Correspondence - Updated 3/22 — Alameda City Council, March 21, 2023

From: Ajouah Grass
To: City Clerk
Cc: Lara Weisiger; Jeremy Wallenberg
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Testimony Submission (3/21/23 Council Meeting) Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:46:58 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Canasta Kitchen (Public Comment 3_21).pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Good Evening,
I hope you're doing well today.

Please find the written testimony (attached) pertaining to item 5-F on tonight's Consent Calendar.
5-F 2023-2874 Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code byAmending Article XIX (the Third-Party Food Delivery Services) ofChapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries) to ContinuePlacing Limits on Charges Imposed by Third-Party Food DeliveryServices; Define Core Product Offering to Mean a Service; and OtherAmendments. (Community Development 24161823) Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.

Ajouah
--
Ajouah Grass (Ah-ju-ah), Senior Account Executive
Ground Floor Public Affairs
Facebook | LinkedIn
58 2nd St. 4th Floor | SF, CA 94105
(415) 291-9501

From: Ling Huang
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Protect My Earnings as an Alameda Dasher Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:10:56 PM
Dear Clerk Alameda City,
My name is Ling and I am a Dasher in Berkeley. I am writing to urge you to vote against Item 5-F (2023-2874) of the City Council’s agenda for March 21st. This proposed ordinance is a price control on the fees platforms charge customers and restaurants for delivery services that could harm both restaurants and delivery workers.

This ordinance may cause a direct and harmful impact on my ability to earn income as a Dasher. If passed, this price control legislation could cause platforms to modify service in Alameda, which in turn may lead to fewer orders and fewer earning opportunities for me.

This law was first passed when restaurants were shut down and was supposed to be temporary.

But restaurants are now fully reopened and proposals like this one could disrupt food delivery in the City if left in place. This could result in fewer opportunities for work and lower earnings for Dashers like me.

Please consider app-based delivery workers like myself before you vote to pass any price control legislation that will harm service in the city.

Sincerely,
Ling Huang
2600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
From: Steven Flores
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Protect My Earnings as an Alameda Dasher Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:09:55 PM
Dear Clerk Alameda City,
My name is Steven and I am a Dasher in Keyes. I am writing to urge you to vote against Item 5-F (2023-2874) of the City Council’s agenda for March 21st. This proposed ordinance is a price control on the fees platforms charge customers and restaurants for delivery services that could harm both restaurants and delivery workers.

This law was first passed when restaurants were shut down and was supposed to be temporary.

Please consider app-based delivery workers like myself before you vote to pass any price control legislation that will harm service in the city.

Sincerely,
Steven Flores
4505 Stella Ave
Keyes, CA 95328
From: Essete Tolla
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Protect My Earnings as an Alameda Dasher Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:09:25 PM
Dear Clerk Alameda City,
My name is Essete and I am a Dasher in San Lorenzo. I am writing to urge you to vote against Item 5-F (2023-2874) of the City Council’s agenda for March 21st. This proposed ordinance is a price control on the fees platforms charge customers and restaurants for delivery services that could harm both restaurants and delivery workers.

This law was first passed when restaurants were shut down and was supposed to be temporary.

Please consider app-based delivery workers like myself before you vote to pass any price control legislation that will harm service in the city.

Sincerely,
Essete Tolla
16875 Meekland Ave
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
From: Antonia Buccellato
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Protect My Earnings as an Alameda Dasher Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:09:24 PM
Dear Clerk Alameda City,
My name is Antonia and I am a Dasher in Pittsburg. I am writing to urge you to vote against Item 5-F (2023-2874) of the City Council’s agenda for March 21st. This proposed ordinance is a price control on the fees platforms charge customers and restaurants for delivery services that could harm both restaurants and delivery workers.

This law was first passed when restaurants were shut down and was supposed to be temporary.

Please consider app-based delivery workers like myself before you vote to pass any price control legislation that will harm service in the city.

Sincerely,
Antonia Buccellato
1014 Ventura Dr
Pittsburg, CA 94565
From: Hellen castilho
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect my delivery earnings
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:45:54 PM
Dear Alameda . City Council,
I’m a Uber Eats earner who delivers in Alameda and I oppose the city’s attempts to place price controls on the fees that platforms like Uber Eats charge. This policy is unnecessary and could hurt couriers like me.

The customers and restaurants that choose to use Uber Eats do so voluntarily, so it doesn’t make sense for the City Council to step in and set arbitrary limits on those fees, especially now that there are no restrictions on restaurants because of the pandemic. Uber Eats uses these fees to provide customers and restaurants with great service and to pay couriers like me.

This ordinance could result in fewer orders, which takes money out of the pockets of couriers and restaurants. The City Council should think about how this law could hurt people like me who use Uber Eats to earn additional income and consider other ways to help Alameda residents and restaurants. I ask that you vote no on this proposed law.

Please listen to earners - don’t set arbitrary fee caps.

Regards,
Hellen castilho
777 Taylor Ave
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Enkhbat Lkhagva
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect my delivery earnings
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:45:52 PM
Dear Alameda . City Council,
I’m a Uber Eats earner who delivers in Alameda and I oppose the city’s attempts to place price controls on the fees that platforms like Uber Eats charge. This policy is unnecessary and could hurt couriers like me.

Please listen to earners - don’t set arbitrary fee caps.

Regards,
Enkhbat Lkhagva
1501 Union St Apt G
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Seth Smith
To: City Clerk; CityCouncil-List
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; Yibin Shen; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 5-F 2023- 2874 - City of Alameda Third-Party Food Delivery Ordinance Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:07:49 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Uber Letter to Alameda City Council re_ Third-Party Food Delivery Service Ordiance and UberEats Service (March 20, 2023).pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Dear Alameda City Clerk's Office,
Please find attached a letter from Uber Technologies Inc. addressed to the mayor, vice-mayor, city council, and staff opposing final passage of Agenda Item 5-F 2023- 2874, the City of Alameda Third-Party Food Delivery Ordinance.

I have copied the letter into the body of this email (below) for your convenience as well. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a good evening.

Respectfully,
-Seth Smith
___
Alameda City Council
℅: Alameda City Clerk’s Office
City of Alameda
March 21, 2023
RE: March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting, Consent Agenda Item 5-F 2023- 2874, Third-Party Food Delivery Services Ordinance
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Daysog, Councilmembers, and staff, We write to express deep concern with agenda item 5-F 2023- 2874, the Third-Party Food Delivery Services ordinance, which was supported by a 3-2 vote during the March 7, 2023 city council meeting and is on the March 21, 2023 city council consent agenda.

While we appreciate that this policy aims at providing predictability to consumers, couriers and merchants, it would have the exact opposite impact. The policy would implement price controls that are a sweeping and unprecedented regulatory overstep without justification. As drafted today, this ordinance may force Uber Eats to suspend delivery to City of Alameda residents. This would be hugely detrimental to the merchants, couriers and consumers who rely on food delivery.

Specifically, the various restrictions on customer facing fee structures, in the context of the bill’s other restrictions on third-party delivery platforms, raises serious concerns about our ability to operate a viable platform. Platforms require flexibility in determining how to cover costs attendant in running these platforms, including costs associated with changed circumstances and exogenous events. Platforms do not control item pricing -- merchants set those prices and collect sales proceeds. In fact, this ordinance prohibits platforms from adjusting item pricing. So platform viability depends on additional revenue to cover platform costs. And sometimes, as in any business environment, those costs change.

For example, state law regulates courier earnings. We fully support this state law and the earnings it mandates. But that leaves the question of how to financially support those earnings. This law would prohibit all the various mechanisms towards that end, by enacting limits on merchant-facing commissions AND consumer fees. These overlapping restrictions impede the ability to remain viable over time. Consumer- facing fees are transparently disclosed to customers prior to placing an order on the Uber Eats platform and are also displayed on a consumer’s receipt. This transparency assures that consumers make an informed choice whether to order food from a restaurant using a third-party platform.

As temporary emergency health orders come to an end across the state, we encourage policymakers to review the effectiveness of these policies before considering extensions, and the importance of providing certainty to a growing market. We appreciate that the proposed policy around merchant fees seeks to assure restaurants as to the availability of low cost delivery, while allowing merchants flexibility to enter into arrangements that meet their different business goals.

However, the requirement of a written waiver in order for merchants to avail themselves of services and benefits beyond the Core Product Offering is unnecessary where that merchant’s choice is already enshrined in a valid business- to-business contract.

As such, we respectfully request the council REJECT final passage of this ordinance as it is currently written and direct staff to consider language similar to the San Francisco DNC Fee Cap amendment.

We appreciate the responsiveness the City has shown on this issue and thank you for your attention to this important matter. Please let us know if you have any questions or need any additional information moving forward.

Very Respectfully,
Seth Smith
California Policy and Communications Manager
Uber Technologies, Inc.
--
Seth Smith
Public Policy Manager | California
Uber

From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Resource Re: March 21st Consent Item 5-F
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:34:01 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Opinion- Caps on restaurant delivery app fees do more harm than good_Lilly Rocha_East Bay Times.pdf ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kristen Brown <[email protected]>
Date: Mar 21, 2023 10:55 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Resource Re: March 21st Consent Item 5-F To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc:

Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Hello Councilmember Spencer,
I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing today to thank you for your vote of opposition in the Council's March 7th decision regarding the limits placed on third-party food delivery services, which will return for final consideration on the consent agenda at tonight's City Council meeting.

In advance of tonight's meeting, I'd like to provide you with a copy of today's East Bay Times Op-Ed written by the Executive Director of the Latino Restaurant Association, Lilly Rocha. I hope you will review this article and use it as a resource for reconsideration of the Council's previous action on this matter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Take Care,
Kristen
--
Kristen Brown (She/Her)
Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations
Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series
M: 831.435.0806
Connect with us: Twitter
| LinkedIn | Facebook

Op
i
n
i
o
n
:

Ca
p
s

re
s
ta
u
ra
n
t

del
i
ver
y

app

fe
e
s

mo
r
e

har
m

th
a
n

good

Ci
t
y

o
f

Al
a
m
e
d
a

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

wi
l
l

h
u
r
t

s
m
a
l
l

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
’

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

s
u
r
v
i
v
e

i
n

a
n

u
l
t
r
a
-
com
pet
i
t
i
ve
envi
r
onm
ent
.

LI
LLY

RO
CHA

PUBL
I
SHED:

Ma
r
c
h

2 1
,

2023,

5:
00 a.
m
.

| U
P
D
A
T
E
D
:

Ma
r
c
h

2 1
,

2 0
2 3

a
t

5 :
0 5

a
.
m.

Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

a
r
e

a
n

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

p
a
r
t

o
f

Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
’
s

v
i
b
r
a
n
t

e
c
o
n
o
m
y
.

Th
e
y

c
r
eat
e
j
ob
oppor
t
uni
t
i
es,

fo
s
te
r c
o
m
m
u
n
i
ty
b
y
b
ri
n
g
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
to
g
e
th
e
r, p
ro
v
i
d
e
a
d
i
v
e
rs
e
ra
n
g
e
o
f d
i
n
i
n
g
o
p
ti
o
n
s
fo
r b
o
th

lo
c
a
ls

a
n
d

t
o
u
r
is
t
s
,

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
ib
u
t
e

t
o

t
h
e

o
v
e
r
a
ll
v
it
a
lit
y

a
n
d

c
u
lt
u
r
e

o
f

o
u
r

c
it
ie
s
.

Li
l
l
y
R
ocha
i
s
execut
i
ve
di
r
ect
or

t
he
Lat
i
no
R
est
aur
ant

A
ssoci
at
i
on.

Ho
we
v
e
r
,

d
e
s
p
i
t
e

t
h
e

n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

t
h
e
y

b
r
i
n
g
,

l
o
c
a
l

p
o
l
i
c
y
m
a
k
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

o
f

Al
a
m
e
d
a

to
n
i
g
h
t w
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
er

i
m
posi
ng
st
r
i
ct

l
i
m
i
t
at
i
ons
on
t
hese
sm
al
l

busi
nesses
t
hat

coul
d
negat
i
vel
y
im
p
a
c
t

t
h
e
ir

b
o
t
t
o
m

lin
e

a
n
d

t
h
e
ir

a
b
ilit
y

t
o

s
u
r
v
iv
e

a
n

u
lt
r
a
-
com
pet
i
t
i
ve
envi
r
onm
ent
.

Fo
r

t
h
e

p
a
s
t

t
h
r
e
e

y
e
a
r
s
,

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

d
e
a
l
t

b
l
o
w
a
f
t
e
r

b
l
o
w,

t
r
y
i
n
g

t
o

s
t
a
y

af
l
oat

and
sur
vi
ve
di
f
f
i
cul
t

t
i
m
es.

Just

one
year

i
nt
o
t
he
pandem
i
c,

near
l
y

th
i
rd

Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
’
s

re
s
ta
u
ra
n
ts

cl
osed

due
t
o
t
hei
r

i
nabi
l
i
t
y
t
o
m
ake
ends
m
eet
.

W
hat

r
est
aur
a
nt

ow
ner
s
deser
ve
i
s
a
br
eak
and
a
fa
i
r s
h
o
t a
t s
u
c
c
e
s
s
fu
l
l
y
ru
n
n
i
n
g
th
e
i
r b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
g
a
i
n
.

Ye
t

l
o
c
a
l

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

y
e
t

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

b
a
r
r
i
e
r

i
n

t
h
e
i
r

wa
y

by
per
m
anent
l
y
l
i
m
i
t
i
ng
t
he
w
ay
r
est
aur
ant
s
w
or
k
w
i
t
h
t
he
app
-
b
ased
f
ood
del
i
ver
y
ser
vi
ces
t
hat

hel
p
r
est
aur
ant
s
i
ncr
ease
t
hei
r

sal
es
and
gr
ow

t
hei
r

busi
nesses.

T
hi
s
shor
t
-
si
ght
ed
pol
i
cy
change
is

h
a
p
p
e
n
in
g

ju
s
t

w
e
e
k
s

a
f
t
e
r

L
o
s

A
n
g
e
le
s
-
ar
ea
ci
t
i
es
such
as
B
ever
l
y
H
i
l
l
s
passed
t
hi
s
busi
ness
lim
it
in
g

r
e
s
t
r
ic
t
io
n
,

a
n
d

sever
al

Ba
y

Ar
e
a

ci
t
i
es

ar
e
now

consi
der
i
ng
doi
ng
t
he
sam
e.

Pr
i
c
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
,

l
e
d

b
y

l
a
r
g
e
r

c
i
t
i
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

L
o
s

An
g
e
l
e
s

a
n
d

Sa
n

Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,

m
a
d
e
sense
dur
i
ng
th
e
h
e
i
g
h
t o
f th
e
p
a
n
d
e
m
i
c
w
h
e
n
re
s
ta
u
ra
n
ts
h
a
d
n
o
o
p
ti
o
n
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
ry
a
n
d
ta
k
e
o
u
t. B
u
t a
s

our

i
ndust
r
y
r
et
ur
ns
t
o
nor
m
al
,

so
shoul
d
our

pol
i
ci
es.

W
hi
l
e
t
her
e
ar
e
pl
ent
y
of

w
ays
l
ocal

gover
nm
ent
s
coul
d
hel
p
r
est
aur
ant
s,

ext
endi
ng
a
dr
as
ti
c
p
a
n
d
e
m
i
c
-
er
a
pol
i
cy
i
s
not

one
of

t
hem
.

Pl
a
c
i
n
g

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

p
r
i
c
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
n

a
p
p
-
based
f
ood
del
i
ver
y
ser
vi
ces
can
have
a
det
r
i
m
ent
al

ef
f
ect

on
t
he
r
est
aur
ant

i
ndust
r
y,

hi
nder
i
ng
i
t
s
r
ecover
y.

W
hi
l
e
t
he
i
nt
ent
i
on
behi
nd
est
abl
i
shi
ng
caps
m
ay
have
been
a
we
l
l
-
me
a
n
i
n
g

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

w
o
r
s
t

d
a
y
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
a
n
d
e
mi
c
,

l
i
mi
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

am
ount

m
oney
t
hat

r
est
aur
ant
s
can
choose
t
o
pay
f
or

ser
vi
ces,

such
as
m
ar
ket
i
ng
and
del
i
ver
i
es,

can
si
gni
f
i
cant
l
y
i
m
pact

t
hei
r

abi
l
i
t
y
t
o
oper
at
e
and
t
ur
n
t
he
cor
ner

t
ow
ar
d
sust
ai
nabi
l
i
t
y.

Th
i
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
o
l
i
c
y

i
s

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

i
n

s
e
a
r
c
h

o
f

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

e
v
e
r
y

m
a
j
o
r

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m

al
r
eady
of
f
er
s
a
15%

del
i
ver
y
opt
i
on
—

th
e
s
a
m
e
c
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
s
th
e
p
ri
c
e
c
o
n
tro
l
s
b
e
i
n
g

pr
oposed.

A
s
w
e
m
ove
f
or
w
ar
d
f
r
om

t
he
pandem
i
c,

i
t

does
not

m
a
ke
sense
t
o
per
m
anent
l
y
codi
f
y
pol
i
ci
es
t
hat

w
er
e
desi
gned
t
o
br
i
ng
pandem
i
c
r
el
i
ef
.

A
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

p
r
i
c
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

c
o
u
l
d

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
n

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

b
y

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
s
,

m
a
k
i
n
g

f
o
o
d

del
i
ver
i
es
l
ess
accessi
bl
e
f
or

m
any
r
esi
dent
s,

hur
t
i
ng
cust
om
er
s,

r
est
aur
ant
s
and

Da
s
h
e
r
s

i
n

o
u
r

re
g
i
o
n
e
q
u
a
l
l
y
. H
i
s
to
ry
s
h
o
w
s
th
a
t p
ri
c
e
c
o
n
tro
l
s
l
i
k
e
th
i
s
o
n
e
d
o
n
’
t w
o
rk
a
n
d
a
re
m
o
re
l
i
k
e
l
y
to

dam
age
com
pet
i
t
i
on
i
n
t
he
l
ong
r
un.

A
s
ot
her

r
egi
ons
w
i
t
h
si
m
i
l
ar

l
aw
s
have
exper
i
enced,

t
ot
al

or
der
s
pl
aced
w
i
t
h
r
est
aur
ant
s
coul
d
dr
op
by
m
o
re
th
a
n
1 0
%
, re
s
u
l
ti
n
g
i
n
s
i
g
n
i
fi
c
a
n
t l
o
s
s
e
s
fo
r
re
s
ta
u
ra
n
ts
a
n
d
s
ta
te
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
g
o
v
e
rn
m
e
n
ts
th
ro
u
g
h
l
o
s
t ta
x
e
s
.

Po
l
i
c
y
m
a
k
e
r
s

a
r
e

e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

o
n
e
-
si
ze
-
fi
ts
-
al
l

sol
ut
i
on,

but

t
he
best

w
ay
t
o
suppor
t

our

l
ocal

re
s
ta
u
ra
n
ts
i
s
to
p
ro
v
i
d
e
th
e
m
w
i
th
th
e
fl
e
x
i
bi
l
i
t
y
t
o
choose
t
he
ser
vi
ces
t
hat

best

f
i
t

t
hei
r

uni
que
needs.

B
y
l
i
m
i
t
i
ng
t
hei
r

opt
i
ons,

w
e
ar
e
hi
nder
i
ng
t
hei
r

abi
l
i
t
y
t
o
r
ecover

and
ul
t
i
m
at
el
y
har
m
i
ng
t
he
over
al
l

econom
i
c
heal
t
h
of

our

r
egi
on.

I u
rg
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
m
a
k
e
rs
to
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r th
e
n
e
g
a
ti
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t th
a
t
per
m
anent

pr
i
ce
cont
r
ol
s
w
oul
d
have
on
our

l
ocal

r
est
aur
ant
s
and
encour
age
t
hem

t
o
w
or
k
w
i
t
h
t
he
r
est
aur
ant

i
ndust
r
y
t
o
f
i
nd
sol
ut
i
ons
th
a
t s
u
p
p
o
rt re
c
o
v
e
ry
a
n
d
e
n
s
u
re
c
o
n
ti
n
u
e
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
. N
o
w
, m
o
re
th
a
n
e
v
e
r, w
e
n
e
e
d
to
c
o
m
e

to
g
e
th
e
r a
s
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
ty
to
s
u
p
p
o
rt o
n
e
a
n
o
th
e
r a
n
d
h
e
l
p
o
u
r b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
re
c
o
v
e
r fro
m
re
c
e
n
t
har
dshi
ps.

Let
’
s
not

cause
m
or
e
har
m

t
han
good.

Li
l
l
y

Ro
c
h
a

execut
i
ve

di
r
ect
or

th
e

Lat
i
no

Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t

As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

From: Tselmuun Dulguun
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 5-F
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 3:24:33 PM
I’m originally from Mongolia and live with my husband and two children in Alameda.

I started driving for DoorDash to help supplement my income while finishing my English language courses at Alameda College. I also use the money I earn to help pay for my son’s after-school activities.

The customers and restaurants that choose to use DoorDash do so voluntarily, so it doesn’t make sense for the City Council to step in and set arbitrary limits on those fees, especially now that there are no restrictions on restaurants because of the pandemic. DoorDash uses these fees to provide customers and restaurants with great service and to pay Dashers like me.

In other cities where these price controls have been passed, DoorDash has had to make changes to help cover costs. These changes could result in fewer orders, which takes money out of the pockets of Dashers and other delivery drivers. The City Council should think about how this law could hurt people like me who use DoorDash to generate additional income and consider other ways to help Alameda residents and restaurants. I ask that you vote no on this proposed law.

Sincerely,
Solongo Byambatsogt
From: Kathy Weber
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: Yibin Shen; Jennifer Ott; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 5-F 2023-2874
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:07:28 PM
Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers and City Staff,
We would like to clarify that our Association is in support of the final passage of 5-F 2023- 2874, the ordnance before you this evening.

After a conversation with the City Attorney and City Manager, we are in full support of continuing the 15% cap on app delivery fees as outlined in the ordinance and we will continue to advocate for our restaurants as we move ahead.

Thank you to City staff for their work on this issue and we are grateful for your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Kathy
Kathy Weber
Executive Director
Downtown Alameda Business Association
2447 Santa Clara Avenue, #302
Alameda, CA 94501
Direct: 510-319-3543
Main:
510-523-1392
[email protected]
www.downtownalameda.com
Find us on Facebook Twitter Pinterest & Instagram
#DowntownAlameda

From: Scott Gray
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment for Item 5-F
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 5:06:38 PM
I’m a resident of Alameda and I oppose the city’s attempts to place price controls on the fees that platforms like DoorDash charge customers and restaurants. This policy is unnecessary and could hurt Dashers like me.

I first started Dashing after learning about it from my son. Dashing gives me the ability to earn extra income when I’m not working my regular job and I appreciate the flexibility of being able to Dash on my own terms, usually listening to baseball games on the radio. It also gives me the opportunity to spend more time with my son.

DoorDash uses the fees it collects from customers and restaurants to make the service work. If the city limits what DoorDash can collect on each transaction, they may have to modify the level of service they provide in the city. This could easily hurt Dashers like me if the changes cause there to be fewer orders to deliver. This would also hurt customers and restaurants. Fee caps might have made sense when the pandemic first hit and restaurants had to shut their doors, but they don’t make sense now.

Sincerely,
Scott Gray

ALAMEDA

RESTAURANT

BAR

COALITION

City

council

meeting,

March

21,

2023
City

Attorney

Yibin

Shen

and

City

Manager

Jennifer

Ott
On

behalf

the

Alameda

Restaurant

Bar

Coalition,

Alameda

Chamber

and

Economic

Alliance,

West

Alameda

Business

Association,

and

Downtown

Alameda

Business

Association,

are

writing

clarify

our

position

item

and

the

ordinance

passed

City

Council

March

2023
,

regarding

Third-Party

Delivery

Services.

understand

that

the

City

Council

voted

3-2

favor

the

staff’s

recommendation

cap

merchants

and

consumers

15%

with

two-year

expiration.

recommend

amending

the

ordinance

instead

and

adopting

framework

San

Francisco

(attached).

Our

collective

associations,

representing

Alameda

restaurants

and

bars,

favor

placing

permanent

15%

cap

“core

delivery

services”

indefinitely

protect

our

merchants

and

give

merchants

choice

adding

extra

services.

Alameda

the

only

city

the

nation

adopt

extension

what

was

intended

temporary

emergency

ordinance

support

our

community

during

the

height

the

pandemic.

Neighboring

cities

have

let

the

moratorium

expire.

have

opportunity

Alameda

reach

compromise

that

protects

businesses

allowing

our

merchants

continue

provide

delivery

service

fair

market

price

while

permanently

locking

price

cap.

This

will

protect

our

merchants

third-party

delivery

services

raise

their

rates

again

after

two

years.

also

allows

the

flexibility

for

merchants

pay

increase

their

level

service,

e.g.

advertising/marketing

with

the

delivery

apps,

should

they

desire.

appreciate

all

the

City

staff’s

hard

work

and

effort

and

believe

the

ordinance,

drafted,

was

well

intended.

However,

the

language

does

nothing

protect

our

merchants

perpetuity

and

will

restrict

our

ability

serve

our

customers.

San

Francisco

created

model

compromise

that

works

for

all

parties

and

avoids

costly

legal

battles

that

waste

taxpayer

dollars.

We’d

ask

for

your

help

finding

similar

solution

that

protects

our

merchants,

best

serves

our

customers,

and

continues

foster

our

relationships

with

third-party

delivery

services.

look

forward

hearing

back

from

you

and

are

ready

meet

whenever

you

can

discuss

this

before

the

item

back

City

Council

for

second

reading

March

21,

2023
.

Madlen

Saddik,

President

and

CEO,

Alameda

Chamber

Economic

Alliance
Casey

Hunt,

Chairperson
Alameda

Restaurant

Bar

Coalition
Kathy

Weber,

Executive

Director,

Downtown

Alameda

Business

Association
Linda

Asbury,

Executive

Director,

West

Alameda

Business

Association

Alameda City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Alameda City Council
March 21, 2023