Recommendation to Receive the Report on the Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District and Consider the Following Options:  Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; or Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters.  (City Clerk 2220) [Continued from January 2, 2019]
Option one Adopt the ordinance or option to adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance to the voters. And I will give the brief presentation on this item on December 4th. A certificate of sufficiency was presented on the initiative and the Council ordered a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, and that report is required to come back 30 days later, which is why we're here tonight. The report is attached as Exhibit one and city staff and the consultant are available to any answer any questions about the impacts report. But basically to lay out what is before council, you have two options tonight. You can call an election or you can adopt the ordinance. If you elect to place the measure on the ballot, you have two more choices. You can either go at the next general municipal election in November 2020, or you can call in a special election. That special election has to be called within 88 to 103 days, and the election date that we would be able to use would be Tuesday, April 9th. And. There is a new provision in the law that allows the proponents to withdraw the petition up to 88 days before calling it before the election takes place. And there are differences in costs for the two elections in November. It would just be the cost of adding the measure onto an already existing election. So it would be 25,000 for the printing. Translation Typesetting of the measure. If you call a special election in April a non established election date where we'd be running an election just for the measure, the cost to be 580 to $730000. The next things you need to consider in proceeding with calling an election would be to look at the ballot question, which is limited to 75 words, and decide any interest in authorizing or authoring an argument for the November election. You can postpone that until a later date. If you're proceeding with April, you would need to make that decision tonight. In addition to this item, there are two more items six D and six E on the agenda that are related. Staff has prepared six D as a supplement to the initiative to require a funding mechanism, and then six E is a competing measure to allow the voters to uphold the council rezoning the property recently. And then if the competing measure and this measure were both placed on the ballot and both passed, the higher the one that receives the higher number of votes would prevail. And. Since there is that new provision in the election code that allows withdrawal to 88 days ahead of time. All three of the ordinances are the resolutions allow a mechanism that if proponents do reach that agreement and do withdraw, the these resolutions would be null and void and wouldn't go forward on an election. So that's the basics. And I can answer any questions and also staff and consulting. All right. So, counsel, do we have any clarifying questions of the city clerk, Councilmember Vela. Who drafted the ballot question? The legal staff and staff worked together. We worked collectively, a group of us then and reviewed different options. And does council have an ability do we would we have to approve the ballot question tonight as drafted? Yeah, especially if you're going on the if you selected the April election date, you would definitely have to approve that exact wording tonight in it. Like for the previous rent initiative that was on the last ballot, the council approved the wording but then changed, kind of looked at it and brought it back at a later date to revise it. So if you went with the November date, you could do something similar to that. Any further questions, Vice Mayor? Not quite. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Interim City Attorney. The council. The Council has the authority to revise the ballot question. This keep in mind that it can't be more than 75 words. And the ballot question needs to be as neutral as possible. Could not be argumentative or. Or obviously not misleading, but it's intended to be informative and neutral and kept within 75. A question for the city attorney. Is that and does that comport with what the city clerk just told us, that if we're going for an April election date, we don't have the ability to do that? No. You have the ability, whether you go in April or November, to try to revise the ballot question. It's simply regardless if you're going in April and you're going to change, it just needs to keep within 75 words and be neutral. Then be decided tonight and. Be decided tonight. Right? Correct. Or when you are. When you make the decision, if you make whenever you make the decision to put it on in April, you made it tonight or you made it at a subsequent meeting. Still made the timeline to put it on in April, which means you have until, I think next Thursday or Friday to make that decision. You have that. Option a. Special revised language. Are you referring to calling a special meeting? Correct. Or actually either a special meeting or continuing this item to that to another date? Right. Right. Okay. I think the vice mayor had his hand up. Did you? Yeah. So I wanted to clarify that question. So tonight is the last regular meeting where we can approve this, but we have until Friday and 5 p.m. to actually put this on the ballot and approve the final 75 words or less language. Correct? Correct. If we want it to. Friday of. Next week, yes. January, January 11th at. 5 p.m., as I recall. Okay. All right. Anything else? Yes. Can can the 580,000. I was a little confused by some of the language in. And I can ask the question, are we talking about just 60 or 60? And here at the same time. Let's stay on the first one, if we could, just. Some of the language and I will apologize. I can't remember which one talked about polls being open. And my understanding was that they were looking at an all mail ballot. So can we talk about whether or not this will be an all mail ballot or whether it will be a full on polls across the city? So there are certain election code requirements in order to meet the all mail ballot, and this election did not meet those. So therefore, there will be polls open on Election Day. It will be a map to your polling place. You know, of course, people who are absentee will still mail in their ballots and have all of that same ability. But it's not going to be an all mail ballot. And is there a way in which this issue could be. Called it a special meeting that is an all mail ballot. You know, the school district has done them in the past. No, it did not meet the requirements and legal staff determined that it could not be. No matter what the timing. Okay, great. And then I have one last question for the legal staff. Yeah, I think one of the. No. I'm going to call it compelling. Not that compelling arguments for this initiative is that somehow the voters voted on W to make this land open space and that all this initiative is doing is following in his footsteps. But it's not clear to me that it was ever the entire parcel for this federal. Do we have any insights from our conversations with the space regional park or what or what not about what land they considered the park boundaries that the language of WW was very, very well, it was pretty clear it was the visitor center and expanding the beach and this is where nowhere near the beach, etc. was this parcels specifically called out? Do we know anything? They split it ultimately. Right? Selina Chen from the city attorney's office. People have been. Saying, and I think in the. Initiative, some of the findings. Are saying that the subdivision didn't. Happen until after 2008 after measure WW was placed on the ballot and that the Park District meant to acquire the whole. Of the parcel. Both another northern parcel, which is what we're talking about, the subject of the initiative and the Southern Parcel, which is referred to as Neptune Point. Based on my discussions with District Council, the Federal Government plan to subdivide the parcel and dispose of Neptune Point first East Bay Regional Parks District New as early as 2005 or 26 that the government. Was going to subdivide the parcels. Even though it didn't happen until later. The intent was clear to both the Federal Government and the Park District before Measure WW was placed before the voters in oh eight. But let me just ask to clarify. That would be Councilmember Desai. Thank you, Mayor. The subdivision occurred roughly in May 2016. Is that correct? I believe I received the quitclaim deed from the federal government. And I was I believe it has a date of 2015. When you look at the assessor's data, you'll see that there's is a parcel number for one. There's an API number, parcel number for one parcel or all of of the seven acres. And that goes until 2015 dash 23,016. Is that a question, Councilmember. Yes. Have you have you seen how the APN numbers have changed from 2015 to 20 16 to 2016? Dash 2017 meaning that in 2015, 2016 it was one passel for the seven acres and then 2016, 2017 and that it was then split into two parcels. And it looks like, judging by some of the data I've seen, it looks like it's May 2016 that. It's just. I think you. And often, if they depend on when a deed is recorded, the assessor's office doesn't necessarily make the change immediately. There's a time lag in there. So that may be the reason why. There is a slight discrepancy between when the quick claimed was recorded and when the assessor's parcel map was modified to show two different assessor's parcels. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Although we probably want to stay away from speculating on things that are not before us. Any further clarifying questions from the council before we go to public speakers? Yes. Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think we had a discussion about Friday, Friday, January 11th. That's the 5 p.m. for the 75 words. And then if we chose to do a ballot argument, we'd have to do that by January 16. Yes, I think. And then we'd have to decide and write that either here and now. Or. Give it to a committee. Okay. Right. Okay. So any further clarifying questions? We do have some public speakers. Okay. I'm going to call public speakers. We have to hear. We have six. We're good. You have 3 minutes each. And our first speaker is Doug Biggs. Spoiler alert. Next speaker is Angela Fawcett, the actress in the actor after that? Good evening. To be fair, Ashcraft, members of the city council. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of Alameda Point Collaborative. A resident of Alameda, a neighbor of the project, and a frequent user of Crab Cove. I want the same safe community my neighbors want. And I also want a place where elderly and the medically fragile homeless can stay with dignity, get mental health services that improve their quality of life, and saves millions in health care costs. ABC lawfully and dutifully requested to receive surplus property on McKee Avenue for the purposes of creating a wellness and medical respite facility. When we were notified by the feds, we we reached out to and worked with the neighbors on this project, knowing the emotions of the topic. We hired a qualified facilitator to lead meetings with the Friends of Crab Cove to identify their concerns and develop operating principles to address those concerns. Thanks to their participation in that process, we've identified ways to improve traffic flow, ensure quality of operations, and identified ways to minimize loitering in the area. I believe that through cooperation and compromise, so much more will be accomplished than through conflict. Last week, ABC issued a letter to the community asking that the initiative sponsors withdraw the initiative as they are allowed to do so by law. Already the letters gathered almost 500 signatures, and in fact, right now it's more than 500 signatures, including leaders from almost every faith based organization in Alameda. Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Trinity Lutheran Church. Christ Episcopal. Twin Towers. Methodist Grace Church. The Pastoral Center. Alameda All Face Coalition Bueno Vista United Methodist Church. The Islamic Center of Alameda and more. Over 70 neighbors of the project have signed the letter, as have representatives of environmental groups, neighboring schools and the many just social justice groups like Renewed Hope, Ark and Alameda Justice Alliance. The Rose Up to defeat Major Cave. While we are ready to run a campaign and confident of winning, we prefer to continue working with Friends of Crab Cove and others to create the best possible project we can. Homeless are literally dying on the front steps of the project site. This is a project that needs to happen and should happen. The Impact Report is very clear on the serious consequences of moving the initiative forward. And when all is said and done, the opponents still won't get their park. Now is not the time for expensive conflict. It is time to look into our heart and into the eyes of those that need our help and work together to move the project forward. The city can help that tremendously by joining our facilitation process and ensuring that we will be held accountable for the agreements we make. I believe that will give strength to the voice of those with concerns that need to be heard. At this time, all we're asking is to pause, withdraw the initiative and allow us to move forward with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Angela Fossett. Hi. My name is Angela Foster and I represent forensic lab coats. Many have called us heartless, soulless and horrible people. This initiative started from a grassroots movement for justice. We were told we're doing a wellness center in Mackay and there's nothing you can do. It's a done deal. And the America I grew up. We have rights, a voice. Opportunities for input and to be hurt. In 2008, we were promised a measure to VW, an expansion of the park into Crab Cove Educational Services. And instead we're getting a parking lot and a maintenance yard. International parks may claim they don't want the property, but that is not what they sold to the voters of the city. Through their own words, campaigns and fliers to get Alamitos to support their efforts to give us more usable open space, park lands and educational opportunities. And we met with Marilyn to discuss options. Prior to today, we offered a conditional use permit in exchange for dropping the initiative. This initiative is the only voice that we have at this point, and no one seems to be listening to our concerns about Measure WW. We are being forced to give up everything we thought would happen to grab power for an experiment. I've been feeling so pressured by the city, community, social media and various organizations to give up our voice that it's made me physically ill. This is and has always been about open space and park expansion. You can call the Wellness Center for Homeless, but it is still a high density residential medical development in an area and location that does not fit. Bottom line. This is on a single access road that cannot accommodate high traffic activities such as ambulances, fire departments, tenders, delivery trucks and staff coming and going. This has never been the use of this property and the need to shut it down was just a few people picking up the phone with no site visits, testing or studies and instead having some discussions going back in time as far as occupancy and declaring no negative impact. How can a 24/7 facility have no impact when the last ten years was barely seen a footprint at the federal? If this council moves forward with a special election at the taxpayers expense. This is on you front of Crab Cove qualifying for 2020 election at a minimal impact and expense to our taxpayers. I implore you to adopt the resolution or add to the 2020 election. An initiative is not qualified and the election code to trigger special election for a reason. If you choose to spend up to 700,000 instead of 25 to do a special election, the City Council is liable for that expense. And taxpayers, not French or Kharkov. We do not want special election. I was also told in talks that you had planned on doing a walk and only ballot option and no absentee. And to me that's discriminatory to those who would be want to be heard but unable to walk into the polls. But I understand from correspondence that you had said that that's not, in fact true. But this facility is being set up in the city of Alameda. So this is not even being set up for to help the city of Alameda homeless first. They have to be qualified on a county regional level before grants. Thank you for that. Our next speaker is Dr. Cindy Acker. Congratulations. Mayor, vice mayor, all of city council. I am principal of a preschool through middle school in alameda and former president of one of California's preschool associations and former vice president of the National Childcare Association. I'm also a choir director, and I used to sing in a choir in San Francisco in a church whose greatest population was serving the homeless. And my three children were there and hung out with the people who were outside while I sang with the choir. And I think it was one of the most transformative, intergenerational experiences that they could have had. The students in my school have learned the importance of caring for their environment, and I would say that Kabakov has been a piece of that that has that we really appreciated with the education that they've been furthered with there. But I cannot divorce the experience of teaching children to care for others, to care for our elders, as the elder population is growing as principal of a school within a residential neighborhood. I'm not denied the ability to provide a service, but I am expected to learn how to be responsible for our neighborhood, to keep it safe and to connect with our neighbors and to try to to make that those relations with our neighbors good. So I submit that APEC has been holding the tension of the two opposites, examining ways to keep safe, positive relationships with the community and with the neighbors, and providing an excellent service to the community. And that isn't easy. I know that when I was president of one of California's child care associations, one of the hardest things that I had to do was to educate my community, to face their fears, to work toward the greater good. And so I guess what I'm asking is that the council does their work to educate the community and that the sponsors of the initiative also consider facing the fears and pulling the initiative and allowing the community to work together for the greater good of the community to remove the resolution in 60 and to help the community work together to care for the seniors, the homeless seniors in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Guerrero morris. Good evening, Mayor. And council members like to keep this simple. We were all aware of the first portion being available in 2006. This is the McKay property in 2008 stated in Measure WW 2008. In black and white reference referencing the second portion of the property when it becomes available so the park boundary can be completed. Park boundary under the starbase. It's in the second portion of that seven parcel, which was clandestinely split without public notice in 2015 and recorded by the Alameda County Assessor on May 11, 2016. How many times do the people of Alameda have to vote on this? In addition to the voter approve expansion 2008 in 2014, the city Alameda Attorney finding section two e states. The expansion of Crown Beach for open space use is the highest and best use of the surplus federal property at Crown Cove. The city and the council members were served with a writ to mandate to correct its previous illegal behavior in order to comply with the law. On December 18, 2018, shortly after, Mayor Ashcraft reached out to us to meet to the to meet, to discuss giving up our voice, to have the people vote for open space initiative. This was not an open meeting, but I felt being bullied in giving up our cause. As a lawyer, you are aware of the State Bar Code of ethics that we need to have our legal counsel present if a deal is being made. We had no idea. Mayor Ashcraft made a point that the city will do everything in its power to support the private use of this public land and that we are going to lose. 100%, we're going to lose. And if we want to have a say that this will be the only opportunity for our voice to be heard . So give up the initiative and we will listen to you. I'm sorry. This is not the Philippines. We don't we don't do backdoor deals. We cannot be bought. And we are standing up for the people that voted with Measure WW 2008 2014, a 2018 Open Space Initiative. We matter. Our voice matters even though we do not have deep pockets. I am so tired of people in power to change their own rules all of a sudden to serve outside money. So tired since the seventies. Adopted 2018 Open Space Initiative, just like you did with the first portion with Open Space Initiative in 2014 and have zero cost to us. Instead, you are driving up the cost of the special election to support private use instead of public. You said this land. We grew up a lot of families that grew up in the seventies. We ate our food. We fished our food on Crab Cove. We were free to be to do anything. Our slip and slides with no no other things. We still have families that the fish out there for their food so they could afford the rents here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Strimling. Good evening again. Yes, people do have freedom to speak. And when you speak, people are free to speak back. When you devote yourself to preventing homeless seniors from getting the convalescent care that they need, people are free to tell you what their opinion of that kind of behavior is. And not just people, but community groups, not just community groups. But churches can come and tell you that working against the interests of homeless seniors who need convalescent care is not a good thing. No society anywhere says that's a good thing. The right thing to do is to withdraw this initiative. The right thing to do is to work for a legitimate open space. This is not open space. This is a space with nine buildings that are contaminated. This is a space that would cost the city many millions of dollars. You mean made into an open space? The alternative is do nothing. The standard NIMBY line, do nothing. Change nothing. Go nowhere. Not good enough for Al and me. That's not who we are. Certainly not who you are as a city council. I know all of you. You are not a group of do nothing people. Let's move forward. Thank you. Mr. Strimling, we have Elizabeth Middleburg, our next speaker. And our final speaker on this item, unless there's someone else who hasn't turned in a slip. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Elizabeth Middelburg. I am a chaplain and therapist at a retirement community in Oakland and a resident of Alameda. I was at Walgreens this morning at about 630 where the police just had arrived because there was a man sleeping in one of their bathrooms. And of course, that can't happen. But they pulled him out and it was an older gentleman and he shuffled out into 32 seven degrees sweater, probably not knowing where to go or what to do next. I think we can do better as a as a city. I think we don't need to have people out in the cold like that. I think it's an amazing project that is about to get started. I'm in full support of that. When I walked up to City Hall tonight, I saw the sign Happy Kwanzaa. The theme for Kwanzaa actually this year is to have a commitment to an inclusive good, to have a commitment to make the good of all accessible to all people. And I fully support that. If we say happy Kwanzaa, let's let's get with the theme. So I know the people that were. They'd have the. Of whom we were requesting to pull the the ordinances I have left in the meantime, but I'm still in favor of moving forward with the project. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That concludes the public comments. I would like to hear from the council. I I'm going to start first and I don't usually well, this is the first letter, so I guess I don't do anything usually, but it will be the exception. I just have to say, because some personal references were made to me and because I am an attorney and I take my duties and obligations as an attorney and an officer of the court very seriously. I did, in fact, sit down with the two proponents of the project, Angela Fawcett and Lisa Gambaro Morris on a Sunday almost two weeks ago. During the holidays, my children were both home from out of town and I would have liked to have spent time with them. But to me, nothing was more important than trying to make this project put it on the right track. And so I spent almost 2 hours with the ladies, and I wasn't a legal negotiation, but I did indeed tell them that rather than engaging in a zero sum game where one side wins and the other side loses, that they had done a very credible job of advocating for the concerns of some of the neighbors and some of the businesses in the area, and that I respected that. I also am very grateful to Debbie Potter, our economic development director, for engaging the services of a facilitator, a very capable facilitator who met at least a couple of times with the Friends of Camp Crab Cove and Mr. Bates and his some of his group to try to find that middle ground. And I work as an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau. My mantra has always been, just keep talking as long as we can get both sides to sit down and talk. Maybe you don't agree, but hopefully you listen to each other. And that's all I can expect of anyone. I don't have that magic wand to make you. Do you know what I want? And I'm. And I'm open. And what I tried to say was that there is compromise. If we're asking something of the Friends of Crab Cove, we have to be willing to give up something in exchange . And that was the suggestion that they could be a part of helping fashion something akin to a conditional use project. So I will step off my soapbox, but I needed to get that off my chest. And I will ask which council member would like to start for Councilmember Vela? And also that there was no Brown Act violation with you conversing with Council. I want to I would like to put that on the record that they. Say that. Well, they insinuated that you had said something along the lines of the full weight of council behind it. And I just want to put it out on the record that, you know, I haven't talked to any other council members about this or about my opinions on it. And I certainly think that if there's some sort of. Feeling out there that the council's mind has been made up or that we've discussed that all of our discussions are being held publicly. That's why we're having this on an on a public agenda. So I had a couple. I guess there were a couple of things that were raised that I do want to address. One is the the issues with Measure W, W Measure W W was put on by the East Bay Regional Parks District. It was not a city of Alameda measure. It was an East Bay Regional Parks District measure. They have their own separate board. They have their own. There's a Citizens Oversight Committee that oversees the expenditure of Measure WW funds. If this is purely about Measure WW, there is a public board of elected officials that can be held accountable and should be held accountable. If if members of the public feel that way. They have public meetings. They also have liaison meetings with them right here in council chambers that are open to the public. And so if there are issues that are related to measure. WW whether it's what you're getting out of measure. WW The parking lot and the use of the buildings or whether or not this land is within the definition of, you know, becoming available, I think that that's something that is debatable because first what happens is the federal government puts it up to see if it can be used for one of its priority uses then and only then if there's nobody that comes forward for those uses. One of those uses is actually the use that's being proposed by Alameda Point Collaborative. But if no one had come forward, then it would become go through a surplus process that would eventually make it open to the Park District. So I think whether or not this land is quote unquote, available for East Bay, regional parks is up for debate. But I also think if our constituents are feeling like there's some sort of misuse of WW funds, that I certainly encourage them to work with and speak with the East Bay Regional Parks District Board and to come to the lease on meetings that we have. There's additional costs that aren't just related to a special election. Those costs, in my opinion, are the types of things that we also have to consider, because what we're being asked to do by this initiative is essentially have the city find a way to commit resources to take this parcel which comes at a cost itself, and then to turn it in from one thing to another. And there's this notion out there that if any sort of property is not being used, that it's somehow open space. And it doesn't matter whether or not it's public land or private land or what type of public land. But we get these comments that come forward that say, well, it's it's it should be open space. It's just not being used. It can also be urban blight. And that's what this parcel has essentially become. So we just went over CDBG needs. We talked about what those needs were. A lot of them had to do with seniors. And a lot of them had to do with housing security. And I would think that end of life care has got to be up there. So, you know, I think I would have liked to have seen us reach some sort of resolution and not have to put this on for an election. But at this time, I can't support adopting the ordinance, and I would like to pursue the second option of submitting the ordinance to voters. I think it's a misnomer to say that it's on us to have this special election. I think we've tried to avoid it, avoid a special election, and that's why we tried to facilitate conversations. But those additional costs add up. And as we saw with the Jean Sweeney open space, those costs have grown over time from what we initially thought. Things like construction costs increase. They haven't those costs haven't gone down. So I think that there is a worry, at least on my end, if we wait and we might save a little money putting it on that general election, what other costs are we accruing in that time? And when I look at the city budget and I think about our fiduciary obligations, I have to weigh that in making my decision of if there's other hidden costs that are going to outweigh the special election. I also think that this is something that we need to call the question on, because if we're not going to be able to do this project here again, what we just heard in the last agenda item was that these needs exist and that their top needs. So if it's not going to be possible or feasible here, we need to know and we need to plan. If the voters disagree with us, then essentially we need to find a way to get this project off the ground somewhere else. And so, again, construction costs add up and that's why I'm leaning towards supporting a special election and not a general one. And I do think that there's a financial and fiscal issue that benefit to having it early. But I would like to have an opportunity to weigh in on that ballot question, because I found it to be a little confusing and hard to follow. Thank you. Councilmember de SA. Well, thank you very much. To me, the issue is straightforward, not simple, but as straightforward. Over 6000 residents took the time to sign an initiative which. Which means that they want to see this put to a vote. So I think it's incumbent on this city council to respect the wishes of the 6000 people who want to have this voted. Now the question then is do we do it on a special election basis or do we do it in November of 2020? To me, again, it's straightforward. If it's going to be put to a vote. You know, at roughly 600,000, $630,000 for a special election, that is just far too costly. If we're going to do it, then the most straightforward, reasonable thing is to simply put it on the November 2020 ballot. You know, this is not a simple issue. I mean, this is a very difficult issue involving the lives of of of people, not just Alameda INS, but people from from the region. But if we focus on the key things, the key things are people have gathered signatures to put this to a vote. So let's put it to a vote and let's have the residents vote. But in doing that, let's have it on the November 2020 election. There's a lot of issues between now and November 2020 that we can vet. But one thing we know for sure is that if we do it in April of 2019, you know, we're going to be spending $630,000 or so that we the city of Alameda. Just do not have for a special election. And I don't see a compelling case as to why it has to be done on a special election basis. I think the cases that and it appears to be that's something that the Friends of Krabbe cover asking for the November 2020 ballot. Thank you. Who's next? Council member Odie. Sure. I'll go next. And I'll just talk about the first two things. And if we decide if we do, an election will go. Into the decision tree here. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I won't use up all of my time. I was struck by the comment. I think it was, Elizabeth, that we can do better as a city. I think that really resonated with me. And I don't think we have a choice here. We're going to do in favor I'm in favor of having the election and not adopt a resolution. But, you know, this is going to be bitter. I mean, we've seen it and on the blogs, we've seen in the newspapers, we've seen it here in chambers. But, you know, we don't really have a choice. And I hope it doesn't come down to the fact that we relitigate WW because my colleague, Customer Mirabella kind of walked through it. I mean, I can't put myself in the shoes of what East Bay Regional Parks did. You know, we can't be, you know, held responsible for what ever they told us truth or untruth, you know, in order to get us to vote for that measure. I voted for that measure. I remember. But, you know, we only he can do what we can do to take care of the people that we can take care of. So. I read these earlier and I wanted to read them again because I think it's important that we we remember what we just passed as a priority. We passed this unanimously for our community needs, for our CDBG, which I think represent the values of our city. And the second one there was homeless, preventing homeless and other housing crisis. Now, this this is a solution to help meet that goal. Increased housing opportunities for homeless and extremely low income households. This is an opportunity to meet that goal and most importantly, deliver supportive services to promote stability and independence. That's what this entire project is is devoted to doing, providing supportive services. You know, people aren't going to be doing some of the things that we we we've heard online. You know, some people are going to be transitioning. Some people are actually going to go there today as as it is. So I hope that it doesn't devolve into pitting one side of the community against the other. But, you know, I'm afraid it's going to. But I do think it's something that we need to resolve sooner rather than later. And I do think it's important that we have clarity. I do think it's important that, you know, we have certainty. This is a project that will go forward. And if it goes forward, it will continue to. Raise money. They will continue to exert costs and they will continue to add value to that property. And again, Councilmember Vela talked about it. You know this. If this passes, it's a it's a taking. And then we have the city will be on the hook for the fair market value of of that property. And there's nothing we can do to stop the project from going forward. So if we can if we let this drag on to November of next year, then I think our liability is a lot more than, you know, 600,000. I thought I had asked for that in the report and I really didn't see it in the report. But, you know, I think it could be in, you know, the tens of millions. So that's something I think we need to look at, look at, you know, instead of just looking at the small myopic view of how much is the special election going to cost, you know, what what liability are we exposing ourselves to if we do let this go to November? And, you know, Councilmember, I'm sorry, my fault Mayor Ashcroft talked about. It four. Years ago that have a long habit. And as she talked about her experience as an attorney and my experience as attorney is, you know, you'd like to have all the time in the world. And maybe we think that, you know, 15 months, 18 months, 19 months is enough time to negotiate. But most of the big deals get done right before trial. So having a deadline, you know, having a deadline, you know, if there's a deal to be made, I hope that people keep talking and people can figure out a solution that we don't pit our communities against each other. And, you know, if that deadline is January 11th or whenever it is, I think it's important that we impose that deadline. And the last thing I want to say is. You know, reading the report, reading what East Bay Parks wants to do with it and doesn't want to do with it, reading the implications of of this passing . This is going to be a homeless facility if we do nothing because it's going to stay there. It's going to become urban blight, and people are going to go in there and sleep just like they did at Alameda Point, that we going to spend millions of dollars to tear those buildings down so we can either do this the right way or we can let nature take its course. And that's the wrong way. And I think, as Elizabeth said, we can do better as a city. Thank you both. Very sorry. If I may just interject. Moment. I don't want I don't want the council to concede at this point that if this passes, it's just automatic taking of the property in the next item before the council if this moves ahead to an election. One of the things that that initiative would do if the voters approve it, it would compel the city attorney's office to bring an action in court to determine whether or not there had been a taking and also if there were a taking, what the fair market value would be in order to establish the cost to the property owner. So while it may ultimately be that there is a taking and there will be a cost, which we don't know. I don't want to concede tonight that there is an automatic taking by reason. If this were to pass, that will be decided down the road. Based on a number of different factors. Thank you for that clarification. Vice Mayor Knox White. Can I ask one question? If we move forward to put this on an, let's say, on the special election tonight, can it still be withdrawn by the once we have voted to put it on? Can it be withdrawn by the by the proponents? Yes, the the petitioners have the right to withdraw it up to the deadline. So even if the council took action tonight, the the resolution itself provides that if the petitioners withdraw, then the item basically stops. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank my my fellow council members for their well-spoken comments on this. I agree with Councilmember Desai. This is straightforward. He and I clearly have a different definition of compelling. And we can talk about the $500,000 for putting this in April versus November. But what we know is that if we do not move forward with this right now, the wellness center will lose tens of millions of dollars that it already has committed. And that is a compelling interest to me. As Councilmember already mentioned earlier, we just adopted not just things we need, but emergency things we need in our dire need of and don't have enough money for this meets that need. And I don't know how we don't move forward to find out whether or not we can meet that need or not as soon as possible. You know, we just ended a campaign. I got to talk to a lot of people. It just reinforced to me how caring Alameda is for as a community. You know, we sometimes come at things from different places, but for the most part, our community wants to be there. Homelessness was a major issue that was discussed. What are we doing about it? And over and over again, I said, Well, we've got this wellness center. And people are trying to stop it. I do not believe for 2 seconds that this is about open space. Because it's not open space, it's commercial buildings. This is about stopping a wellness center that is more or less funded and is well needed and well document that need is well documented. For me, I am hopeful that in the next week the proponents of this initiative will see that it is a lost cause to win at the ballot, and we'll see that the best way to get what they want, which is to fix the outcomes that they are most concerned about, is to sit down and work on those issues to address their concerns. And I, for one, will commit right now to be there at that table to help with those, if that is useful . I know our mayor has been you know, other people have also offered there are many of us here who will be willing to help do that. It is the number one way to get what you want, unless the only thing you want to is no homeless center at that site. Measure K was funded with $750,000. They spent over 350 to $400000 put on the put this on the ballot. And our community will see through what this is. This is not a community wide supported thing. And I appreciate that. 6000 people signed a petition. Those 6000 people were told a lot of things that were not true. And I stood next to the people collecting signatures and heard them say it. I know that at the last meeting before I was on the council, there was some indignation by some folks who did collect signatures, said they never did lie. And that may be true. I must not have stood next to them. Because the people I heard were telling people that this was about protecting existing open space from development. And this is 11 buildings. So for me, you know, I again, I it's not up to each individual, one of us to decide what the ballot in WW was. The Park District is the one that knows and we know from the Parks District that they were aware that this land was not going to be up for sale. They were talking before they ever put WW together about putting something on the ballot for WW to fund it. My understanding is the WW funds are already spent or spoken for. There are no WW funds. To my to my knowledge, to put this on, I would like to get some clarity on that before we move too far forward with this. And at some point in time here very soon, I'd like to actually ask if my council members will agree. I think there are factual misstatements in the initiative that need to be challenged. This is not going to be an argument about whether or not the voters passed open space. And we should honor that because that's not what this argument is about. This argument is about whether or not we are the community that we say we are. Who cares about homelessness and addressing this and taking those taking care of those who need help and taking the burden, the hand that we have now. Or listening to some folks who want to stop this just to stop it because they don't like it. And with some promise of some bird in the hand and another space magical. Another space that exists with magical money that doesn't exist. And so I would like to whether we move forward tonight to put this on the ballot for April, which would be my druthers or not, or whether we decide to continue this meeting so that we can get some more information about the splitting of the property, about whether there are WW funds here, because I think that I think the proponents should know. I think the proponents should know that there are going there will likely be people challenging them on this. I felt very bad. I got to spend time with Ms.. Fossett in Minsk some more. Said a number of campaign events that came to some of my events. I have got to enjoy spending time with them and talking about things and whatever else. I'm very sorry to hear that Ms.. Fossett is feeling ill about what has been happening so far. But I can tell you my experience with the measure campaign is that that was nothing. Our community will stand up like they did with Measure K, and they're going to stand up very clearly and stand up for the people in this community for that we need to take care of in this community, and I think we can avoid that. And there are maybe ten days, nine days left until that happens. But I really want to make a quick, clear, clear clarion call to please remove this from the initiative. And let's get working on the issues that we can address and let's take care of the issues you want to. But you know that don't do this to our community. We don't need this. It's time for healing. Those are my comments. Thank you. And I'm going to just finish with mine. Our city and our county are in the midst of a housing crisis. During my campaign, I said that I consider addressing and eventually resolving this housing crisis to be a moral imperative. And I do. I'm honored that my first meeting of the New Year as your new mayor was this afternoon with Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, who came over and sat down and talked with Ms.. Potter and me about some housing issues that the CASA Compact. And one of the things that Mayor Schaaf said that I think applies here is that it is not easy to do the tough work that needs to be done. And but we were elected to do just that. So as elected leaders, we can't look the other way at this housing crisis right here in our backyard. And we can't say not in my backyard. If we do, the crisis only grows worse. We need to take concrete steps to address this crisis and the proposal at McKay Avenue. This project that Mr. Biggs and others have put together is a well thought out way to shelter some of our most vulnerable homeless individuals that were referred to in the CDBG report. The reason that I support going forward with a special election is not that I like to see my city spend hefty six figure sums to do so. However, I know that this facility has funding commitments now that will not still exist in November of 2020. And I mean, the election would be November of 2020. The the project wouldn't move forward until sometime after that. Right now, there is a funding commitment from the Kaiser Family Foundation which understands the connection between homelessness and health and has taken bold measures in the East Bay and also in the South Bay to construct housing and resources for our unsheltered population. And Alameda County recently indicated that they are recommending that this project receive $11.5 million for Measure one that county residents passed last year. But these funding sources aren't going to sit in wait because as you can imagine, there are so many competing projects. This need is great around the Bay Area. We have the opportunity we need to strike while the iron is hot. I In addition to meeting with the representatives of the Friends of Crab Cove, I also had a meeting with Ted Biggs and Dr. Harvey Rosenthal, who owns the shopping center, the Neptune Plaza Shopping Center, and he's a member of the Friends of Crab Cove. And I wanted to get them together. I wanted to walk the property. I wanted to listen to what his concerns were and all of the concerns that he articulated about, you know, his shopping center, which, by the way, is fully occupied now and the safety of the businesses and the merchants . Those can all be addressed and all be taken care of with the sort of regulations and operating agreement that would exist. We would love to have the neighbors and the businesses help us draft that, Mr. Biggs, but I'm sure in the city offers its services to do any of that. As was previously noted, I did meet with the Friends of Crab Cove. In my long experience in life, I don't always get people to agree to what I'd like them to agree to, but I will reiterate that they are able to withdraw their petition any time up to January 11th, 5 p.m. and work with the city and the project sponsor to have their concerns as neighbors address. That door is still open. It will remain open until 2011. I want everyone to go away feeling that they have gotten something out of an agreement. So what is before us right now as a council we're looking at item six C, so we have to decide, first of all, do we want to just adopt the ordinance? I don't think I've heard anyone say that we want to adopt the ordinance. And the second question is, do we adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance? To the voters before that happens. I do think that it is a very valid concern that was raised by a couple of my colleagues that the opportunity to revise, amend the initiative language should be should be addressed if that's the will of the majority of the Council. Madam Cleary we can put it up on the screen. Well I. I. I would like to continue it. I'm, I'm wondering what other I'm, I'm never a huge fan of editing on the fly. So, but I mean, it's nice that you put that up on the screen, but I'm just not sure we want to do the wordsmithing here. But tell us tell us the best way to go about this. I was going to suggest that if if if you feel that the you're going to probably want you can change this item to next week anyway and give sort of a straw vote in terms of where you're headed. I mean, it sounds like the council's going to put it on the ballot. It sounds like it's probably going to go in April. You could appoint a committee of two council members to meet with all our staff and and other staff to come up with some language that could then be brought back to the Council for its final action next week, if that's something that the the mayor would like to consider. Well, as a matter of fact, I and we haven't had a chance to talk about this, but I've thought about that very thing. And the subcommittee I was going to propose and I also haven't talked to any of my colleagues, was Councilmember Vella and I, if you would be willing. We've done drafting before. She's really good. And and I and we've I've already tasked the vice mayor and council member to decide they're doing the deep dove into the city charter. So I don't want to pile too much on them. And don't worry, council member Eddie, your time is coming. I've got, you've got your number. Um, but if I'm. First of all, I'm seeing a nod of the head. Yes, yes. The party can not take down. Yes. Yes. Okay. And so with that, Mr. Ashby said we could schedule time to meet with you. Yes, I probably with extent from our office and perhaps from somebody from planning and do that, you know, certainly as quickly as possible in order to bring this item back to the council. Thursday or Friday, depending on what your schedules will permit. And could that same subcommittee also be considered for drafting, say, ballot arguments? Certainly. And also, if word get, I don't if there's some concern about also the ballot language with respect to the two other items. If the council's going to talk about those, that also might be inappropriate. If you're going to, you know, want to. Suggest wordsmithing this ballot question. The other ones may need some wordsmithing too if the council feels that's appropriate. Okay. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Let's. Let's see if we can get through item six C right now. Help us out, Madam Clerk. Well, it sounds like if you wanted to, you could just continue this item with the direction that you two will form the subcommittee and work with staff. So do we need to do anything to formally establish that we do not want to adopt the ordinance, but we want to go forward to the voters? I think it's been expressed. I think that the main thing is to continue to add dates and time specific. So that's that's really where I would focus on is trying to figure out what date and time you want to continue it too. And then, you know with the new revised ballot question coming that meeting to review. But this be a good time to take a little break? Sure. Good. Let's take a little break. Could everyone be back here in 10 minutes? That's 915 sharp. I'm going to start 915. Thank you. Oh. Actual. You can. Trying to just fool around for a minute because nobody or we could get out a minute earlier. Okay. All right. Madam Clerk, um. Do you want to. Sure. I think. Bring us up to speed. Yes. The city attorney and I convinced and basically what we think we would recommend is that the council proceed with adopting the resolution, calling the election on April 9th with direction that the ballot question will be amended and return at a date specific. And we would suggest that date specific be next Thursday the 10th and any time after 531 time, the council designee. And the reason that you would recommend that we adopt the resolution now is because. In in order to set the argument deadlines and you have to call the election now and then that way and we can proceed with, you know, getting out that notice and having those deadlines set and then getting the information to the registrar so they could compile it on the ballot. Okay. How does that sound to everyone? Okay. So did someone want to make that motion or did you have one say to me? Councilmember So we're bringing back. So. 75. I'm sorry, bring back the 75 words and suppose ballot. The argument against the. Proposal now and again we're just on item 68. So I'm looking for a motion to adopt the resolution calling the election and calling it on a date specific April 9th, 2019. And. Um. And also. Continuing the meet what we need to do that my motion. I would include it in the motion just as one. I will wrap it all in and then continuing the meeting to a date to January 10th next week to review the amended language. And that would be of the ballot measure itself and. Well, the ballot. Question and about the ballot question and then we'll get into arguments. Yeah, you can make a separate motion. Okay. I could make that motion. Please. Please do. I do. All right. Second. Sorry, one little minor piece. What time do you want to specify your continuing it to on the 10th. What works for people. It is 530. Work for six would be better. Okay. Because can you just. Up to six. Okay. 6 p.m. would be great. One clarifying question. Councilman Brody. Thank you so. This revised. 25 words. Will that be posted somewhere or there's some deadline on by when which we have to provide that to the public. I think the goal would try to try to get it done by Thursday, which today? Wednesday. What do you think? Monday. I mean, I think we could get it out at any point because technically you could edit that language at the meeting. Even as long as you have the final language adopted at the January 10th meeting, you'll be fine. So. QUESTION I'm wondering, though, from our Mr. Councilman Rhodes. QUESTION perhaps as a revised staff report would come out with that language so our colleagues can also see the proposed language ahead of time. That and that can happen at any time. I could even put out I'll put out a continued agenda tomorrow. And then what we can do is just add that when you have the question formulated, we can add it as an attachment at that point in time. So it'll be public at all at the same point whenever the subcommittee decides. I just want to make sure we're properly noticing things. You're continuing it and you well, you have the ability to edit the question on the spot even. Okay. I think the goal is to have gotten there. I think the goal I think we are going to have it properly noticed. I think the goal is to just give everybody enough time to weigh in. They need to. Okay. Well, I'm not sure about weighing in because we don't want to do serial meetings, but at least. They'll be prepared to weigh in at the meeting. Yes, exactly. Exactly. Okay. So was that motion clear enough for you? Yes. Okay. So Councilmember Ody has moved to do we have a sec? Yes, exactly. So I ask the question now that we have a this motion. I think it would be fair to to because we've already had public comment on this item. If we were to write it right now, there would be no more public comment. Typically, there would be no public comment on that Thursday as well. I think we should be. I just think it would be good to be clear about whether or not this we have public comment is now closed and we are now revising based on the public comment we heard tonight and and whatnot or whether we're planning on having it. Can you just if people are going to come on Thursday. Correct. When you continue an item, the public comment has already been closed and you're just continuing the council. But we can always reopen. You could decide to reopen it. But the typical way is to have the public comment closed in Metamora. Yes. Councilmember Desai, I'm. Just going to quickly say that I will oppose this motion because I believe at $25,000, at a $25,000 cost for the November 2020 election, that decision is far superior than spending roughly $600,000 that city hall just simply doesn't have or an April special election. The second reason is because. While Council members had indicated that that the project proponent is at risk of losing funds if an election was held in November 2020. During the course of his three minute presentation, the project proponent himself never explicitly said he is at risk of losing project funds if the election is held in November 2020 . So no case has actually been made that funds for the project from the sponsors are at at risk. No case has been made from the floor, so I believe that the better decision is to hold off until November 2020. But I respect where all of you come from. Thank you. Mr.. DE So I think the best decision would be if we could get the initiative pulled, but we'll play the hand we're dealt. Okay, so we have a motion. It's been amended slightly and seconded. Councilmember Villa. I did want to raise one point. You know, there are other funds at risk here. And while we aren't necessarily conceding a taking putting, if this were to be adopted, we have other parks that are in jeopardy. And one of the things that several of us, including myself, had asked for when we heard this at the prior meeting was where where would these funds for this new open space park come from? And essentially, would we have to go out and do a park bond? What would the cost of that be? We would you know, where does this prioritize different things? Would this put this ahead? My understanding is this would put this ahead of Jean Sweeney and Estuary Park, two parks that are going to be utilized and are supposed to be used by the entire city of Alameda Estuary park costs, you know, significantly less is already underway, is going to have a number of different uses throughout the city and with our partners. And I think that those are concerns that we had expressed at the at the previous meeting. So I get that six figures, any six figures is a large expenditure for the city, but it behooves us to ask where are these other funds coming from? Because if we don't have enough money to host to do a special election, we certainly don't have enough funds to pay for and reprioritize this park or proposed park over other parks that we have that are already under way, including Gene Sweeney and Estuary. And so I know that it's somewhat difficult to get those numbers together, and we would only have to go off of estimates. But we that was a large concern that was raised at the prior meeting, including by Council member Motor City. And quick clarification. City Clerk The option to on this item also requires a request that the City Council decide interest in drafting ballot arguments and direct the city attorney to prepare the impartial analysis. Right. So I was suggesting, if you want to make the motion separate about the directing direction on the ballot argument and the resolution contains like language directing the attorney to prepare the impression. Okay, that's fine. So then we've got our motion. It's been seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed. One oppose. Okay. So the measure passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Okay. And now we move on to item. No. I'd like to. I'd like to make a motion. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yes. And it's there at the mayor's discretion to it to appoint a subcommittee of two members to write the ballot argument for submittal at our January 15th meeting. I say no. Our next. Argument. The argument against not due to the 16th letter. That's just agenda. Is it for the 15th? Okay. So that. So let's hear from the city clerk. Okay. So let's do it this Thursday, isn't it? Yeah, the packet for that goes out tomorrow. I guess if the argument could be completed by next Tuesday, it could be on a special agenda with the seven days of advance notice. It just becomes really difficult too for the timing for the argument authors. I do. So I just wanna say I do feel uncomfortable putting that on a continued meeting when there has been nothing. No, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying it's difficult to get it on the 15th, even. Is that what the point I was trying to make is? No, no. What I was meaning was we continue this item to the 10th. We have no public comment and we bring forth arguments. The argument for review at that time. Let me ask if the resolutions adopted tonight, when are the arguments for and against due? January 16th, Wednesday. So if they're due then and if the council is going to consider if, for example, if a subcommittee were to write the arguments, but once all the council members or a majority of the council member wants to sign that argument against, for example, when we have to do it on the 15th. Well, the council can just delegate the authority to those two people and make a decision about let them even decide who's going to sign or decide now that the four council members in support are going to sign it. But they would have to sign it without being able to make edits. That's typically the way it's done. Most recently, we had a little extra time because we were consolidating and we could give more time. So we did get one on, but that was the first time we've ever done it that way. And typically it's just deferred to the subcommittee with letting them work it out. And the problem otherwise is that. There really isn't adequate time to draft it and have it on the regular meeting for the 15th. We would have to have a special meeting on the 15th to consider a full council approving that ballot argument against right. And the people would only have until next Tuesday to draft it, which. Doesn't. Always throw my motion. I would be more than comfortable to just add my name actually. Well, depending on who you were about to suggest, I think this subcommittee I the subcommittee I propose, believes that we can have that language done by Tuesday. Okay. Well, I did. I mean, I think, you know, I would be happy to put my name to something that I trust you to write something in on the 16th at my name to that without having an agenda. I don't know how Councilmember Odie feels. Well, I'd like to read it before I sign it, but, I mean, I would trust the subcommittee. Yeah. Right. Yes. That solves the agenda problem. So we don't have to bring it back to the point. You write it and submit it and we can sign our names to it. If I if I could. Out of deference to our colleagues who I think if I was in your shoes, I would certainly want to have an opportunity to read it prior to adding my name to it. I think that we can. I'd be willing to work on it to get it back to the city clerk on Tuesday. Whatever works for you guys and we can just cross that bridge when we get to it on Tuesday. If you guys have it, we'll get it out. We'll make it. Work. Okay. Okay. Okay. So. I don't know if you formally want to move the subcommittee of the two members and. Yeah. And then. It. I withdrew my. Motion. Motion? Or if you're just comfortable with the direction, that's fine. I'm comfortable with the rest of you. All right. Okay. Now can we move on? Thank you. It's the. Adoption resolution submitting to the voters an ordinance entitled Mackay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility. Measure at the special. Election to be held in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, April nine, 2019, and consider offering a possible rebuttal. An American to ask whether or not we could combine this with 60. I think that the discussion will go back and forth between the two anyway, but facilitate a better conversation.