Consider Directing Staff to Provide Background Information on the Crab Cove Property Prior to Any Council Actions on the Property.  (Mayor Spencer)  [Not heard on May 15, 2018 or June 5, 2018]
Wonderful. Do we have any or communications on agenda at this time? No, that's eight. Number nine, Council referrals. Nine. Eight. Consider directing staff to provide background information on the property prior to any council actions on the property. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Spencer. Right. And it's just my understanding at some point we're going to have a be asked to take action. And my preference is always to try to get especially legal background information in advance so that we're prepared as much as possible in regards to how to make an informed decision. So that's what that goes to. Without getting into too much detail. Right. Member Ashcroft? Well, I and I appreciate you bringing the staff report. I also note that we received a very nice summary of the history of this property and the legal aspects of it, I think, from our assistant city attorney or deputy city attorney Selina Chen. And I see that. But the settlement agreement with the East Bay Regional Parks Department and the federal government is included. And then I know in my mail I received a copy of the letter from Robert Doyle, general manager of the Regional Parks District, to the Mayor and the council members, stating the park district's position on the property . So I feel that I have the information I need to make whatever decision comes before us in the future, and there will be a staff report attached to that when it does. So I actually didn't think it was comprehensive in regards to the when was it one parcel, when was it two parcels, when in regards to when the people voted or what dates it changed from 1 to 2 parcels. And I don't think that was really addressed, which is just a part of my referral of Vice Mayor. Madam Mayor, I'm just trying to understand the request. There have been questions that have been raised, I think, by various groups. And so is your request that those questions be answered in supporting or supporting information be provided? Yes. And especially in regards to a timeline going back, when was it one person, one was to the subject property? When did it become two parcels? How does that relate to when there was a vote for WW and any other action that was taken? But I'm really looking for a comprehensive timeline so that when it comes to us and I think it will be at some point that we have or that we've already had the opportunity, I wouldn't want to I'm hoping not to slow down the ask when it comes to us, but already have our legal department trying to figure out the timeline of when it was one parcel to parcels the vote and whatnot. So I have. A question for staff. So we have our city attorney here. And I know that there's been preliminary work done on this by your office. Do you care to weigh in at all in terms of. Where things are at or what. Selina Chen, the assistant city attorney, has been working on this project. Selina Chen City Attorney's Office. We have done some preliminary research and answered some preliminary questions. My understanding of this referral is to do some additional. Research to confirm or verify. Some of the. Facts, I think, are facts that have been raised by some other groups related to the timing of the personalization of the Navy owned parcels. I think those things can be researched and we can look into that further. Did you I was wondering if you had specific questions. I think that was just my general question. Some of the questions it looks like that have been raised aren't necessarily things that we can consider as a body. So I'm just wondering whether or not these questions are also being posed to other bodies who would have authority or jurisdiction? You're correct. These. A lot of these. I guess this is more it seems like for background purposes. It seems like the mayor wants to have a complete picture of of what's happened to date some of the things we don't know. For example, when the Navy's personals were. Separated, you know, that's not subject to the state law or the subdivision map act. So we would actually have to ask the Navy to confirm that date. That's not something that we would have, but we can look into it. We're talking about rep. McCain not just USDA. Right. USA. I don't think it's navias. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. You're correct. I was just referring to the federal government. North. Yes, I was. I think I was confusing the two. So you're correct. But when the federal government's parcels were separated. I'm not. I mean, we can do as much research and try to track down information as the council directs us. It sounds to me like this is more of an informational piece. I mean, we will be bringing back information when we're coming forward with any kind of application on behalf of the the person who ends up with the property and how they want to develop it. And we can have as much information as we can gather. Obviously, we listen to all of your requests for information and try to resolve them. If you're asking us to try to do more research than we've already done and contact the GSA and others and try to figure out if they'll even get back to us in a timely fashion when they might have done personalization, and then just bring it to council or send it to you on an off off agenda memo or something like that. We can certainly do that. I think what what Miss Chen is advising is that there is a lot of a lot of work that's going to have to be done. And we can't control the responses for everybody. But we respect the mayor's request for wanting these kinds of things. And of course, we will move forward if that's what council wants us to do. Member madrassa member. Ashcroft we already have up on the city website. I think if you can, I think it's still there. Frequently asked questions. And I think from the input that I've had, it's important for the public to know what actions are taken by whom in a timeline. And I think that's what I think that can be posted on the website, and that doesn't involve GSA asking them for additional information. It's just what is the timing and who has authority over what action. And then I'm assuming the rest is going to be in the staff report on whatever action that we have to take and . You've heard input on what should be in the staff report. I don't see the need to do anything more than that. So what's my answer in regards to that? My interest. So I think you do. I would like staff to reach out to the federal government or whomever and find out when the parcels went from one parcel to two parcels. And that's not enough for me. So they can request it and try to complete the timeline, not just currently. What's happened historically, especially in regards to when that WW was in 2008, what the property looked like at that time. So that's what I'm trying to get to. And then that. And then I think I'd be fine to have it, and I think it'd be a great idea to add it to the ethic used in the information that I would like staff to go farther back. And that was preliminarily given to us. And you may they may have done it regardless. I just wanted to bring it as a referral because I'm always I don't know. You know, it's good to have counsel when a member Ashcraft and. I certainly respect the mayor or any council members. Right. To bring a council referral. I cannot support this one, though, because I look at the information sought and I ask, what's the relevance and to what end? And I agree that there is information up on the city's website. That was a very comprehensive memo that Mischin provided the council a month or maybe two ago. And to the extent that there are opponents of the proposal to do a homeless accommodation as not only allowed but required to be some right exercise for surplus for federal government property, I don't know that we have an obligation to do the homework for the opponents. I mean, they can they can do research, too. But I just with everything else we throw at our legal staff and, you know, they haven't gotten any bigger. I just don't see that this one needs to be addressed because as has already been stated, this will come back to us in the form of a staff report at such time as an application comes before this body. I swear I actually see this referral a little differently and I may be wrong, but I do think that it's been helpful in terms of at least giving staff, having being able to have a conversation about the types of information that various council members are hoping to have for when this item comes back. I. I do not want to create unnecessary work, but at the same time I do think we have a need that's been demonstrated through the various reports that come through to provide services for homeless and for homeless veterans. That's been something that's been demonstrated through our various reports. So I also see the request for information in the light of if there are going to be different challenges, we need to have the answers for them. And I do trust that that information is being looked at by our staff. I think to the extent that we are getting things, I think it's helpful to clarify and the facts have been very helpful, I think, for a number of people. I think to the extent that we're reliant on information from other agencies or jurisdictions, letting people know that we've requested the information, but we haven't heard back. That to me is it is being as transparent as we can be. We've requested it, we've asked for it. We can't. There's no other function that we can or process by which we can actually obtain it right where we're requesting it. If you would like this information, you can request it as well. So, you know, I do want to be cognizant of where our jurisdiction lies on this issue, but I do want to be responsive. And I think that that that direction has been given to staff and been made very clear. Everybody. Thank you. So my quick comments, somebody could correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my memory is that when this referral came out on April 24th, you know, we did not know that the G overlay removal proposal was going to be done in December. I thought I thought there was some concern in the community from those opposed to the homeless project that it would be quicker. So I do think there's a lot of time now because of all the hoops that they have to go through, that all of the pertinent questions could be answered. So I just want to also remind folks that, you know, when we had our priority setting workshop a year ago or two years ago, I can't remember exactly. And then we reaffirmed it this year. You know, homeless was still the number one thing. I mean, everyone put that is the number one thing. So now we have an opportunity to approve a project. You know, granted, it hasn't gone through all of the steps yet that actually meet that need. So, you know, I'd like to make sure that we're able to do that. You know, one thing that I see every day in my job is connecting homeless people with services is probably the most helpful thing we can do. So with that said, I mean, I'm a little disappointed that like a councilmember can't get an answer to her question and has to do referral to get an answer. So, I mean, I hope that when we ask questions that we get those answers. So I just really want to make sure that there was it sounds like maybe at least three of you are agreeable to reaching out to these different agencies to confirm it. Other entities are saying if if we don't get a response, then so be it. But I think it is appropriate for us to for our legal staff to try to confirm what other organizations are saying. I know if I said. So and maybe you did it so maybe I misunderstood then, but I think. You should have got an answer to your question when you ask. But I would require the referral to it. Okay. So this is why this is. It's hard to know. Can. So, you know, is it appropriate for me and I don't know what all of you are asking for additional data. I would there are a lot of statements that are being made, and I would hope that our legal department would try to reach out to the agencies for confirmation. So we have a complete timeline. And I just try to be transparent, which is why I brought it. Maybe I don't need to bring it. I don't remember matters. And I'm glad. Councilman Brody brought up that the homeless. Situation that we're in is number one of on our list of the council work plan. And this is the this is truly the first tangible remedy that were being offered. We took a step ourselves in contracting with Operation Dignity to do field outreach. And this is. Hopefully the a place where people can get the medical knee service they need. That being said, there's a lot of churn out in the community and I think it's very helpful to have it. So I want to make a motion that we refer this matter to staff. To start gathering the information that has been mentioned. In this referral as well as to post as soon as practicable a timeline that includes the. Decision points that are made and who makes those decisions. So that's posted on the website and. This is in preparation for a staff report that will accompany city council action or actions. That are going to be related to this this partial. I just. Think you. Madam Vice Mayor, I just want to make a comment about staff providing the information. And I think just in defense of the city attorney's office, they provided a lot of information. They did a lot of research. And and I think there was additional research that was requested. And I think staff just wanted to make sure that all the counsel was okay with us doing that additional resources or spending the time to do that and to give you that information. So I just want to acknowledge that her staff actually did a lot of work on this matter already. And this is really in recognition of Councilmember Otis comment that, you know, that you're sad to hear that when a council member asks for information that you have to bring a referral to get that information. That's really not true. So the attorney staff did a lot of work and this is just ask you to do some additional work. And I think, you know. The timeline, how much it had done. If I if I may just add one thing, and I appreciate the acting city manager saying that about this office when we got this when this project came up, the city attorney's office working hard with city staff, the community development department, it wasn't just us work very hard at trying to put together what would happen, what going forward, I mean, what the situation was and then what approvals things would have to happen going forward. What we're being asked for now and primarily by the mayor, which is her prerogative and I'm not objecting to that, is to go all the way back to historically. How did this property come about being put up, which all was the federal government, which is entirely the GSA, the Department of Agriculture, and how they did it. That's what we're saying. We don't have that information. So we're happy to go back and to however historically you want us to. But I don't I appreciate the fact what the acting city manager said. It wasn't that we weren't being responsive. We're getting additional requests for information. And we will provide we will do our best to gather that information and provide it. And I just want to add this referral I wrote a long time ago. I actually probably wrote it before we had information from the attorney's office. If you look at the date that I and regards how much history actually in going back to 2008, which isn't that far back back when WW was voted on, I want to know then, was it one or two parcels? That's my my. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. And then I do need to have a motion, apparently, to consider remaining items 99 C and ten A is this 1030? We have a motion to consider the additional items. The last meeting will have to do that. But second. All those in favor. I, i, i know. I guess we need for votes for this. Sure. Hopefully we can go through it. So just really quickly, it looks like a lot of the information that was requested has been provided and was being worked on at the time that the request went in. Councilmember Morrissey My one question for you is when you talk about the timeline and that sort of thing, are you are you literally talking about a timeline of as we get the information and if we get it and, you know, who can or are you looking like how robust is the information that you're looking for? I'm looking for. We're here right now. The GSA took some action. There were applications. What's the projected timeline? What are the steps that have to happen to the point where a project comes before? First of all, geo overlay comes before the city council. And I'm not asking this mainly going forward. Going forward. Yes. For us, it's for the public to know what's happening. Not going back. I don't see the need to go back except in the staff report and that's going to be published before we take the action. So we have provided, I believe, the timeline that you just described. That was my point. We did the go forward. What has to happen now? And now we're going to we will go back and we will try to find, you know, what is more historic. And I understand Mayor 2008, but it's still historic from this point forward. We do, but we're happy to do that. I remember. I mean, only thing I'll say is, you know. You have. It'll probably come up in December. Oh, I don't know if it's something I would tell you to do now, but I'm sure the question will be asked. So you can you can decide what you want to do based on knowing that the question will be asked. And. Yeah. It's on. I'm sure it'll be on. And for December it'll be asked if it's not in the staff report. So take that for. Right. So I'm not telling you when. We hear you and we don't. Want you to take a vote on this. Yeah. Let's take a look. I don't think we have a second. So my referral goes to wanting to know the history of the ownership of the property back in 2008 when the people voted on w w and it sounds like it may require writing letters and requesting it from other jurisdictions, and we may or may not get a response, but I think it's important for us to have that information. If we can get a response, that'll be great. If not, you know, we tried, but I want to confirm this information. And so that sounds like that's not going to make I don't know if that was included in member mattresses motion or not. I'm supportive of I'll second member Matt Ross's motion. But his motion is not to have the history. It's actually sounds like it's not it doesn't include my referral. My assumption is that that's going to be in the staff report when this comes to us for action. And I stated that at least twice. And I think that there's been sufficient direction in this conversation that the city attorney's office knows that there's expectation that the information that you've requested will be included. And that's what I was saying earlier. I think that we've we've we've collectively let them know that this is the type of information that we think is going to come up as part and has come up and that we would like them to include it in the staff report in December. Okay. So can that be a friendly amendment to your motion? I think it's more clearly articulated. What you said. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. So then there's a motion and then a second, then all those in favor I oppose. No. The motion carries 40 oh oh. An abstain. Oh that. I think, I think. Okay so we. Got it's. One one it sounds like. Okay, okay. The next motion. I'm sorry. The next item nine be.