bed, Bath and Beyond or Sushi House or. Right. So. So leave that with additional surveillance at the parking lot. It would potentially provide additional footage of any transfers, subsequent transfers outside of the store or how the guns are transferred into or out of a potential vehicle or anyone who's outside. Um, I think that's the general idea of just again, providing additional footage and making sure that people who are buying it are the ones who are actually making the purchase. And there's no one just simply waiting outside and, you know, taking a firearm right after. Do we know how often that happens? I mean. I don't have statistics. I can't remember. I think it's a current. Is that is that a solution in search of a problem? Yeah. Or is it something that happens? I mean, are people that dumb? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. We get that key for the. Exterior surveillance or security cameras at the mall already at multiple locations. So filming people that are going to the grocery store. So. I mean, what's one more? I'm just saying I'm just saying that that that there are lots of retail establishments have exteriors, surveillance for security, not not specifically for guns. But thank you. And I appreciate that this particular ordinance is gonna get to the front of it. It's the, the, it's the sales surveillance ordinance. So specifically sales of guns surveillance ordinance. And I, I, you know, I get that we to if you think you're going about your business and no one's watching you, you would be wrong . But I just as an elected representative of the city of Alameda, I don't know that I want to suspect that everyone going into that parking lot, maybe conducting an illegal gun transaction. Councilmember Vella, did you want to add to that? I do. You see where it is, by the way? I'm looking at it on page four. Right. And I think my concern is we're also saying that they need to maintain that for a year. Yeah. And and I you know, I know that there's other surveillance out there, but we're not we the city are not mandating that it be maintained for a certain period of time and basically made available for inspection, I think because the languages that it's made available upon request. So there's no subpoena needed. There's no, um, I'd be fine leaving it in if, if it was more than just law enforcement asking for it. Um. I just get out. I just get worried that we're we're now kind of requiring essentially. Requiring surveillance in a in a really public area. Very nice. Okay. So is a cause already? Well, I think there were. There's three other cities that have this. What do they do as far as exterior? I mean, we had this discussion on license plate readers and there was a comment that there was no expectation of privacy. When you like get in your car, drive over the bridge, you know. I guess the same would apply to going to the sporting goods store. But on the flip side, I mean, is this an excess? Sure. I just want to point out, um, so to your question, how many other cities require this? And this requirement does mirror others in several surrounding Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, Emeryville, Campbell and Pleasant Hill. So it's certainly not uncommon. We could always add this to later, right? Yes. Okay. So so are you agreeable with removing the parking lot designation at this time? Oh, yeah. Okay. What I'd like to see is Councilmember de Sung's idea, and then we just limit the videotaping to just this small, contained area. So are you doing. Are you making direction? Suggesting direction to staff? Yes, we both can, by the way. Well, I think we all have to, but I would be in favor of that. Yes. Okay. You want to make an amended motion? I didn't make any motion, but. Well, I. Oh, no, that's true. There is no motion, I guess. But the staff report suggests that we we amend the municipal code and perhaps we want to do just a little further. With the vice mayor trying to. Talk about delegation. Would you like to try? I'd be happy. To. We'd be happy to. So I would like to move the ordinance with the following amendments removal of the criminal penalties, which I believe I heard a majority of this council saying. Okay, with that worked on. With the revised resident's residential language, limiting it just to a to a residence and with the removal of the parking lot video, I believe those were the three that we talked about. And then with a direction that we would like to see something come back with with what we'll call the Councilmember de SAG plan. And the commercial. And also to have them look at it. And the commercial district. And. Mr. Shen Yes, I wanted to get some clarification from the Council on Criminal Penalties. And the reason is that in both ordinances that where the criminal penalties live cover entire chapters. So for example, in the safe storage part of the ordinance, the criminal penalties cover existing law such as unlawful discharge of a firearm or brandishing or using a firearms. I My guess is that the Vice Mayor's motion is not to eliminate criminal penalties, penalties for those, but just for safe storage. Yes. And is the right. And so in the other ordinance, it also similarly covers, for example, folks who refuse to get a permit that's otherwise required. And the other ordinance is the stores. Correct. The stores. I'm only worried about. Oh, you. Only worry about this. Personally. I'm only home worried about the home safe storage. Got it. And one more clarification or maybe it's a slight recommendation is that there's also the safe harbor provision. And so if the council's intent is to remove the criminal penalties and the safe harbor ordinance I'm sorry, in the residential storage ordinance, my recommendation is that you also give the safe harbor for administrative penalties. Right now, the safe harbor is drafted so that you essentially don't get criminally prosecuted if you report within 24 hours. If you want to remove criminal penalties, we should replace criminal penalties with civil and administrative penalties and to continue to encourage reporting if that's the council's will. Okay, that sounds reasonable. I can see enough heads. Yes, that. Sorry. Okay. So we've had a motion. It's been clarified now. It's been set in motion by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Desai. All in favor. I the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Before we move on to item six, what are we on? See, we are going to take a quick ten minute break. Okay. Are we ready in the balcony yet? We're okay. We're going live. Okay, we're back. And we are on item six. Sea adoption, a resolution amending the fiscal year 20 1920 budget based on mid-year changes. Adoption resolution approving workforce changes for fiscal year 20 1920. An adoption resolution amending the salary schedule for the Management and Confidential Employees Association to add the classification of Sustainability and Resilience Manager the Army to Police Officers Association on sworn to add the classifications of lead parking technician and parking stations technician. The part time salary schedule. The classifications of law, fellow staff, counsel and special counsel for the City Attorney's Office and the Alameda City Employees Association to adjust the salary range for senior combination building inspector.