Council Policy Prioritization: Early Consideration Response Form DKƉƉƌŽǀĂů͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂƚĞͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
Department Rules Date Item Department Rep. Name/Ext. Council Member Sponsorship Policy/Ordinance Subject Staff Recommendation܆ GREEN Adopt based on tradeoffs outlined on next page
܆ YELLOW ZĞĨĞƌ to Priority^ĞƚƚŝŶŐ
ŽƌƚŽƵĚŐĞƚ Process
܆ RED Recommend Council not
adopt nominated idea
܆ NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR
MORE TIME TO EVALUATE
Staff Evaluation
/ƐƚŚŝƐĂligned with City Roadmap?
܆ Yes ܆ No
/ƐƚŚŝƐĂlready underway inĂ
DepĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ work plan?
܆ Yes ܆ No
/ƐƚŚŝƐƚime Đritical orĂŶ Ğmergency?
܆ Yes ܆ No
tŝůůƚŚŝƐƌequire substantialƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕
staffing͕ budget͕ŽƌƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ?
܆ Yes ܆ No
Criterion to Determine Scale of Project ComplexityProject complexity is determined by scoring the project in each of the 3 criterions below and then summing the score. a. Low Complexity is a sum of 6 or less.
b. Medium Complexity is a sum of 7 – 9.
c. High Complexity is a sum of 10 or greater.
Total Score =
Scoring Criterion
Low Complexity Medium Complexity High Complexity
Estimated Duration 6 – 9 months ܆ =1 9 - 18 months ܆ =2 More than 18 months ܆ =3 Organizational Complexity(Internal)
Can Easily be Absorbed into Existing Work Plan
܆ =1 Planned Work (Future) ܆ =2 Work Not Currently Proposed ܆ =3 Have staff with required skillset/knowledge
܆ =1 Have staff with required skillset/
requires moderate research
܆ =2 Do not have staff with required
skillsetͬrequires significant
research
3 =܆
Less than or equal 2 staff required
܆ =1 3 - 4 staff required ܆ =2 More than 5 staff required ܆ =3 (External) 1 Additional
Department
܆ =1 2 Other DepartmentƐ Involved ܆ =2 3 or more DepĂƌƚŵĞŶƚs Involved ܆ =3 DEPT.
Required ܆ Airport ܆ Auditor ܆ CMO ܆ OED/CA ܆ ESD ܆ Fire ܆ HR ܆ IT ܆ PRNS ܆ Police ܆ Retirement ܆ Attorney ܆ Clerk ܆ CMO – Budget ܆ Community Energy ܆ Finance ܆ Housing ܆ IPA ܆ Library ܆ PBCE ܆ PW ܆ DOT ܆CMOʹ ŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ܆ DKʹ City Manager's Office Rules Date 8/3/22 C.1
Omar Passons
Quick Build Interim Housing Considerations
Councilmember Cohen
✔ ✔
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
✔
✔✔✔✔
13 /s/ Lee Wilcox 8/2/2022
AnalysisExplain the rationale for staff recommendation, including any mitigating factors that need to be considered (recent legislative action, significant work plan changes, etc.). Please address the following as well. GREEN LIGHT: The Administration can implement this Nominated Idea under its current work plan. Item should be sent to Council to add to Department work plan. ;ϭͿ,ŽǁǁŝůůƚŚĞ/ĚĞĂďĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞĚ͍;ϮͿ If adopted͕ what isŝƚƐ impactĂŶĚͬŽƌtradeoff toƚŚĞ City Roadmap or ƚŽĂDepĂƌtŵĞŶƚ work plan͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ? ;ϯͿWhat is the minimum viable scope to moveƚŚĞ/ĚĞĂ forward and reduceŝƚƐ complexity? YELLOW LIGHT: The Administration recommends Council send this Nominated Idea to the Priority Setting Process due to (describe cost implications, workload impacts, or other factors). RED LIGHT: The Administration recommends Council not adopt this Nominated Idea due to (describe reason implementation would be difficult if not impossible – conflict with other laws, etc.).
Recommendation #1 aligns with existing work that is already well under way, including five community outreach and engagement sessions so far, the establishment of a webpage for dedicated community input on alternative sites, and a dedicated email with over 100 messages responded to thus far. Further webinars and in person sessions have been planned and existing webinars have been recorded and placed on the webpage for the public to review.The Administration responded to previous City Council and Rules Committee direction on Emergency Interim Housing (EIH) by bringing forth a comprehensive proposal on June 21, 2022. On that date, the City Council approved much of staff recommendation, and added additional work requirements. Recommendations #2a through 2c, #3 and #4 either require further clarity or create substantial additional burdens on staff resources due to additional work requirements. Additional information is below in the Analysis Section.
Analysis (Continued)
This memo includes recommendations that align with another memo before the Rules Committee, substantial recommendations that either require clarification or substantial additional resources to complete, and a recommendation that is different from Council direction on June 21, 2022. Recommendation #2a seeks to evaluate the legitimacy of placing EIH on a park site, but assumes a question still at issue. The Administration is reviewing the historical record together with the Charter and other relevant materials to determine whether, as the memo states, the location is a park. Recommendation #2b requires that all design work be paused while several additional steps are taken, which is not necessary to complete the evaluation sought. Further, the definition of "thorough" community conversation requires clarity to avoid disagreement about what standard would meet that definition. In addition,the requirement of responding to all community feedback establishes a barrier that may be resource intensive where, as has been the case already, dozens of individual form letters may be submitted with multiple follow up communications that can overwhelm staff's ability to complete the evaluation work being sought. As to Recommendation #2c, the definition of "completely vetted" needs clarity to ensure agreement in advance on the standard to be met and the further requirement that staff's evaluation be corroborated by the community shifts the burden of using expertise, research and sound judgment from professionals trained to consider the various factors at issue to non-City employees. To the extent "corroborated" is meant here only to indicate that the evaluation must be shared with the community, this may be a workable option. Recommendation #3 seeks to add an additional body of work to explore privately owned sites and consider public private partnerships for the siting of Emergency Interim Housing Communities. While there may be merit in considering all available and prudent options, this is an expansion of prior City Council direction that will require further staff resources to engage private property owners and assess the cost and feasibility of such options. This expansion is likely to have budget implications and given the scope of the need it would not contradict moving forward with the existing Council direction. This requirement was yellow lighted due to unknown budget and staffing implications at this time. Finally, Recommendation #4 seeks to eliminate a deadline established by the City Council/Rules Committee to ensure that these emergency housing communities get built in a timely way given the substantial number of unhoused people who are unsheltered in the City. The impact of this recommendation would be to further delay enhancing quality of life for unhoused people and creating healthy neighborhoods for all residents by decreasing burdens related to unmanaged encampment locations. Recommendations 2 through 4 have been recommended yellow because many of the recommendations contained add substantial, unplanned resource allocations, require clarity to be completed or create potential conflicts with existing City Council direction that must be resolved by the full Council. If the Rules and Open Government Committee desires to consider these recommendations they should move forward to the full Council.