Recommendation to Adopt the City Facilities and Street Naming Policy. (Recreation & Parks 10051400/Planning 20962710)
So thank you so much. Okay. With that, we wrap up item seven B and we move on to item seven C, Madam Clerk. Recommendation to adopt the city facilities and street naming policy. And we have had we have on deck and we have our. Recreation and parks director joining us for a presentation. So we will get her in and start the presentation here now. Welcome, Director Amy Walter. It's good evening, I believe City Clerk We have a city planner. Yep. There he is. Right. All right. The gang's all here. Exactly. Good evening, Mayor and Council City Clerk. If you could please put the. Presentation up. While she's doing that. Director Wooldridge knows I was the recreation parks director at Trails and Day Camp and other parks and we used to do they still sing Hail, Hail the gang's all here when they arrive. At trails in. Like I could lead that another time. Okay. That could be fun. Yes. So as we've discussed before, the names of our public spaces really are meaningful and powerful for our community and every community. And as we've seen through the chain, your park renaming process really can be a mechanism for for deep dialog within our community about the impact of names and anti-racism equity and inclusion. And it's really an opportunity to reflect our community's values. So some background. After the renaming of Titanium Park in February 2021, the City Council provided high level input and direction for an updated city facility and street naming policy. And in September we we took a draft policy to several boards the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Commission, specifically the Historical Advisory Board. Their comments were a recommendation was to include non property owners, an application for renaming streets which we'll talk to more about later. And some of the planning board's comments were to consider waiting more than three years, which is the existing policy to name after deceased individual. And they felt that residents of a street naming or renaming or most impacted and needed to be given more weight than general community members. And there was also some other comments that they included that were in the staff report regarding number of signatures for renaming. And we'll get to that more in a minute. In regards to our current facility naming policy, that existing policy is quite old at this point was 2006 and only has had one minor update since then to include an option for corporate naming. And really, it's a very basic process with no additional requirements for public input on names other or noticing other than our standard Sunshine Ordinance and Brownout compliance. The current policy also has very minimal information and direction on renaming facilities. So what has not changed? What you have before you with this draft policy and what what is is the same in it? I'm sorry. Could you go one more forward, please? Actually one more. Thank you. What has not changed is that the planning board will continue to review street names from developers for new streets as part of subdivision plans. We kept the requirement that a person be deceased for at least three years to be considered. We kept the corporate naming criteria in the policy and that Alameda Point Street will still reflect World War Two. Naval seems to be consistent with the area's historical designation. Next slide, please. What has changed with this draft policy before you is it really has a focus and really baked in the criteria of values of inclusivity, inclusivity and diversity that names really specifically states that names should intentionally broaden the representation of people in the native community. The current policy has a focus. It requires names, have local, all need a significant significance. And we kept that. But we brought in it to allow for names that may also reflect California or national significance where appropriate. Also, historical advisory boards role has been adjusted from. From the keeper of an overall approved nameless to now only recommending names for historic properties. We also, as I'll get into in a minute, have a much more in-depth four step public process with with boards and commission and city council for a significant amount of public input. We also created a more definitive process for renaming facilities and streets and it now that process now starts with city council to determine whether facility or street will be renamed. The current policy starts that process on the board and commission level. Next slide, please. So the process that's being forced, the process that's being proposed is, as I mentioned, for public meetings. It's written in the policy that the staff is to really do extensive outreach at each of these steps. So to really go above and beyond the existing Sunshine Ordinance and really post on social media through email newspapers, really get the word out in the community that and be very intentional about the messaging that this conversation is happening so that people have an opportunity to to provide their input and make sure that that their representations felt and they felt heard. So the first meeting, which would be at a Border Commission level, would be a presentation on the facility and confirm the naming criteria. So using Chicano Park as an example, we talked about the history of the park. We talked about how the park was named and the group identified what the naming what the criteria was for the new name. And this would be the process for both new and renaming facilities. So for example, right now we have two new parks that are being built by developers at Alameda Point, our main landing spot that both need new names. And so this will be an opportunity to follow this process and determine what's the criteria we want for each of those parks, for those names. Then the second meeting would be to review a full list of names. I'm sorry, let me back up. After that first meeting would be significant public outreach to solicit name ideas and then those name ideas, along with any existing list of facility names, would be brought before the board or commission with a shorter list recommended by staff that meets the criteria that was identified in the first meeting that Border Commission. At that meeting within narrow it down to a short list of possible names, maybe 5 to 10 names. And then again, that would be pushed out to the community to to solicit feedback on that short list of names. And at the third meeting, the OR commission would recommend their final name choice to the city council. And that at that point is where staff should be bringing forward to the board to commission any research or consultation with any affected group. So, for example, sitting in a park, we met with the local Indigenous tribes regarding the names that were on the list, also researching any names of individuals so that we know the background of that person for the names that are being presented. So then at the fourth public meeting, city council will determine that final facility needs. In regards to renaming a facility. There is more of a process outline now. It's an application process that is initiated by the community. And that application would include the reason for renaming. Any supporting documents, letters, historical research, and also a petition signed by Alameda residents with a minimum of 500 signatures and four streets. Because those are more complicated as it impacts all of the residents who live or rent on the street or have a business on the street. We what we did is put in there a petition of 50% of of owners plus one of owners on the street or 500 signatures. I want to point out here, too, that in regards to City Street naming, we we there was discussion at the last council meeting regarding including renters, and there was a lot of discussion on the staff level on how we could we could do this and make it work. And so I want to clarify, too, that really the step is a is intended to be the start of the conversation. And as you heard me talk about in all that four step public process, that actually really is five steps, because the very first step is coming to city council determine whether or not that facility is to be renamed. So the renaming process, it's actually a five step process. And so it really is intended to start the conversation. And what staff would do, particularly with a street, is if this application comes in and the and and the staff with then notice can very easily notice both people who are tenants and who are owners on the affected street to let them know the conversation is happening at the city council meeting about whether or not that street should be renamed because it will be a public hearing. So then it will go to city council, as I mentioned, to determine whether or not to be renamed. And if the answer is yes, then it would go back down to the appropriate board or commission and follow those same four step process as I previously outlined. And with that, that concludes my reports. Both Mr. Ty and I are here for any questions. Another perfectly timed staff report with 47 seconds to go. Very impressive. So, Counsel, at this time I'll entertain clarifying questions for Ms. Wooldridge. Councilmember. I guess I want to go first. Quick clarifying question on the last slide for meeting number one where it says confirming criteria. Is the Council involved in terms of what the criteria is at that meeting? No, the as as written, the council is not involved in determining the criteria. The council determines if it's a new facility, it starts at the Border Commission level and makes its way through with council being the final deciding vote. If it's a renaming, it starts at the council level with a yes or no to rename, and then the criteria is determined at the Border Commission level. Head count murders are. At on renaming only now. So on renaming only. So it starts at the councils to say yes or no. We're going to rename. But there's nothing to stop a council member from expressing what she or he hopes to be a criteria. Right. Absolutely. It could be included in the motion. Absolutely. That would be an option. Okay. Is that all for you? At this time. Okay, Kels. Calcium monoxide. Did I see your hand up? Yeah. Your physical. Hand. Sorry. So just a quick question. There's a recommendation to maintain the list of potential names for use, but not to use that list. Can you explain the the rationale between having the list that is has no use? Sorry, that sounded worse than it was intended, but I'm trying to figure out what the what the what is the list for if it's not going to be used where. Where I'm trying to figure out where in the policy you're referencing a list that's maintained there was. Sorry. Well, there are other questions. Let me let me let me find it. I thought it was in the staff report. It was it was definitely a recommendation of the AP. And I thought that it was so so that. So that it may be the HB won't hold a list anymore. That's that's clearly not in the new policy. The I'll give you an example of the Recreation Parks Commission through this process is has expressed an interest and there's been a lot of work put into to what's now a three or four page list of names through the community process annual park. And they didn't want to just throw that in the trash. But next time there's a park to be named, go out to the community, find out, say, here's the park renaming, get in ideas and add to that list and see when the criteria is determined. See if anything on either what we already have or what's brought up in that process. What's the short list that that fits that criteria? Hopefully, that answers your question. Thank you. You're welcome. Did you. Find. It? No. I'm going to look. It's possible. I just confused myself. I apologize if that's the case. I think it may just have been in the staff report as that was the intention to not just throw out any previous community work that's been done, but to be more additive. I will just note that at the top of page two in the staff report under the Historic Advisory Board, the first bullet is keep the names list for future reference only. Was that what you're thinking? I think it may be that plus require this list lists, but I think it's the list that their coverage is mentioning are also mentioned. I think I may have completed the two as I as I was reading it. So my apologies. Okay. So thanks for that clarification, Kels. Over her, Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. I'm looking at the proposed draft policy on page four. Item number seven says that if a street's named after some business is my understanding of the business leaders and the new property owner. It says all costs associated with renaming such a street shall be borne by the new property owner record, including payment of all appropriate processing fees under the master fee resolution. So if I understand that correctly, we have a business. They come to the city, they want the street named after them. Then they leave and the new property owner is responsible for the fees to remove this businesses name on a street when the business is gone. Yeah. This was Richard. You want to address that? And can I just get. Can you help us? Where exactly are you? Councilor Herr Spencer, this is one of the exhibits. At the draft city facilities and street name policy. It's exhibit. One. Exhibit one. Okay. And page four, you said. And it's item number seven for Broad Street naming criteria. So I'm going to ask Mr. Taylor. Yeah. Good evening, mayors, members of the city council, L.A. City Planner, Planning Building, Transportation Department. So so that's a set of corporate street naming criteria isn't being modified and we're basically importing it. But that is existing policy and that was adopted by previous city council. And the again, the idea is, yes, if a business were to if it were to be named after business, if that entity leaves, then a new business or a property owner would be responsible for renaming that street. Okay. Go ahead, girls. Harassment. Yeah. Thank you. So I think counsel should look at what to do with that at some point. Just. Just clarifying questions. I'll speak to that more later. I also want to speak to any public outreach. Will those meetings be noticed so that the members of the council and the public can attend or there's going to be, you know , confidential meetings for a select few? I know, but is that all? All four of the four steps are all at the board and commission level. So they're all required to be noticed for the the Sunshine Ordinance and ground. Okay. And then finally, my last question is in regards to renaming of a street name, you could have people that live on the street, I think want to keep the name, but you could have 500 electronic signatures. How does the city, first of all, know that those are, in fact, residents of the city and not just someone that says that they're Alameda? Is it all ages? So one family could have six members and then so and you know, what does that really look like? It's a great question. And there was a lot of discussion on the staff about that very issue. We really don't have a way to to verify, which is why I really wanted to emphasize, especially in regards to tenants and, you know, and and versus owners. So that's why we really wanted to emphasize that, that we would do a lot of public outreach to ensure that people on the street know that there's a public hearing at the city council meeting about the name of their street so that they can come make their voices heard. And I'm sorry. Continue. Yes. The attendant costs. Right. So you have a homeowner, then they have to actually have legal documents changed, as my understanding, to reflect the current name of their street. There can be costs involved and then those would be borne by the residents. Does the city assist in any of those costs? Mr. Ty So so there there would be a fee for the filing, the application. But let's just say once the city council approves of the street naming, then yes, the there would be social costs for in time logistics costs to the residents of that street to have to change their addresses, mailing addresses and work with the post office. Go ahead, Kelso. Thank you. I think actually, legal documents, they have to change the name of their street. Not just the puke, not just a dress. Some processes might might involve costs. Yes. And I think that is that is a key consideration to I would I would just add that after the staff report was published, staff did try to reach out to other cities with similar processes. I found a city in the southern states, Raleigh, North Carolina, who who has a very similar model. And their advice for the city council is do not underestimate the social costs of changing a street name. And they've experienced it in recent years. Thank you. Thank you. So at some point, I'd like more information about the costs, including social costs, but also just like on legal documents, what that really looks like. Okay. And with that, all the clarifying questions for you at this time. Okay. As a clarifying questions, counsel, I had just a couple. So Ms. Wooldridge on page three of this staff report there is. Oops. Not page three, page two. And this is the planning board process. Well, this is when it came to the planning board. And these are their recommendations for strategic changes. Consider increasing the number of signatures. You talked about that to more than 500 residents or apply a tiered system based on number of homes, fresh businesses on that street. Or consider allowing two thirds of residents to veto a name change on their street. Can you just tell us what the tiered system refers to? Or I could ask Mr. Tiny Stretch. I was at that step in that meeting. So the idea is on a relatively short street, 500. I mean, there are streets in Alameda where you may have ten homes. And so the majority would really be just six, six property owners. But on a very long street, 500 might not be proportional to sort of getting a majority. And so some part of that discussion really was focused on giving more weight to the residents who lived on the street. And these ideas are just variations of what the city with the city council might want to establish as a threshold to start the conversation. Start the question. Got it. Okay. The renaming. Right? That that's helpful. Thank you. So then under under the. So I on page three the these are the proposed changes and so the. The Last Bullet says creates an application process for renaming facilities and streets and requires that the city council first approve whether a facility or street will or will not be renamed. Are there criteria for that or is it just subjective or the staff will bring a report forward to us? How how will that work? So we did not create criteria in this policy for whether or not a facility will be renamed. Really, what staff will do is take the information from the application process and any other due diligence that we have done and bring that to City Council to make an informed decision. It might be different for for any given particular name. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And I would imagine that would be the case of kind of on a case by case basis. And then finally, there is on the top of page four, there is a draft policy and procedures for naming city facilities. And under that first paragraph, last sentence. The intent and the intent of broad outreach and notification is to involve a more diverse group of stakeholders in the community, including residents who are historically underrepresented in city public discussions. Who do you envision those residents to be? I think is. For example, as we've seen with Zoom, more people are attending council meetings because they have better access to council meetings and can't necessarily drive to city hall to sit at 7:00 until midnight. So I think it could be there's many underrepresented folks. It could be people of color, it could be our disadvantaged residents, lower income, it could be youth. I think there's a number of people. The intent of that that sentence was really that there's a lot of people that either don't know how or choose not to get involved in the city, the bureaucracy of city, public discussions. And so I think there's a lot of outreach that we can do and and more we can learn about doing outreach to to, you know, get this information out to them so they can actively engage in something as important as a park or facility or street renaming. I appreciate that. Thank you. I think we've learned a lot during the pandemic about how people get their information, some in venues like this, but not all. So I appreciate that. Okay. Those are all microphone questions. Anything from anybody else? I'm guessing we have public speakers that see any hints from the council for clarifying questions. So, Madam Clerk, do we have public speakers on this item? We have one. One. Okay, we have our two. Josh Geier. Good evening, Speaker Geier. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and vice mayor and council members. So I wrote in a letter expressing my my feelings about this item, and I'm just going to elaborate a little bit on that. So first I think the work of Director Wooldridge and her team is fantastic and is is to be commended and both, both at this in the previous work on renaming Jackson Park. I wanted to I'm very I wanted to say something about the expense question. My view is that we should subsidize this social cost period. Renaming Jackson Park wasn't the right move because it was relatively inexpensive. It was the right move because it was a moral imperative that we all have recognized. Now we're participating in the Simi Land tax now, because there's a sense that to be kind of consistent between our actions and beliefs. The next step, after acknowledging the role of colonialism and white supremacy, is taking substantive steps to start to material repair, materially repair the harm that those phenomena have done to people in our community. We we understand now that that the question about about whether we should stop perpetuating these white supremacists, stop honoring people with figures like Jackson . Calhoun It's not a fringe issue. It's not a boutique concern. I think at this point it's clear that our decision between tacit acceptance or active rejection of the legacy of white supremacy and colonialism and our community is fundamental to our collective conscience and our identity as a diverse, inclusive community on the right side of history. I would just add that that as I wrote in my letter, the renaming of Street is the the circle of concern goes beyond the residents of the street. It's a concern to all of us in the community. And I think it goes the other way. If a if an action that we take collectively as a community has has individual implications for people who just happen to live on that street, we need to make them whole. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker. Herman Reid. Good evening, Speaker Reid. Good evening. And and thank you for the opportunity to make this comment. In considering the Street renaming process, I'd just like to piggyback on Mr. Geiger's concerns also, and I would recommend that the city include a financial outlook plan as part of the consideration so that the homeowners would understand the financial impact that they may incur. And furthermore, perhaps the city should consider offering support if the cost would be more than nominal. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker is Garfinkel. Good evening. Speaker Garfinkel. Good evening again. In recent years, we've been increasingly been bombarded by, I guess, progressives who feel entitled to impose their sense of moral imperatives and justice on everybody else. I think that, as the last speaker said, this is an issue for the entire city, in which case name changes should be put on the ballot. There's nothing urgent on changing. Names have been in existence for 50 or 100 or 150 years. Put them on the ballot and get an eye or a name vote. I realize that the those who know what's right for the rest of us won't be happy with that. But I think that would be a more equitable way to approach this, since there are some 70,000 residents of the city. I don't see why a handful of of ideologues should be calling the shots. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker. Drew Dara Abrams. Good evening, Speaker Dara Abrams. Hi. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Drew Dara Abrams, and I'm calling in from our house on Calhoun Street tonight. I got a chance to share a lot of extended thoughts by email, so I won't belabor it too more, but just want to share the very, very high thoughts at a very high level that we're talking about of a pretty finite list of street names, park names here in the city that I my neighbors on Calhoun Street and other folks that I've met around town since we moved here in 2019 have concerns about now know one of the planning board meetings the that hypothetical about what if you rename a long street came up about Central Avenue and now I think it's just more useful to ground this in the specifics. I heard Calhoun Street where I've been meeting my neighbors and meeting much longer term folks who've lived here for many years who have their concerns about the street name. We have Jackson Street that raises some of the same concerns as Andrew Jackson Park and Godfrey Park as well. So three places. And so I, I think it's very useful to think in these finite terms because it makes the questions more tractable. You know, the questions about cost and effort, is this worth all of our time? It's a symbolic move. It's not the most important move we all could be making, but it's still important when we think in these very finite terms, I think it becomes much more possible to get creative. And that's what worked about the park renaming process. It culminated in a great event. It brought a lot of people who wouldn't have otherwise been involved in the process, as Director Wooldridge was saying, into the life of the city. So I'd just like to encourage all of you to adopt this process, to make it possible to, in the abstract conduct renaming on an ongoing basis, but then to really focus on making possible three of the potential renaming that have really brought together community members over the past years and move them forward. Very concrete, very finite, and use those as opportunities to address any and all concerns that come up and make them as positive and welcoming as experiences as that. You train park renaming process. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker, Madam Clerk. Megan Larson. Good evening, Speaker Larsen. Hi there. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. I just wanted to follow up on the last comment that was made. I think that there's a difference of living in the town for two years versus there is a woman that I meet with every Wednesday who through friendly visitors from Meals on Wheels who has lived on Jackson Street now for over 50 years. So a transition and a name change for somebody like her, where it's in her will. It's in all of her legal documents. It's on her driver's license. It's on her mail, of course. But there are all of these documents where at 87 years old, trying to make a pivot into making all of those changes is is quite a tax on an individual, especially if they don't have the Internet. And so for me, I have major concerns for her. And I know that this is a big concern for her as well because of the change in the park. She knows that then it's a kind of a domino effect just because it's the same street name, in a sense. I can understand Park's park makes sense because people aren't necessarily tied to a park with their own personal address. But when it comes to streets and renaming a street, it does pay a large toll on that individual. Again, for somebody that's only been here for a short period of time, I imagine that's easy because you have recently just changed your driver's license to that current address. But for those who have been on the island for extended periods of time where their livelihoods are connected to that address, it's a big deal. And so that would be my concern there. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comment. Our next speaker, Madam Clerk. That was our final speaker. Okay. So with that, we will close have a comment on item seven C and we will bring it back to the Council for discussion. Who wants to lead by mayor to you? I never know if this is an opportune time that we didn't hear too much for you before. I think that we've we've spent a lot of time the past few years discussing the naming and renaming processes, and we are trying to balance access as well as staff is trying to make sure that we and one of the issues that really hasn't come up is just that there was you know, we were essentially creating a large process just to get street names on a list and then not having enough names. I mean, these were part of the conversations that we had early on in that it was there was a lot of bureaucratic process involved that was unnecessary and also very cumbersome. And so I think we're trying to balance that with also having a process that's accessible. And I think I've learned a lot in my time on council as well as my time on the have discussing names, the amount of time and energy that has been spent by staff as well as our volunteers, many volunteers and council members has been you know, we spent a lot of time discussing it. So there's been a lot of effort put into this. And I think that there's, you know, feel comfortable with the process that Mr. Eldridge laid out. I think that there was a lot of input into that. I do think that. You know, and I hear the concerns about the different expenses of renaming expenses related to renaming. But that's why we need we need to have a public process and allow for input, which is, I think, what we're trying to do with what's been proposed. Thank you. Mary Kay. Councilwoman. That's why. Thank you for. For me, I. We're not you know, I think Vice Mayor Vella said it. Said it. Well, we're not creating a new opportunity to rename streets. We're clarifying a process that our it's something we can we can rename streets today. We could have renamed streets last year. We're not deciding whether or not to rename streets. And we were deciding how we're going to make sure that there is the people are plugged in on that. For me, I think I have three bullets, but one of them was very wrong. I would like to suggest the one thing that jumps out at me on the on the street renaming is that it's about property owners instead of residents. And in a town of 52% renters, I think renters voices are just as important as the people who live out of town, which we know a majority of, but a majority of our rental units are owned by people who do not live in Alameda. So if we want to have local input and make sure that we're getting that input, it should be residents, not property owners, who are the measure for supporting what's happening within their community. And I would like to I would like to see that change in the policy. Similarly, I just whenever we start talking about corporate naming public things, I think if, you know, if we were going to have a corporate naming policy, I appreciate that it's only for streets that only the corporation that's asking for the renaming accesses and whatnot, but then essentially becoming a private road with their name on it. And I think they should also, if they're to, we're going to change the name of the street. They should pay for the maintenance of that street as well. While it's while it has their name on it, I don't see why it becomes the city's business to start branding public public streets that we're paying for with people's corporate names. I think we can deal with it when it comes to it. I also think there is an issue if that if a business name is named after a person, are we going to put a person's name on a street where by they may be the name of the corporation, but they also may as again, there are many corporations out there where people are supportive of the corporation, but the individuals behind the corporation may not be people they want to name streets after. And I think it does get a little complicated. So I think making sure that there's some space for wiggle room in that discussion will be important. But beyond that, I really I think that this is a great policy. I will concur with Vice Mayor Miller's congratulations on on the work that was done. I think that this really carries forward a lot of the comments and discussions that we've had here at the council, as well as our boards and commissions. And I really think staff there are two we have received there are already two requests for naming that have come forward, that have met, I believe the criteria that was set. And there is a recommendation in here in the order alternatives to give direction to form an ad hoc committee to talk about street names. It's something we've talked about a couple of times. The last time we the last two or three times we've talked about renaming. And I would hope that council could give that direction to at least move those to which would be Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street, forward to some form of committee or through this process, I believe, to staff on how they wanted to bring it back. You know, I think the time is now. You know, the Jackson Park venue was sitting around for two and a half years until George Floyd was killed and there was interest all of a sudden to take action. And I think, you know, we don't we shouldn't have to wait for those type of momentous community uproars to take on some of these issues. We have some some some things that should at least be considered whether or not they should be renamed. And Godfrey and Calhoun are two very good examples that our community has stood up and said by the hundreds they would like us to consider. And so after we adopt the new policy, I hope that we can also give direction to bring those back forward for a conversation about how or where the vision for. Thank you. Who wants to go next? Counsel for her is Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So I would like us to include residents plus property owners in regards to any collection of 50% plus one. Also, in regards to the corporate name, I agree with member Knox. One of if we're going to have it, be a street name after a corporation and they can maintain it. But I also think that they should include enough money so that if they leave that then the new owner should not have to pay to remove the the name of the former company. And then that we had received an email in regards to the proposed policy and maybe it's a current POS is a name could be named after someone who's deceased after three years and I would prefer the ten years that came in. One of the emails wait longer than just three years. And then also in regards to figuring out how to reimburse property owners for costs of changing legal documents and whatnot. And I think that that actually can and maybe they would submit what are their actual costs. But I think that could actually be expensive. And I and you know, for the social good then I think that it's not that and we've had multiple speakers speak to this and I support that of having letting them submit their actual expenses and then be reimbursed somehow for that if they if they are seeking that. Thank you. Our offer. You care for her? Special? Yeah. Okay. Castle, over dessert. Anything to add? Oh, well, thank you. You know what I am struck by and most appreciative of in the staff report is that when it comes to renaming of streets or facilities, the importance of having city council start that conversation. Because one of the one of the reasons why I voted no on Takano, because I felt that there was only one criteria that was that came out that I thought that, well, maybe there's other criteria is the one criteria that came out was, you know, racial diversity. Hey, racial diversity is great. You know, we want we definitely want to do it to to to make our community, you know, even more equal and representative for sure. But but maybe there was also other criteria that that that we also want to take a look at when we're kind of figure out, you know, what are the best names. And so, you know, I had no qualms in voting no on Chicano, but I felt that that what the staff has put together and the staff report kind of responds to the concerns that I raised. And so for that, I am most appreciative I see in this process one in which ideologues on the far left or ideologues on the far right or even ideologues in the center can't hijack for their own ends. That council will be certainly involved from the beginning to the end when it comes to renaming of streets. And for that I am thankful and I am supportive of this. On the question of property owners of renaming streets, I think it's important that we analyze what are the cost implications. I mean, because certainly I don't live on a street that whose name might be up for renaming. And, you know, I just want to know, you know, is there going to be am I going to have to bear some cost or anyone else is going to have to bear some costs if we have to change our mortgage documents or, you know, all those type of documents. On the other hand, maybe the costs are so low, I don't know. But I think, you know, we do when we are renaming streets that we that the staff should make sure to kind of understand and analyze those kinds of costs. But on the whole, though, I appreciate what has been put together. I think it's addressed the concerns that I had from the outset. So I look forward to supporting this. Thank you. Killed somebody said so. I will go last and I will echo my colleagues in thanking both Amy Aldridge and Alan Tai for excellent work and laying out this very descriptive process across all these various boards and commissions. I, I like everything that was, that was recommended. And you answered my earlier questions with regard to a couple of things that were raised. I think that we need to have a little more information. And I'm speaking specifically about where private companies have a street named after their company. I cannot speak to all instances where that happens, but I was involved when a number. It came to us a number of years ago and asked if, you know, if you're familiar with Penumbra, you know that they're spread out over a number of buildings in our horrible business park. I believe they're still our largest private employer and they're growing. They're, you know, expanding into more buildings. They're bringing a lot of good revenue into the city. They were in a real dilemma because their different buildings were on different streets. And so then when. The. Postal carrier was delivering mail, there was confusion about where it went. So they came to us and said, would it be possible to have that the building that is the corporate, that the main building where the mail is processed and things like just all the things because they're an international company, but they're headquartered here in Alameda, California . So they wanted it. Could it have the address one penumbra way and Greg McFadden, the official and I can't quite remember why it was Mr. McFadden, but the two of us spent some time meeting with the postmaster for Alameda and explaining this and and that change was made. I don't know that that changed. In order for them to get their mail should then require them to pay for street maintenance. So I just would want staff to look into, you know, why is that done? How? How often is it done and what are the implications? But I just think that it might be a bit of a quantum leap to say you have a street named after your business, you now have to maintain the street. So, so just keep that in mind. And then I think a really effective process has been laid out. I would like to see that adopted and followed, which is what makes me hesitant to say, you know, Jackson, what is it? Jackson Street and Godfrey Park have been talked about for a while now. Let's just put together an ad hoc committee and make, you know, make those determinations. I think we could respect the process. Maybe they could be moved up to the top of the queue. I'm not trying to second guess staff, but that is true. We've been hearing discussions about about those particular names, but I'm not sure this is the time to say just one last time, let's just do an ad hoc committee . I think this is a really good plan that's been laid out. And the other thing I was going to say. Is. Slipping my mind. But I forget about someone who's been deceased. I don't think we need to wait ten years to name something after them. I do understand that sometimes the body of a person's work and things in their past might not come to light immediately. But three years seems a reasonable time. And I think there's there are some illustrious meetings. I'm not going to share the names now, but that that we should consider and I don't know that we need to wait ten years. I very much like what the staff has proposed. So with that with. Yes, Vice Mayor Vella. That emerita question threw the chair to Councilmember Knox White. The on this on the street renaming. He had mentioned that he wanted it to be the resident signatories only. So is that getting rid of the option that we have, which is the 50 plus one of the property owners or the 500 residents enjoys? Or is it is Councilmember Knox White okay with this? The option. I would be I mean, I would be I guess I would be fine with the option I personally. You know, I do think that there is benefit in having the 50% of the street actually concurring. And I think it gets to the concern of people who live on the street who might be impacted by it or at least been alert and supportive of the general idea. Right. They're not signing off on what is the name? They're signing off on the. We would be okay with starting a process that considered a new name. But, you know, I mean, if people want to leave the leave it so that it only takes 500 and none of them have to live on the street. If that's the. Yeah, I was trying to I was just trying to clarify that you're not trying to get rid of the 50 plus one signatories of the property owners. It's on the other side of the 500 Alameda resident signatories. You're asking that a certain percentage of that be actual residents on that street, correct? Yeah, I would. I guess what I would say is I think the 50% plus one signatories are are not the owners, but the people who actually live in town and live on the street are that is that for me is the important piece, not somebody who lives in Southern California who, you know, doesn't really may not even really know the city at all. Right. Or the corporate. I mean, we have some large corporate landowners that that own, you know, hundreds of units that are going to say that their vote gets basically to be the up or down on this. I would rather be talking to them, talking to the residents of the street. I think that the intent is to make sure that the people who live on a street are have an opportunity to say, we don't want to live on a street with this name. So may I inject a question? Counteracts weight and vice versa. How do we determine that the online 500 people are Alameda residents? Or anyone who can answer that. Well, let's step into that. Yeah. Madam Mayor. Please. So we did spend a lot of time looking into this particular issue. First of all. Well, our initial approach was thinking about property owners just because we have very good data of property owners in Alameda. We don't have good data on tenants, especially near tenants. We just won't have that figure. But then where that sort of discussion led was really. And given the input from the boards and commissions and members of the public, we, we, we added the possibility of you. It could be either 50% plus one of the property owners and residents or at least 500 Alameda resident signatures. I would imagine that a petition that's submitted with an application would include a name as well as their address. So but in terms of verification, I don't believe we have very good data to be able to verify that all 500 are actually residents or residents of that street. But and that's where we led to the let to the discussion, really, this is a threshold to initiate the conversation. And so when we are scheduling the hearing before the city council to consider the item, that's where we would formally notify the residents and occupants of that street. A back to you. Where did you go? Councilmember That's right. Yes. So, I mean, I can go I'm not going to die on the Hill if it's 50% of resident property owners or 500 residents, no matter where they live, as long as they're in the city. On the corporate name one I, I still think, you know, I'm sure a number could have a number issue could have been addressed by naming the street a different something else as well, if necessary. And I think that this is, you know, at the end of the day, the city can always waive its fees and things like that if it wants in the future. This is a I just think we should be careful not to start down a road where corporations can name city streets. Councilmember Desai. Just to clarify in question on the petition, 500 signatures on a petition, does it have to be on a paper petition? Is it required to be a paper position or is it require or is there no requirement that it could be like, you know, some Internet kind of thing? That's right. And there's no requirement that it be paper, electronic or paper. Or combination. Council member, Harry Spencer. Thank you. So I had asked earlier about this 500 electronic signatures. It's my understanding from staff's answer that there is no way for them to verify that they are, in fact, residents of the city of Alameda. So I'm wondering, are you just going to be asking for the name or are you going to ask for at least an address within the city so that there could, in fact, be some sort of follow up to confirm that these people live in the city? It does. The policy does stipulate that it should be it needs to be 500 Alameda residents. So if a petition is turned in that just has a bunch of names and no address, then certainly it would not be it would be rejected because it doesn't comply with the policy. Thank you. And in regards to the company, if the if the company leaves and then someone else has to pay for this new incoming company doesn't want to, of course, fire a company's name on the street. I heard member not try. Maybe the city could waive this. I think that maybe we could also ask for the city could ask for more money up front. So that is suing, you know. But as long as they're there, fine, we want to spend it. But whenever they leave, I don't really think it's appropriate to ask the new company to pay to change the street name for a company that's left. And as much you know, we have companies of all sizes that come and go. Thanks. Councilmember data clarifying question in terms of verifying five 500 signatures, whether it's on a written piece of paper with name and address and signature, or whether it's on the Internet with name and address. Do have we thought through the process by which we will verify the 500? Are we going to do all 500 or are you going to? I think in some instances we don't do all 500 like we do a sample. And if the sample comes out, I mean, there's a methodology. I forgot what what it's for. But I think our city clerk knows what I'm talking about. So so what's the the process by which the 500 signatures would be verified? TBD. Essentially, yes, we don't have a verification method outlined in the policy, but both Mr. Ty and I want it to be clear that that both in terms of staff resources, that this petition is not on the same level of what would be submitted to the city clerk for a, you know, something that would ultimately go to the voters. Right. We're not considering it on the same level because it's the start of a conversation in which there would be a five step publicly noticed conversation in which people can make their voices heard. Okay. Anything further, Councilmember Knox, like. I was going to make a motion, please. I'm going to move approval of the staff recommendation with with one direction and 111 change, which is I would like under that I'm going under the corporate street naming criteria. I don't hear a majority saying they're concerned about it. But I do really appreciate that. Councilmember Hirsch, Spencer's idea of collecting funds to pay for future renaming if the company moves. And I think that that is a great idea. I am comfortable with staff writing that after the fact, but just with a caveat that as a part of a corporate renaming, there would need to be a fund, there would need to be a fee collected for future renaming of the street if the company were to move off that street so that the city in the in the future business is not stuck with it. The direction would be. And while I know the broader ad hoc committee created by recommended by staff was was not collected, I would like to direct staff since we have collected to work with the applicants, the submitters of the two petitions that have over 500 names on them to submit a real ID to to, to begin the process to submit an application for council consideration for Godfrey and count as, as those submitted to the city already for consideration. That was your. Mother and that was through the process outlined in the step through. Third through the process. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion to have a second vice mayor of L.A.. Second. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Counsel Katherine Harris. Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like a clarifying question to the maker of the motion in regards to the process. The 500 signatures are plus signatures. As far as I know. They may or may not be Alameda residents. So when you're saying start the process, are you saying that they would have to make sure that, you know, try to get 500 residents or can be 500 plus people from wherever? I think, yes, they would they would need to, you know, make a best case effort for that. Yes. But again, I do not personally believe that this is we're not going to the voters with this. This is we don't need. You know, Director Woolridge calling 500 people to make sure they live in Alameda. I believe I believe at face value of 1000 people have signed a petition and said that they live in Alameda. It's a good chance 500 of them live in Alameda and we can probably just roll. And then also in regards to reimbursing for costs of those if it's on the street. We will have that conversation. That's not a part of the policy tonight. And I think that that would be part of that conversation when it comes forward and the decision as to whether we want to move forward with it. He has cancer every day. So while I would rather not have those two things, part of the motion. Which two things? You know, the Godfrey thing and the whatever the other thing was Jackson's Jackson. There's two locations. It seems to me, though, that if they turn in 500 names and 450 of them have no address, then they've only turned in 50. So because that's what I heard was that if there was no address, if there was no basis by which. So that's their risk. If they're if they if they have a list of 500 names plus and there's no address, then. Okay. So anyways, while I would rather have those two not part of this, I think on balance, I think I'm still able to move forward. Great. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any more hands up, am I? Let's take a roll call. Vote, please. Thanks. From member station. Right over here, Spencer. Now. Knox, Phi Phi Phi. Alpha Phi Mayor. As the Ashcraft. High that carries 4 to 1. Thank you. And you know, I want to thank all the public speakers who spoke this evening who sent us letters. Thank you for your input. It is all valuable and thank you again to staff for a great job. And I think you've put together a really great process for us to move forward. And you're right, these are very important decisions. All right, counsel, we're a little beyond my zoom rules of a break every 2 hours. But this is a logical stopping point. It's 930. We're going to come back at 945 and do our excuse me, last regular agenda item. So I'll see you back here at 945 space, everybody. And you probably want to mute yourself. No hot mikes, okay. Or leave. The issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds to refinance outstanding obligations of the city to the California Public Employees Retirement System, authorizing the initiation of a judicial validation action by the city attorney in approving and directing related matters.