New Council members Treva Reid and Carroll Fife were just counted in their first Council roll call, 1/12/2021 #oakmtg 
In opening remarks, newly appointed Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas observes the Capitol assault of last week, also clarifies that despite vaguely described misinformation, the EMP is not on the agenda, rather only alternatives for shelter during a camp eviction #oakmtg
Bas already marking a distinct style from preceding Presidents as she explained the map of the agenda, and says that she observes rule that no CM can speak longer than 10 minutes on any item, and will ask Clerk to run the 2 minute clock for Council comments.
Rule 11. I'm sure Reid and Gallo regularly bend this.
Kaplan clarifies that Item 7, the Bey Case report back, will only have an operational update, not content.
There's about 27 public speakers on the line right now, which include Cat Brooks, per Clerk.
Kieron Slaughter encouraged Council to vote yes on a resolution encouraging National Parks Service to erect a Black Panther memorial and/or memorial park somewhere in the Bay Area
Heither Frankel an attorney for Homeless Action Center supports the alternate shelter resolution, which will ensure that alternative shelters are for at least 90 day stays, and exclude congregate shelters. She says Council should allow the homelessness commission to review EMP
Cat Brooks with APTP supports Black Panther Party monument in City of Oakland and support for Council to urge DA O'Malley to bring charges against Pirone over the killing of Oscar Grant #oakmtg
Another caller on the alternative shelter clarifying resolution. Here's the relevant language. Worth noting, as I've written elsewhere, the language would not only exclude congregate shelter, but roommate requirements would also potentially exclude Henry/Holland, Tuffs, trailers
Effectively, if passed, the resolution would prevent many evictions envisioned in the EMP.
Many speakers want the EMP to be reviewed by the Homelessness Commission, which hadn't yet been seated when the EMP was passed in October.
St Vincent de Paul Director Marcell Lloyd says that SVP's shelters are effective at housing homeless people during Covid. He says the facility has had no positive Covid tests and worries that the resolution will have a negative impact on the shelters
Fredricka Newton, widow of Huey P. Newton, calls in to support the resolution urging a National Park Service to begin the process to choose a Bay Area location for the Black Panther Party monument or historical site.
Blase Bova, Exec Director of SVP, says that the St Vincent De Paul's shelters procedures were designed by Healthcare for the Homeless and says that shelter needs to be a part of the continuum of care for homeless. Earlier SVP was actually manager of the shelter, not director
Ted Peterson a self-identified property owner in d5 and d6, says property are suffering heavily from homelessness and encourages Council to implement EMP quickly
rep from Piedmont Homeowners Association which wants Council to send a resolution to court saying there's a public necessity to declare eminent domain for Assn to use adjoining property for repairs. Council has been treating this like a radioactive sweatsock for over 7 months.
When progressive CMs introduced a new gross receipts tax ballot measure that would have higher charges for corporations, corp reps and conservative CMs successfully diverted it to a commission led, year long process for a ballot measure in 2022. 1/2
res would recast proposed commission as a "taskforce" w/membership of 11 instead of 9. Resolution would appoint labor reps first by name, with rest of membership appointed by CMs. Report also says that the Council could, instead, just do it by normal committee deliberation 2/2
One of the residents of the adjacent building to the Piedmont Association worries about the disposal of hazardous materials through her property if the request is granted.
74 year old, Horace Houston longest serving City employee [with Park and Rec, and Rainbow currently] speaking on occasion of his 50 years of service at City of Oakland. Says he was educated and trained for physical therapy and recreation. Says he's worked with kids from 3 to 101
One imagines this announcement by O'Malley yesterday would make the resolution urging DA to charge Pirone moot. sfchronicle.com/bayarea/articl…
Bas adds what she calls non-substantive clarifying amendments to the Blue Ribbon Gross Receipts taskforce item, 2.11. A non substantive amendment would not require a vote to adopt.
It's a lean Council agenda today, with only three possibly contentious issues: the Blue Ribbon taskforce [probably not], the Piedmont Homeowners Assn [maybe] and the Alternative Shelter [definitely]. The Local Business Empowerment item will likely get a lot of discussion too
In her remarks, Fife says she heartily backs the Pirone resolution and recounts her daughter being brutalized by BART police and the fact that O'Malley once recommended that she serve 4 years in jail.
The consent calendar was adopted, including the Pirone resolution, BPP resolution, and Blue Ribbon Commission changes
This property assn wants the Council to issue a resolution to the court certifying that they believe its necessary and proper to allow them to give eminent domain on an adjoining residential property to conduct repairs on their own property. A six month football since summer
Kalb introduces the item [property is located in D1]. He had suggested mediation by parties but that failed. He asks the City Attorney's office to provide guidance.
DCA Doryanna Moreno: She says that CMs need to reveal whether or not they've been in communication with parties, and if so, either say it's negligible or recuse themselves. But no one speaks up
Christopher Lewis, attorney for Piedmont Assn says the owners of the other property are insisting on "exorbitant" payment for use of their property. He says that they've been opposed to the use of their property the entire way. He says they can't even conduct tests to know costs
He says the problem is "what's reasonable compensation", and adds that the other property owner isn't being reasonable and notably says the association can't afford it.
He also adds that the Council wouldn't be giving go ahead for doing the work, just giving allowing court to allow eminent domain and reasonable compensation. He says that the building will need to be condemned if they can't get the work done.
Lewis says that they would provide appropriate compensation for residents of the other property with health problems to relocate. A resident said in public comment that she is seriously ill, and uses a hospital bed, so she can't move regardless.
The Payumo representative says that the Assn hasn't proven any of the requirements in the california code, so the Council can't issue the resolution.
The Payumo [adjacent owners, and target of Piedmont Homeowners] argument below
The Payumo rep says that they are only seeking compensation for the costs, says they will be sued by tenants, and have potential damage. She says she's the sister of the owner, because the Payumos do not have a lot of money
She says that half of the tenants have underlying medical conditions. She says you don't go to the next door neighbor and ask them to go inside your property to repair your own property.
In rebuttal, Lewis says they have provided all the requirements under law. He says that there is no way to provide a construction plan without entering the property. He says the necessity of public interest is that it affects property values in area, blight issues [come on, lol]
I don't have a dog in this pony show, but Lewis should just be told no on principal, ha ha.
Another rep for Payumos says regardless, the HOA haven't met the requirements, and says they can still go to court over it, they don't need the Council resolution to do that.
The properties: Piedmont Walk HOA on right, Payumo on left
Daughter of a disabled resident of Payumo property says that the HOA is acting bad faith, and that three elderly disabled women will lose their driveway and parking if they go forward.
Bijal Patel of City Attorney's office, she says its technically an eminent domain issue, but its also a disagreement between two parties.
Patel says law allows declaration of eminent domain for such issues. She clarifies Council is only acting to determine whether the four findings have been made, that would then be used by parties in court. She adds that property valuation isn't included in public interest
Kalb says that 70 Yosemite Ave isn't the party acting in bad faith, "far from it". He says that its not unusual for properties to need access to adjacent property, and rare that they can't come to agreement. He says this would facilitate moving the agreement to court
Bas asks Patel if there are other options to resolve the issue for the two parties in court. Patel responds that the two parties are negotiating, and that's the standard. She says there'd have to be a basis in tort law for the law
Fife asks Patel if they are required to weigh in on the issue and also asks if there are precedents. Patel says decision is discretion based on their belief about whether the findings can be supported. But she says she doesn't know whether they're allowed to ignore the request
Fife asks if the Council would be setting a precedent with the decision. Patel says it's very narrow and only can be invoked if the party needs to do construction work using another property owners site
Patel says that HOA can't go to court unless they get the resolution of necessity, but the judge might find against the HOA regardless of the Council's resolution. Its a pre-requisite.
Reid is going to abstain and Fife is going to vote no, apparently.
The 70 Yosemite Eminent Domain determination failed. Fife, Gallo, Kaplan, Bas voted no. Kalb was the sole yes. Reid, Thao and Taylor abstained. Kalb complained about the outcome at the end of the vote, atypical of him.
Must feel good to get that item off the desk after half a year
Bas says that she plans to schedule to 1/21 meeting a report back on labor issues, regarding budget
Fife wonders how the City will implement the Local Business Empowerment Through Contracting item while they are cutting staff, she says she worries about promising Black Oaklanders something they can't deliver with Reiskin's proposed service cuts
Reiskin acknowledges that staff capacity will be an issue, but he's unable to clarify whether it will affect the success of the program
When its come to a motion moving items, Fife says she wants to instead provide a substitute motion that would clarify the fiscal impact in light of coming budget cuts. It would continue the item to CDE to cost. Taylor says he has a breakdown of costs and can present it.
Fife says that the City's possible insolvency makes the finding urgent.
Taylor is presenting his costing analysis for the Local Business Empowerment Through Contracting. Some of these would create new areas of staff work, obviously, but his table calls most of them minimal or low
Kaplan asking where the costing analysis is coming from, she says previous programs approved by Council are still bogged down due to staff capacity. Taylor says that the blue text is the City's analysis of his comments
Fife says she wants a dollar amount about how much the actions will be, not words like "minimal". She says she can refine the motion to continue to committee to define the dollar amounts. Taylor calls the motion unnecessary and burdensome. He also suggested "other motives"
Fife seems unafraid to bring it on the first day, that much is obvious.
Clarifying that the there are two pieces of legislation in the item, Fife is asking for the clarification on the ordinance, not resolution part.
Asst City Admin says that the changes are going to be minimal and can be done by current staff and that's why the City didn't provide a more robust analysis.
Mitchell said that the changes should be absorbed by the current bandwidth of staff, but it seems that the entire issues is that Reiskin plans to cut that bandwidth.
John Alden, CPRA Director, is updating investigation of Bey case. Bey's were targeted by a violent group that arguably received OPD protection. They Bey's made IA complaints that may have been inappropriately closed. CPRA is overseeing investigation by investigating contractor
Alden says that the investigation will be complete by late February.
They took the Bey case while they dealt with tech issues on speaker from workforce development. She says that she respects the issues brought by Fife, but that the more concrete costing will be done later.
Fife's substitute motion goes first, Kalb says that he can't support it without a specific date to return, and Bas gives Fife an opportunity to put a date on it. But Fife says that the date depends on whether or not staff has a cost analysis. She suggests the next council mtg.
Fife poses February 16 for the date, and her substitute motion to bring the ordinance back with costing goes forward: Gallo, Kalb, Thao, Kaplan, Bas vote yes, and Reid and Taylor voted no, so it passed.
Taylor has been visibly unhappy about the resistance and he asks to remark on the vote. He says that there is no impact and calls it "sparkle dust". Taylor says that "as a body have chosen to further delay racial disparities that impact Black and Brown businesses."
Taylor says the vote is an example of letting politic get in the way of what's right for residents.
Bas/Kaplan clarifying alternative shelter item is up. Kaplan presents. She says that the resolution clarifies a March resolution on shelter, which was never made specific.
Here's the meat of the legislation. It would immediately prevent the City from considering [during the Covid emergency] congregate shelters as alternative provided to evicted homeless encampment residents, but would also bar alternatives involving many roommate situations as well
Daryel Dunston, Homeless Admin, respnds to legislation. Says "we can't fall victim to tactics" used by Trump during insurgency in DC. He says there's been no outbreaks at Oakland shelters. Moreno stops Dunston; apparently Bas' comments to him were Brown Act violations
Dunston says the shelters are safe, that they've reduced capacity, and stringent rules. He says if they were unsafe, the County's health dept would not allow them to continue to operate. He "implores" Council to consider facts.
Dunston is very aggressive in his approach to Council. He started out likening the rhetoric about congregate shelters to Trump disinformation about the election.
Taylor says the 90 day limit, 30 day notice are fine, as well as excluding shelters that require homeless to move during the day. He mentions the possibility of vaccinating shelter residents [but the immunity takes two doses, Loren]
Taylor is moving to continue resolution to the next Life Enrichment meeting. That would bring up questions about how the City will proceed with the Union Point encampment. They've already been offering alternate housing, it also suggests City won't necessarily feel bound by EMP
Regarding what Taylor says he's open to, those are all things that already exist in congregate shelters. The only city congregate shelter that requires residents to leave during the day is St Vincent de Paul, so it would exclude only one city congregate shelter.
Taylor's background is in bio-med consultancy, so his ignorance around medicine is sometimes surprising. You need two vaccinations for the effect.
Thao says she'd have to know more about the requirements for the shelters that require people to leave during the day. She says she wants to make sure this is framed as a mental health crisis and that the resolutions are good for both housed and unhoused.
If item goes back to LEC in March, that would technically delay EMP. But as we're all aware City has been evicting camps for the past year with or without the EMP. If it can't use the EMP because of this, seems it brings up the question of whether they'll go back to old rubric
Kalb says that 30 day notice and extended stay are important. Kalb says he's concerned about the resolution's impact on the Henry Robinson/Holland, because most of them are two to a room, which would bar transitional housing.
Kalb says that the other congregate shelters [that don't require people to leave during day] are okay with him. He thinks that's the only problem with congregate shelters, and that would exclude one of the City's congregate shelters.
Kalb says that most people in encampments don't wear masks according to his own observation, and that they refused masks when he offered, suggesting that they'd be safer in shelters because they're required to wear masks there.
Kalb says he wants the Homeless Commission to review the alternative shelter resolution before it comes back to Council, and would like that to be part of the motion as a friendly amendment. Bas also adds as a friendly amendment requirement EMP comes with the resolution
Dunston responds that the homelessness commission doesn't yet have regular meetings. Their next meeting is January 27, where they are currently planning to choose chair, vice chair, bylaws. He says they'd have to have chosen to have a meeting before the March LEC meeting
Bas suggests moving for the March LEC meeting and expect that the Homelessness Commission meets before then to review both the EMP and the alternative shelter resolution.
Gallo supports the EMP and alternative shelter resolution coming back to LEC and review by the Homelessness Commission. But he wants the City to come back with housing solutions, including the Coliseum, at this point.
Good round for Gallo.
Fife says she's lost about what's going on in the meeting today and asks whether she should ask questions of Dunston now, or at the LEC meeting. Bas tells her to go ahead and ask the questions now, if she wants, regardless of the motion to continue.
Bas is clarifying the history of the clarification of alternative shelter legislation, she links it back to Kaplan's resolution in March at the beginning of Covid that limited the way the City interacted with, evicted encampments.
Kaplan says that the Henry would be allowed to be used according to the resolution, as long as the roommates in question were already housed together.
But to Kalb's point, it would be very unlikely to always find an empty room where two people could be put together.
Dunston says that the working definition for alternative shelter is any shelter that is an alternative to a place not meant for human habitation [the clinical definition].
Kaplan says the crux of the problem is the question of what is a suitable alternative to homelessness, and it's obviously super subjective.
Thao wants clarification about the claims that there have been no covid cases at congregate shelters in Oakland.
Thao says the Council is talking about congregate shelters only, but that's not exactly true given the roommate issue. Kalb is right that it would exclude Henry Robinson, except on the lucky day where there's a room 100% vacant and the incoming person is coming with a companion
If they don't want a roommate, they couldn't be placed there.
Bas has brought up the elephant in the room, the state ordered eviction of Union Point is coming up, and they won't have a process for alternative shelter before then.
The motion would bring back the resolution to the March 22nd LEC, but would require the Homelessness Commission to review it first. They don't have scheduled meetings at the moment, so that piece is still in the air. Questions sent in by CMs will be answered in a report at LEC
unroll thread @threadreaderapp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
