Adoption of Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of Non-Urgency Ordinance: Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Adding Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers’ Decisions and Administrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently Suspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a Restated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8; Adoption of Resolution Establishing Relocation in Accordance with the City of Alameda's Rent Control Ordinance; and Recommendation to Approve the Content of the Rent Registration Statement. (Rent Stabilization Fund 265)
last three years to to strengthen renter protections and to update the ordinance. And there was a ballot measure in November of 2018 that if it had been successful, it would have precluded the council from making any amendments to the ordinance by enshrining in the city charter and subjecting it to a vote of the people. That charter amendment was not approved, and therefore, in spring of this year, the Council began the process to update the ordinance as it saw fit. And in spring council took two actions. One, it removed the sunset clause from the 2016 ordinance, which had a provision that the rent program would terminate in December of this year, December 31st , that sunset clause was removed. In addition, the City Council adopted an Ellis Act policy which spells out the guidelines for landlords who are interested in going out of the rental business. Then the council adopted two more ordinances this summer. One ordinance was to adopt what are called just cause eviction protections, essentially saying that tenants cannot be terminated for no cause. There has to be a just cause or a no fault to terminate a tenancy. And then the Council adopted an annual general adjustment, and that is essentially a maximum allowable annual rent increase bank of that rent increase and a rent registration program this evening. There are a series of other amendments that are before the council and they are being presented as two ordinances. One is an emergency ordinance and one is a non-emergency ordinance. The contents of the two ordinances are identical, except that one would take effect immediately and the non urgency ordinance would have a second read in 15 days and then take effect 30 days after that. Or in 45 days. I'm going to quickly run through the key proposed amendments that are part of the ordinance this evening. So I talked about the just cause and the annual general adjustment. Those two ordinances that were passed this summer are essentially folded into this ordinance. As I said, just cause is a requirement for rental properties. And rent registration is also an obligation for all rental units, multifamily and single family. And then the annual general adjustment rent banking. And the petition process applies to multifamily units built before 1995 under the new rent stabilization framework in the city. Rents are not regulated for single family homes, condominiums and multifamily units built after 1995. The city is not allowed to control the rents of those units because of the cost of Hawkins state legislation, which preempts local jurisdictions from providing rent control to those types of units. So those units will not be regulated when it comes to rent increases. As I go through these changes, some of these changes were actually approved previously by the Council in Ordinance 3180. That ordinance was referenda and subsequently rescinded by the Council. So we have brought back some amendments that were previously approved by the Council that are included in this ordinance and when they were previously approved by the Council as part of ordinance 3180, I will point that out just so the Council knows what was previously approved. So we clarify a number of definitions, and some of those key definitions are natural disasters. We specify that relocation payments are not required when tenants vacate due to a natural disaster. However, because there may be some dispute about whether or not a landlord contributed to a fire or two other kinds of disasters. There is an appeal process that's provided for in the ordinance and a hearing officer. If that if there is a discussion about was it a fault of the landlord or a fault of the tenant, that kind of thing can be adjudicated with a hearing officer. We are expanding under this ordinance eviction protection to Section eight housing choice voucher holders previously not covered by the termination protections in the ordinance. And then we are providing some specificity to units that are not subject to the regulations. Just to kind of clarify houseboats, dormitories, temporary housing for homeless people, those kinds of things are are made clear in the ordinance. And then we have also specified that rent cannot be increased within the first 12 months of a tenancy. It's already the case that you can't increase rent more than once every 12 months. But this clarifies that you cannot increase your rent within the first 12 months. Temporary tenancies are authorized, and this is something a concept that was previously approved by the Council in Ordinance 3180. Where are the concept of a temporary tenancy in that tenancy is authorized and it is pretty narrowly prescribed in the ordinance to qualify for a temporary tenancy. That unit must be the landlord's primary residence. You cannot do a temporary tenancy in excess of 12 months. However, in recognition of the city's long standing history and residency of folks in the military, for instances where the landlord is in active military or the tenant is an active military, a temporary tenancy can be extended for up to five years if it's in connection with a military assignment. When a tenant when a temporary tenant vacates after a maximum of 12 months, the landlord must reside in the property for one year. That's to prevent serial temporary tenancies. And then associated temporary tenancies are exempt from the ordinance, and no relocation payments are required to be paid when a tenant vacates the unit. We have made revisions to the owner move in requirements under the existing ordinance. After an owner moves in, the owner must side in the unit for one year. We are recommending that the council amend that and require the owner to reside in the unit for three years. That's a best practice. That's typically what most rent controlled jurisdictions require is that the owner live in the unit for three years. We are limiting the frequency to only one owner move in termination allowed every 24 months. So an example of this is an owner move in. There are enumerated relatives who qualify as owners. If you move your parents into one unit, you cannot. Then the next month move your grandkids into another unit or your cousins into another unit. It's one owner move in termination every 24 months. And then if the landlord violates the provisions of the owner moving requirements, the rent for the new unit is restricted to that of the prior tenant before the owner move in, termination was exercised. We have clarified in the ordinance buyout agreements. Buyout agreements have been allowed over the life of the ordinance. However, while staff thinks it's important to continue to allow that option of a buyout agreement, we think that there are some administrative things that we should require of those buyout agreements, and those include the buyout offer needs to inform the tenant of their rights under the ordinance that the tenant has the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing and that the landlord must file the buyout agreement with the rent program. A new concept that's been introduced in this ordinance is a requirement that we're calling relocation payment for constructive evictions, and that constructive eviction is being defined as a rent increase, regardless of whether it's a cost to Harkins exempt or a cost to Harkins nonexempt unit. If there is a rent increase in excess of 10% and a tenant elects to vacate the unit within 90 days of receiving the notice, essentially determining that the tenant cannot afford to pay the rent at that increased level, the tenant would be entitled to relocation benefits. This this item, the program fee passthrough is also something that was previously approved by the council as part of 3180, and it allows the landlord to pass up to 50% of the annual rent program to each tenant, and that with the caveat that any pass through must be in 12 equal installments the current year , the current year's fee is $106. If you did the math, that would be $4.41 a month to 50% of the one I was six over 12 monthly installments. We will be doing a fee study and we will be coming to the Council with a recommendation about a new fee for the new fiscal year. That will start July 1st of 2020 and we hope to have that fee study to the council in next spring. Another substantive change that is being recommended in the ordinance is the provision of relocation payments. The ordinance had a lot of discussion about relocation payments in the body of the ordinance 3148. We are essentially taking out kind of the guts of the relocation payments and suggesting that the council adopt the actual relocation amount by resolution. So you have a resolution before you this evening that would set the new relocation benefits. We have moved to a different formula, and part of this was informed by the work that management partners did for the city, looking at our relocation benefits, where they recommended that the city move to a formula that was based on the fair market rents. So the new relocation payments for permanent relocation and the resolution before you this evening deals with both relocation, permanent relocation benefits and temporary relocation benefits. So tackling permanent relocation first, the permanent relocation benefits are based on two months of first and last fair market rent. And fair market rent is based on the bedroom size of your unit, actual moving expenses and other factors such as taxes, relocation payments, our income. So the idea is to make a tenant whole and the moving expenses. Um, we did a survey and took a look at what it cost and we had an existing relocation, a moving expense that was set by the Council and adjusted by CPI. So that's the rolled up. Those are all the factors that roll up to the relocation amount. The this ordinance would eliminate the option to trade more time for less relocation benefits. And then we also introduced the concept of qualified tenant households, which are households that with seniors with seniors 62 and older minor children under the age of 18 and disabled tenants would be eligible for enhanced relocation payments, the assumption being that there may be more challenges to a qualified tenant household to finding a new place to live . So this slide shows what the proposed relocation benefits would be for the for the current year. And they're listed in they're included in a resolution. And I would just point out that the average relocation benefit over the life of the program since its inception was is between eight and $9,000 is the average relocation payment. The ordinance has always provided for temporary relocation payments, but we never came up to date with a temporary relocation amount. So once again, the resolution includes a temporary relocation amount, and temporary relocation would be provided when a unit is vacated due to a government order where there was a health or safety conditions other than those resulting from a natural disaster. And it's based on the per diem cost to be temporarily relocated in the city of Alameda. So you can see what the temporary relocation costs are. And I would point out that if a tenant is temporarily relocated, they are obligated to continue to pay rent while they are temporarily relocated. So the landlord will be getting rent but will be paying out temporary relocation benefits. Last meeting, the council adopted the the rent registry, and there was some discussion and concerns expressed about what would be the kinds of questions that would be asked in a rent registration form and what would be the privacy issues surrounding the information that was collected. And the Council requested that the rent registration form come back to it for its consideration and approval. This is a screenshot of the rent registration form. It's an exhibit to the staff report. Pretty much all the information that we are asking is public information. If there is a public records request, there is very little information that can be redacted. And most of the information that can be redacted is that requesting contact information for both landlords and tenants. Name, phone number, address, email. All of that is information that could be redacted, but information about rental housing, services provided that kind of thing. If there is a public records request, it is highly likely that the attorney's office would determine that the information for the public outweighs the privacy of the individual. I would like to say that as staff is proposing the rent registry, the only people who would have access to the rent registry is landlords who would have access to this information for their specific units. So landlords could access the information for their units, and that would be the only universe of the public accessing the rent registry . It is possible in the kind of 2.0 iteration of the rent registry, there would be an ability for tenants to access the information on their unit. And the idea is when the rent registration program, which is effective now, today, officially the annual maximum rent is that we will be notified or the rent program will be notifying both the landlord and the tenants of the maximum allowable rent increase and the maximum allowable new rent, and that the tenant would have that ability to check that information against the programs database by calling the rent program. So this is the rent registration form that staff is proposing. And we're asking the council's approval of it this evening. So in summary, the recommendation is to introduce two ordinances, urgency and honored, and see the amendments highlighted in the presentation to adopt the resolution establishing the temporary and permanent relocation benefits and to approve the rent registration statement that's in the staff report. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And Ms.. Potter. And thank you for for your report. Do you want to just let the audience know about these upcoming workshops that are going to be presented for people who would like more information about these new changes? So the rent program staff is running a series of workshops that start next week, but not. And I'm going to I'll ask Greg Katz to come up the rent program director and give the times and the topics for the workshops. But they will be scheduling workshops throughout the fall so that folks can get more information about the changes that are in place. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll have Mr. Katz come up at some point wherever he is. Okay. And I bet we have public speakers on this item. 1616. So far. But while we're waiting for the city clerk's office to get the the speaker's steps organized, does anyone have any clarifying questions on the staff report? Yes. Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. We're following Councilmember. I mean, Miss Potter's advice. Everybody speak right into your microphones and kind of loud. We don't want to sound gravelly. But thanks, Miss Potter, for all your work on that. So just a few brief questions. So this constructive eviction, 10% increase. Can you remind us because there was a 90 day opt out provision. What is the notice requirement for a 10% increase? Is it 60 days or is it longer? A rent increase in excess of 10% is a 60 day notice. Okay. So it looks like there would have to be one month where the tenant would pay the increased rent. Or maybe more. Well, they they can move out any time in that 90 day period if they are unable to pay the rent increase and are interested in the relocation benefits of the max. The outside date is 90 days after the notice. Okay. Thank you. Then on on the Costa Hawkins units, we had a process that required going to the rack but didn't have a binding decision so that that process is now taken away, just to be clear. That's correct. We are eliminating any regulation of rent increases for the Costa Hawkins exempt units. Okay. But there is there still going to be a voluntary program that people call the progress log? Sorry, the rent program staff, they are all trained mediators and they are big believers in mediation and they are happy to mediate when there are two consenting parties to mediate rent increases, that is a service they will continue to provide. Okay. And the the relocation average, I think you mentioned the numbers 28. And I mean, do we have an estimate of, you know, what relocation average would have been under the new proposal? Because it seems to me it's probably going to be pretty much the same. Yeah, I we could probably figure that out because this new rent relocation is tied to bed unit, the bedroom, the number of bedrooms. That's not how the prior calculation was, the number of years you lived in your unit. We probably could figure that out, but maybe not at this meeting. Okay. I think there were some concerns raised in the staff report about the impact on landlords on making Section eight units available. I mean, do we have any data on whether or not I know it just recently, but since we put our just cause ordinance in, if there's, you know, an uptick or a downtick. So I believe you're referring to the housing choice voucher program, which is the program that makes Section eight vouchers available in the private sector where landlords rent to Section eight tenants. It's completely voluntary, and it is sometimes challenging to find tenants in a hot rental market who are willing to take a Section eight tenant. Landlords to find. Landlords. Thank you. When when the max rent is set by the payment standard. So we do currently have over 75 tenants with vouchers looking for housing in the city of Alameda. And the the thought is if the council were to extend just cause eviction protections to housing choice voucher holders, that that could depress the interest on the part of landlords to take Section eight tenants. We don't know whether that will happen because the ordinance is not yet in effect, but it is certainly something that the housing authority will be able to track because they'll know how quickly the vouchers can get absorbed in the market. And then the long term effect of that is if the housing authority is unable to place voucher holders with private sector landlords, they will lose the funding potential for vouchers in the future. So it is something that is of concern and will need to be tracked. Okay. Well, that was my next question. Can you track that and report to us if we're seeing that? Because, you know, I would think if if that fear is true, then the opposite would have been true, that when just cause was put in and Section eight was exempted, that we would have seen an uptick in Section eight given that people could be evicted. If you attribute bad motive to landlords, you know, regarding. Just correlation and you know, yeah, that's a hard thing. And I would say the item after this item tonight would prohibit discrimination based on source of income and that may provide offsetting protections to Section eight voucher holders. It remains to be seen. So then I think there's also an exemption if we have contracts for housing services that provide some type of of just cause protection. Right. Right. We the ordinance since 2016 has exempted units with regulatory agreements, governmental regulatory agreements in place. And do we know if those are stronger or weaker than our protections or. Um, and they where, for example, if you have a regulatory agreement because you are a tax credit project, you have to have just cause to evict a tenant. And then two more. So housing authority properties are still excluded from this, right? Most housing authority projects are subject to regulatory agreements. Okay. And last question. I have. We talked about the registry. Is there going to be some report back to to the council on what type of reports you're going to start generating and providing to us, you know, with the data in the registry? And when can we expect that if the answer is yes? Okay. So the ordinance continues to require an annual report updating the council about the rent program. So I would imagine that council would see all of that in the next annual report, not the annual report. It would be the annual report for this current fiscal year for the 1920 fiscal year. So would be back before the council in the fall of 2020. Okay. Actually, one more. I'm sorry. So we talked about natural disasters and fire. And I recall it was maybe two years ago there was a fire on central on the other side of park. And last I recall, those units were not finished being repaired. I mean, would we consider that particular instance? And if you have to come back with the facts, that's fine. You know something where it would be a natural disaster, where nobody's entitled to relocation or an instance where there would be a temporary relocation and kind of what I would say, an incentive to get repairs done quickly. Right. So the issue that would govern whether or not the tenant was entitled to relocation would be the cause of the fire if the fire was caused by some sort of negligence of the landlord versus, you know, the house next door caught on fire. And then it traveled to that that house. I do know that it's often the case that the insurance company is why it takes a really long time before stuff starts to get fixed. But if the fire is the result of no fault of the landlord or no fault of the tenant, relocation payments would not be paid. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Any other council clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you, Miss Potter. Okay, let's move on to public speakers. And how many do we have now? Now we're up to 17. 17, so 18 and probably counting. Okay, counsel, we we don't do three minute speaking times when we're over that, you know, even a smaller number. So we agreed to 2 minutes per speaker. That's the default. That is the default. I mean, we could change it, but 2 minutes sounds good to everyone. Okay. So we suggested the audience knows. Again, we want to hear from all of you, but then we also need time for the counsel to deliberate. So my ask is simply listen for your name. The clerk will probably call three names, be ready to slip out and start down the aisle when you hear your name called. And please audience as much as you like something, don't applaud. And also no boos. No jeers, no doing the wave. You've heard me. Many of you say this before. We want everyone to find that it's a comfortable place to come and speak to the Alameda City Council. I don't want anyone intimidated. You are all entitled to your opinion. We don't have to agree with each other, but I think we do need to listen to each other and communicate with civility, hopefully. So. Anyway, with that, let's get started with our first speakers. Alan Teague, Harry McCurdy and Tristan Schmidt. Good evening. You all know who I am by now. I'm surprised at the position of the housing authority of the city limit on this change has not been presented prior to public testimony. This change affects them as well as housing choice landlords and tenants. I've been an active participant in the Housing Choice Voucher system for more than a decade. My guideline has been to follow the payment standard and to keep the tenants share stable. I voluntarily lowered the rent at times. Currently, I've been willing to give marginal tenants a chance, as there are defined processes for how to deal with those when it does not work out. While I believe the situation with a Holocaust survivor is abhorrent, you could make a very targeted change and only remove the termination where a landlord wants to obtain a higher rent. All of the rest of the ordinance could continue not to apply. At the very least, you need to clarify that the HUD payment does not count as accepting partial payment of rent and the failure to pay rent section of the eviction and terminations. And you also need to waive the program fee as the tenants cannot absorb even half of the rent fee when their share is in the double digits. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Harry McCurdy. And we're taking a mic to him. Okay. And I'm going to ask the clerk's office, the clerks, would you please list like three speakers in advance so people can be. Ready next month? Tristan Schmidt Maybe you can line up over on this wall here, Connie, Shazia and then Austin Tam. All right. Hello, Mayor. City council members. Yes, hello. My name is Harry McCurdy. My name is Harry McCurdy. I'm a 25 year resident of your beautiful city here in Alameda and a 25 year resident of the Dunes Apartments, a two, four, four, five shoreline drive. I have been treated well by the by the management of the apartment and the owners. On the other hand, I look at it as a tenant and say that I have a great deal of empathy, especially for somebody who has gone through what has been involved in the Holocaust, that they should be treated fairly and that someone should not gouge them with excessive rent increases. I think that Section eight is certainly appropriate use of. Money and for payment of a rent. I don't I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. I simply am telling you what my experience is and what I hope for. Is for as. The future. What you've already done as far as negotiations between the different parties and the different interest groups. Thank you for the work that you do. And please remain just. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks. Okay. Our next speaker, Dean Smith and Connie Schultz, then Austin ten. Okay. Is Tristin Smit here? Okay. Okay. All right. So maybe not here. Okay. Okay. I sent him, then, Connie. Oh, I'm sorry. Connie. Connie. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Good evening to the Council of Alameda, California. I live in Alameda for 28 years, and I am very concerned about Section eight, Section eight, voucher holder. Where I live, they don't accept a voucher anymore. They haven't for years. They have different owners quite often and now seems like they're going to be selling the property again. So I am concerned myself and some of my neighbors if they're going to get rid of us. So I will ask the Council if they can consider expanding the protection for the Section eight tenants. Um. Definitely be okay. Thank you. Next is Austin Tam, then Donna Fisher, then Michael Fisher. Good evening. Mayor and city council. My name is often Tam and I want to say I am not related to Margaret Tam, who has who has been treating these tenants like trash. I want to I want to tell you how shameful and immoral, unacceptable and inhumane this has been. This is a disgrace that that's been happening to Barbara Jordan and the rest of the tenants, that it is ridiculous. If you are especially if you guys are for decent people with disabilities, you guys need to do something. A blood is on our hands because we cannot treat them, treat the most vulnerable. Mayor When we talk about treating the vulnerable, they are the ones who are invisible. They are the Barbara joiners, the mouses, the everyone else, the invisible. It's like we have to, like, literally go on the media and go on The Guardian or New York Times to get our issue across. I just ask you, you know, to to support these people and to not allow them to be to be left homeless on the streets like this is disgraceful. I mean, our grandmothers, our mothers are like people. We are we know people who are disabled. And this is ridiculous that you're going to treat them like crap and trash and treat them like like there's no one else's business. I mean, it is it's ridiculous. And there's 2019 right now. I mean, back then, I mean, this there's people with disabilities used to be in facilities, mental institutions, and and they just have no ramps and no other things. And this is discrimination. I mean I mean, this should be open for lawsuit. I mean, I'm surprised that people are so, so not disturbed by what's happening. And it's interesting that I, as a person who has a disability and disability advocates have to advocate been because people who have disabilities have to advocate for themself half the time . But I'm asking you to to do something, because we are not going to win. We are we will be will do whatever it means necessary to make sure that they are not left homeless because we are going to be guilty. Guilty, just as guilty. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Tam. And our next speakers are. Donna Fisher, then Michael Fisher, then Edward Rybak. Okay. Ms.. Fisher. Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi, I'm Donna Fisher. My husband and I own four apartments in Alameda that are covered by the new rent control ordinance. Our tenants. Like us. We like our tenants. We take pride in keeping our units the way we would want to live in them. It is getting harder and harder with these new ordinances. A few things I want to point out that must be considered relocation. Payments for no fault. Evictions. While we agree, there is logic to tying them to what HUD says are the rents for our area. They really need to be tied to what the rents are for. Alameda. None of our units earn any of that amount of money and they just don't. And we would never increase them that high. Also, on these relocation payments for no fault evictions, interestingly, that goes up every year based on the CPI increase. Why not seven 70% like rent increases? We shouldn't have it both ways. I also want to talk about relocation fees for temporary relocations. I think City Council needs to rereview the rates that were stated. I know they gave $335 a night for temporary hotel. Not including all the other items I checked today for hotels for Thursday night at three local hotel. I found them ranging from $50 to a high of 229. For a best western way. Side on Embarcadero. There is nothing that high. I don't know where the number comes from. Also, interestingly, if we use the nightly fee suggested for somebody with studio apartment one dog, if we did it for a month, it would cost us ten months rent. Also, final thing I want you to know, on the back, on the 70% of the CPI, nothing of ours has increased by less than the CPI. Even our real estate taxes year over year and I look. 17 to 18 have gone up four and a half. Percent. Also are utilities 50% year over year, increased usage more higher occupancy in the units. And then we had an unfortunate uninsurable situation that cost us thousands. At this rate, we won't be able to keep doing it and no one else will come in. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Rochester. Now, you did well. And now is it Mr. Fisher? Yes, Mr. Fisher. We don't see time, but on. Medication, he just had surgery. But whatever. Who. Who put in the speaker's slip? Is. Is is. Mr. Fisher came here, took the elevator up. Okay, Mike. To him. Okay. Would you like us to bring the mic to you, sir? Or. Or if I miss Fisher, if you would like to speak. Do you have his statement? Okay. I guess we're told we both are the landlords there. Okay, but don't be 2 minutes for him. Okay. Come on back. We will make an exception that okay with everybody. Is fresh out of surgery. Yes. No. I'm Donna Fisher speaking for Michael Fisher, my husband. Oh, stop. Okay. So we have to hear from the city attorney, Mr. Chen. Madam Mayor, unfortunately, your rules do not allow donation of time. Okay. It's changed than it used to. Well, they did. And then we made a change. Okay. And can the council not? We can't vote to overrule that. The council could vote to suspend any. You know. I don't think. So. I'll make that motion. Second. We have a motion and a second to suspend the rule for this. I'm going to be clear for this. When Speaker in this instance do as we have a motion the second all in favor. I. I believe that's unanimous. Okay. You may have 2 minutes. Okay. So I'm speaking for Michael, although I agree with him. Michael is the manager. This has been what he does. And to him, the most important thing is the landlord tenant relationship. And it hurts him to know we may not be able to maintain to the same standards because he gets calls in the middle of the night like , Oh, something's not working there in Alameda. He goes right over. He gets calls from someone saying, I'm already on the freeway on my way to work. I think I left the iron on. He goes right over. He actually, two days after surgery, snuck out on me and drove over and somehow managed to get up steps. I'm just saying, the things you go through, you give your heart and soul. Our tenants know it and this is very much going to hurt the relationship when we're not able to continue to invest to the standard that all of us would like. I invite you to really consider what you would do if you were either a tenant or if you owned these units. Thank you. That's from Michael. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. All right. Now we're back in our regular rules. Our next speakers are Edward Ryback. Lucy Russian and Lorna, Russian. Good evening, everyone. My name is Edward. You know, I'm going to actually get real close to that microphone because they're a little they're not as strong as we'd like them to be. And we want to hear you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Edward Ryback. I've been a resident of Alameda for about 40 years. I was reading the resolution this morning and I think there are some textual issues which are incorrect, and I think there are some items which are flawed in the resolution that should go back to staff for correction or for reconsideration . The first item is you talk about relocation expenses being taxable to the tenant if they receive them. There's no information here to get the tenant, the Social Security number, to issue a 1099. There's also some time requirements to fund the relocation expenses. If you don't have the information for the 1099, I'm pretty sure that the landlord may not get it. Another possible solution is to have the rent board. Are you set in a general term to issue the 1099 because they can have the program, the software and the ability to collect the information to do it. Also, I was told by staff that there's a markup for the income taxes of 22%. If that is correct, that means a family with income, married family with income up to $165,000 is getting benefit of a tax markup. I think if this resolution is to help people who are needy or who need additional care are giving tax benefits to someone who earns up to $165,000, is should not be the the goal of the resolution. Also, there are some we've heard some comments about the relocation costs. My basic calculation for an average family, you're talking between 15 and $20,000 a month. Between the daily amount, the food amount, the pet amount. This amount is just not feasible to be paid. And again, we talk about $335 a day for the hotel, $64 a day per person. Those for people, that's about $250. If you've allowed a pet, $85 a day for a pet. Also, many people, when they move, have friends and neighbors they can stay with. Thank you. And our next speaker is. Mucci. Mr. Vision. Thank you. And then Lorna. And then Sarah. McCracken. McCracken. Yeah. Okay. And Mr. Recent, will you be sure to speak right into the microphone? And, you know, we can bring a microphone to him and he could sit if he would like. Hmm. You don't. Man City council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is more serious and I am an Alameda resident. I live at the in this apartment. I was in the new reason because my landlord is trying to evict me or not. Well, any of. It is cruel and wrong. I am good tenant. I always pay. Rent. On time. I am quite respectable. I don't drink, don't smoke. Don't break the law. They say in America your home is secured. Home is where your where your heart is. I have lived in my home for seven, ten years with my late wife and my son. They are both gone now. My home is all I left. It is all I need. I am an old man. I am in poor health. I have been forced to leave my home before. Before the course of war and political conflicts. I can be forced to move again. I want to make. It. Please help me stay in my home. The trial to my election course is for October 15. Please. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll let Mr. Putin get back to his seat. Our next speaker is Lana. Richard. Morrison. Regina. And you bring the microphone up to you so we can hear you. Yeah. You're a mayor. Vice mayor. City Council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lorna. Regina. I am the daughter of musician. I'm an Alameda resident. And there is an ancient Roman saying justice delayed is justice denied. And unfortunately, the justice might be denied to my father and to many other residents who are relying on Section eight voucher, who are facing an imminent eviction by their landlord due to no fault of their own. They've done nothing wrong. They're paying their rent. They're good residents. Some of them are elderly, disabled or people with small children. They're facing eviction. They've done nothing wrong. This should not be happening. And as to the argument that this may preclude other people from getting Section eight housing, when I started my career, people told me that women shouldn't push for women's rights because if they ask for breastfeeding rights or a right to take care of their children, that nobody would hire them. That's pretty much the same kind of argument that and look at us today. If we ever bought this argument, we wouldn't be here in this room anymore. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Is Sarah McCracken, then Jan Santos and Doyle Saylor. Are. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sarah McCracken. I am a staff attorney at Central Legal de la Raza. My office represents tenants in unlawful detainer proceedings, eviction proceedings throughout Alameda County, including Mr. Risen, whose case brought to light what I would describe as a loophole in the ordinance that you're reviewing this evening. When we advise tenants, we look for two basic things protection against massive rent increases, whether that be a subsidy or some sort of rent stabilization ordinance and just cause for eviction. That's a basic protection against losing your home for no reason whatsoever. It's a protection that everyone deserves. And as Mr. Case highlights, a lack of regulation actually leads to discrimination because without the just cause for eviction protections, someone can simply evict someone because they no longer wish to participate in the Section eight program. So I urge you to extend just cause for eviction protections to Section eight voucher holders. And I would also like to note that Mr. Risen's trial is currently scheduled for October 14th. So if you do not do so on an emergency basis, it will be too late for him. Thank you. Thank you. And we have. Jan Santos, Ben Doyle, sailor than Madeline Howard. All right. I'm Jan Santos with the Seniors and Disabled Renters Renters Committee, which is part of Alameda Renters Coalition. I want I can't say strongly enough how important I think it is for you to pass the ordinance, the urgency ordinance, including Section eight. You've been hearing already this evening how important it is for some people that it gets done immediately. Everybody deserves a home, housing and food and shelter. And you have the chance to help make sure by passing this ordinance that there are some people who will not have the chance to keep their housing if it's a month from now, dictate to have the chance to help them. And this ordinance should have been passed yesterday. So please do pass the urgency. Think about it from your heart. Think about what it's like not to have a house, a home, a shelter. And think about if you're a senior disabled person. There's a lot more complications to it, and it's even much harder to survive. So please think and feel with your heart. Thank you, Miss Santos. And now, Doyle, sailor. Hi there. Mayor City Council. I'm royal sailor. I'm a person with disabilities. I'm a depressed person. And through some of the advocacy I've done over the years, it's became clear to me that the federal regulations say that 17% of the population is disabled. And if you take a look at Alameda, that's about 9000 people. My disability is invisible. And that's often the case with the with how disability is addressed in our society. And I think it's very important that the city council is is advocating here for including Section eight, because the majority of people in Section eight are generally people with disabilities. I strongly urge you to pass it tonight. I also strongly urge you to pass the urgent part of it, because there are people are going to be directly affected by this if you don't do the urgent part. So I want to thank you for bringing this up. I think this is the right thing to do. And I'm proud of you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. And our next speaker is. Madeline Howard, then Catherine Pauling, then Tony Green. Good evening. My name is Madeline Howard. I'm a resident here in Alameda. I'm also an attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty, where I enforce anti-discrimination laws and housing. And I also do work with tenants who are facing displacement. So I'd like to really thank the City Council for all of the work you've done and all of that hardworking staff to put forward this just cause and rent control ordinance. I applaud that work and I would encourage you to keep doing this work and keep making the ordinance stronger. I can't say it better than all the tenants that you've heard from tonight, but we hear a lot about the financial hardships that landlords experience when they cannot keep raising the rent. But the hardship that a tenant experiences is homelessness. We see this when we're driving. We see the camps, people living in tents, and many of the people that I've represented when they came to me too late and I was not able to save their housing, they were forced to move to Texas and other remote communities where they couldn't keep their children in the same school. They couldn't be with their friends, they couldn't keep the same jobs. So this is a tremendous hardship, and I would really encourage their counsel to keep going with this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. And Tony Grimm, then Richard Medlin. Mayor Council. First of all, I want to thank you. I've been coming to you for years to please have gather state citywide statistics on rental housing. I'm very excited to see that coming to fruition. I will say that one of the main reasons we wanted this to happen was. So that there would. Be public access to the statistics. Over the last five years, we have been kind of the canaries in the coal mine telling you the level of problems that existed and that we needed protections. And if what I'm hearing is that a public portal is only a possibility and it's going to be so restricted that people have to call on the phone individually for their individual unit to check. That was one of the things that was mentioned. Also the city does reports, but they tend to be aggregates. And just. As we kind of went back to the census. And did a more detailed. Look at those aggregate. Amounts to get a truer picture of what renters were going through. If you do not allow public. Access, where. We can actually. See a building at a. Time, how do we know when from one year to the next, suddenly all the low income or the lower rents of the longer term residents have disappeared. How do we find. Out when something's. Going on? The realtors have all of this information and the large ones already have the report. The city has not had it, and I guess this will give it to the city. But as far as. Those of us who are. Advocates who are looking for the beginning of those trends and bring it to your attention, not having that public portal prevents. Us from being able to do the work that we. Have taken on to help the city and to. Protect our communities. So I strongly recommend that when it. Comes to getting this first stage and space. In place, that more stakeholder meetings happen. For years. For decades, Berkeley has allowed it without spoiling. And I believe ice cream is our next speaker. Tony Grimm, then Richard Netherland and William Smith. Okay. And Mr. Nevin will bring the microphone to you. You don't have to get back up, if that's okay. I mean, you're welcome to. Well, you've got a minute to decide. 2 minutes. Okay. Miss Graham. Hi. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. I'm urging the council to approve expanding just cos provisions to section eight tenants. I'm basing my appeal on the Federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination among many groups. But specifically what we're discussing tonight is age and disability. The notable thing about that act is that it pertains to public housing and households that receive federal funding. I think that applies here. For the city to do this is just going to be in compliance with that law. And I want you to do it, please, as soon as you can make it, do the emergency provision, because this is a dire need that we can't wait for the next few weeks to go by, because I'm afraid that in that time there might be a lot of discrimination done by landlords who don't want to comply with this law. And you will see a lot more cases other than the ones we're hearing tonight. So let's please approve this, an emergency ordinance effective as quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Come on up. Mayor Mish Fiddle Council, Richard Neville, a resident of Alameda, a long time and on social security a long time surprises even me. At 78. One of the things that's happened the last four years is no Social Security increase for three years and then a $7 increase on $1,000 a month, which is way less than usual, five or 3% increases. My rent went up 5%. Each year, the last two years, which is roughly seven times the increase. In my Social Security income monthly. Some mitigation needs to be put into the formula. You work out things for renters, since there are so many seniors renting in Alameda and so many senior housing attached to the housing authority . Some way of fitting in the lack of increase. From Social Security offices and other agencies into the mix where everybody wants a little more money. It's tough job to fix it in when you have less, but somehow that needs to be worked in. Thank you. Thank you. William Smith and Nancy Gordon, then Rose, Linda Fortune as the last speaker. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the council again. I'm William Smith and I'm a landlord in Alameda, have been for almost three decades and also in a long time associate with Alameda Renters Coalition. And I wanted to echo Katherine Pauling's point about the importance of making data available. I crunched some of the numbers based on the census reports, and I was just shocked, shocked at seeing the number of low income people that have been forced out of this town in the last ten, 15 years. And I just saw in the headlines that we had the lowest number of new homes permitted in the last year in the Bay Area for decades. And so it's not going to get better anytime soon. So if we're going to stabilize our renter population, yes, it's going to be difficult on cash flow for the landlords. I know that from my own experience and it's especially difficult if you're buying a new home and you're trying to swing the payments and make those. But once you're established, you can weather cash flow because you've got you've got appreciation of your asset and that's where you really get the money. So you may have trouble with being fluid, but you've got the money and the wealth and maybe you can tap into that to tide you over. And the renters are the people that make that possible. They buy your home for you. So I certainly urge you to recommend two to pass the rent. Just cause evictions. And certainly that emergency ordinance is very, very much called for. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Gordon. Here she is. Thank you, mayor and council members. As a former high school teacher. And then I became a realtor and worked about 17. Nowadays, raising kids and selling property and all that in one pocket out of the other, borrowing. Because I had a vision. You know, we had a vision of where we wanted to be. Well, in my seventies. I'm still working, and I am very grateful for the wonderful tenants I've had, with rare exception, and the ones who have not. Been amenable and they've been bothering other tenants. If it. Weren't for my ability. To get rid of them. I would have lost good tenants out of those buildings. So we need to be able to get people out who. Are creating problem for everybody else or we're going to lose. Our good people. I just want to say also that most of you know that I initiated and the realtors sponsored what turned out to be seven years of benefit concerts. And we raised a lot of money when the homeless shelter was brand new, we helped them start and then we. Raised money for the Meals on Wheels and the food bank. So I'm somewhat of a bleeding heart. I also think it's. It's totally unconscionable what happened to this fellow at the Dunes. That's not right. I think there's there are situations that are extreme on both ends. And I. I actually resent having to pay literally and. Figuratively as a community. Of landlords for. The extremes, for the few. I have wonderful. Tenants. Like I say, with rare exception. We get along fine and I concur with what Mr. Fisher said about their relationship. It's important I manage my own places. I want to know what's happening. I give them names of people to contact. If anything goes wrong, they can contact. Me wherever I am. And without. And they know the people I hire can be there. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Our next speaker. Rosalinda, for this opportunity. And it's our last speaker. If anyone wants to speak who hasn't had a speaker slip, do so quickly. Mayor, City Council. I am one of those small one mom and pop landlords and I am very angry at what the City Council is proposing. If you know how hard landlords work, you'd probably say, I would never do that. And if you put yourself in our shoes, you would say, they can have it. You're driving. You're going to drive all the small property owners out of business and you're going to end up with large corporations owning most of Alameda. If you don't slow down and consider the problems that you're causing property owners financially because like Ms.. Fisher stated, most of the expenses that we're incurring will increase over the 2.8%. I feel like this is like a big brother looking over us, and this is not the way it should be in the United States. I feel for the tenants because I have good tenants and I protected my tenants and we have a good relationship. But there are some landlords that need to have a process where they can be taken to court. And that's what the court system is. And you're not the court. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, you know. No, cause that's the rule. Okay. And no outbursts, no outburst. Please. I'm asking for no outbursts. Thank you. So now we. Thank you. My bad. We have completed public speaking and thank you to all the public speakers. You did a great job. And by the way, I do appreciate all of you coming out and sharing your views and for the landlords. I that was a gutsy thing to do. I've heard from a number of landlords over the last couple of weeks that they were afraid to come out to what they thought was an anti landlord crowd. But I would say that with few exceptions, everyone did a great job. Thank you. What I'm going to do now, just because it's it's after 9:00 is I'm going to call for a break and then we will come back for council deliberation. So it's almost 915. Let's be back and we're going to get started at 930. All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you at 930. But sharp. I'm going to start at 930, be in your seats by 928. Now, whatever I do, thank you. Earning. Okay, everyone. Great job. It's 929. And by the way, I understand that it feels like a sauna in parts of the chamber. I see you fatty yourself. We're sorry. We have open windows. I guess we could open more so we could recruit Andrew Thomas. Oh, Teague, planning board member to the rescue. Thank you, Mr. Teague. Yeah. He's doing. Yeah. We delegate round here. Oh. And we delegate to experts. What can I say? All right, so we have we are now close public speaking, and we are going to have the council discussion now. So this is a meaty topic and I know there's lots to discuss. So who would like to start? I see. Mr. Modi, Sandip, Jim and Mr. Modi. Sorry. No worries. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks, everyone, for coming out tonight. And again, to Debbie and her team. Thank you for your amazing work on this. It seems like it's it's Whac-A-Mole, but, you know, that's just the nature of this this type of of policy making. You know, I always say this whenever we have a discussion on rents, you know, it all comes down to me. Housing is a basic human right. Period. End of sentence. Stop. I'm going to keep saying it until everyone gets it. And I also think you judge society will judge you as an elected official or as a society and how you treat the most vulnerable. And we have a sign up there. Everyone belongs here. And to me that means everybody it doesn't matter your race, it doesn't matter your gender, your sexual orientation, your income status, whether you have Section eight or not, Section eight, whether you're disabled or or fully abled or partially disabled, anything. And if I let anyone out, I'm sorry. So. And. I usually say this too, but I think Mr. Richard said it best when he described his home. And for every tenant that's their home. That's the place they come home to. That's the place their family is. That's the place the children grow up. That's the place they go to sleep in every night. And they eat and sleep and, you know, enjoy life. So that's their home. And when it's disrupted, it's it's it's stressful. It's one of the life's most stressful things. And I was struck by the comment in open communications earlier about the disruption of moving on commercial tenants. You know, there was a comment made about that. And, you know, it's compounded even more when, you know, it's an individual who's their home. So I plan on supporting all of these. I think it's important that we have a thriving, diverse community of residents from all backgrounds, all stripes, all colors, all everything. And that's why we have that here. And I think sometimes, you know, I always look at it to be reminded that that's the value which we're guiding by. Just a couple of things. You know, briefly, I've heard concerns. I think Mr. Nolan brought them up and I've heard others bring up concerns about, you know, issues with the housing authority and treatment of tenants. And this is not something I want to talk about today, but I am going to bring something back because it concerns me. And what concerns me is what I feel is a lack of accountability because, you know, that's not an agency that reports to the city manager. That's not an agency that has our city attorney as their counsel. And that's not an agency that's accountable to basically to the city council. So I've come to terms about that and the relocation, a situation like that, that unit on Central, I'd like to make sure that the tenants there are protected because I've heard that's still a problem and people haven't been able to get back in, you know. Section eight. There are things we can do, and I'd like to consider some type of incentives. Again, that's not on the agenda today, so I'm going to bring that back. But if we find it's a problem, I'd like to see if we can do some incentives to make sure that we can get those 75 voucher holders housed here in Alameda. You know, one thing we didn't talk about, I know Debbie is probably next on your list is the capital improvement plan. You know, I think we need to make sure that we keep our housing stock, you know, in good shape. You know, there's a warranty of habitability. But, you know, right now, the scope, if I'm correct, nobody's used it or we had one application that got rejected. So I think we need to look at that because I think landlords really want to keep their their places in great shape. And I think tenants deserve a habitable place. You know, I got to tell you, I just moved into 113, 16 year old home and my second home this past week is is Pagano. So I understand that's something that we need to we need to help with and make sure that we can keep our housing stock, you know , in tip top shape. I'm concerned about the discrimination. I don't think we should have you know, I was worried when we first did relocation that we would have discrimination if we added extra categories. But hopefully the next agenda item will take care of that, you know, moving expenses. And I got to also say, you know, if you can find a mover that can move a place in 15 or 6000 dollars, I mean, good luck. I would have liked to have known you a week ago. As far as the database. I'd like to I know that we're going to bring reports back in the spring. I'm not sure if if that's too long. I would like to see some type of interim reporting based on the registry so we could start seeing if there's trends or maybe see what data is available that we can mix and match and kind of get reporting on. But, you know, bottom line, you know, no one should have to go through what this man is going through. And he's not the only one. I mean, there are other people that I've heard are having issues with Section eight and they're getting evicted without cause. So we made a statement. This council made a strong statement about protecting tenants rights and about, you know, not letting anyone get kicked out of their unit without cause. And I'm sorry there was a loophole, but I'm prepared to support fixing it. I do do want to say one thing, though. I mean, I've heard almost uniformly from Alameda landlords that what's happening over at the Dunes is despicable. So I just want to give a quick shout out to Alameda landlords. A lot of the mom and pops, they know a lot of you take it on the chin with a lot of criticism. But, you know, I appreciate those of you that have taken the time to to share that that feeling with me. And, you know, we're all one community, so I appreciate that. So that's what I'm going to do. Thank you. Thank you. You wouldn't just go down the line. COUNCILMEMBER So we are right to. Feel for the plight of a Resene family. And right in our anger at large apartment complex owners like that of the dunes. But as we make policy for all of the city, we should be both moved by our hearts, but also our heads in making policy for all sides, both the renters , as well as smaller mom and pop landlords. I believe that it is not City Hall's place to make unilateral dictates, especially when reasonable alternatives exist that can protect both renters and the smaller landlords. That's why I believe the original 3148 reflected a workable solution for both renters and smaller landlords. And as I've said over these past months, rather than gut that entirely, as we're continuing to do tonight, we should and should have modified it where fixes were needed. For example, we all agreed that there was a cumulative rent increase problem to the original 3148 ordinance. In other words, the original 3148 allowed for 5% increase, one year 5% increase in another year, 5% increase in another year without triggering the rent review process, which would have included binding rent control. So there was a cumulative rent increase problem to the original 3148. But what we should have done was kept 3148 and fix that cumulative problem, to quote or paraphrase Bill Clinton. We should have amended 3148 as opposed to it as opposed to ending it completely. Now, all of this, though, is not academic in the sense that there are real repercussions to the decisions that we're going in making, the drastic changes that we are. I think when you have the smaller mom and pop land laws come not just tonight but in previous meetings, that's a telltale sign that the burdensome policy changes that we're pursuing fall differently on different sized landlord categories. And and I know this matter is settled, but that's why I believe that that we should have also take into account the special circumstances of a smaller land, smaller mom and pop landlords. And the special circumstances comes down to this, the type of penalties that they are being asked to absorb, which are similar to ones that middle or large landlords are being asked to absorb. They cannot pass that on because they are only limited. So many units that they control may be no more than four. Whereas the matter that brought us tonight, you know, the larger Dune's complex or the matter that brought us to, you know, 20 years ago when we had to deal with the when of his department situation. You know, this will or even the matter of the the apartment on next to Payton school for 70 central. I mean these are units that are are larger and that and that a distinction that we should have taken into account. But I have difficulty supporting tonight staff recommendations for the reasons that I've always said. I believe that we should have striven harder to make accommodations in both protecting renters and also protecting the smaller landlords. And we could have done that in a way that also stifled the excessive rent increases that we saw. Because the fact of the matter is, is that 31, 48, as originally perceived, actually did stifle the the excessive rent increases. So we're going much too far. And so let me give you an example of why I believe we're going much too far. You know, Sacramento is about to adopt statewide rent control. I mean, they are going to, you know, basically cap rents in an effort to fight excessive rent increases. And their standard of capping rent control is capping rent control, disallowing rents that are no more than 7% increases, plus the cost of cost of living adjustment, so long as it also doesn't surpass 10%. So their standard at a minimum is 7%. So what we've adopted and it will strengthen even tonight, is one where basically the smaller mom and pop landlords are being asked to absorb cost increases that are below. Inflation that are below the cost of living. And, you know, it's very difficult for the smaller mom and pop landlords to continue operating in these circumstances. The repercussions of that, though, is that for many of the smaller mom and pop landlords, whether people who are in single family rentals and they're selling it or duplexes and triplexes, the repercussions of all of this is that many more than likely are going to get out of the rental business, thus reducing the rental stock. When I was in grad school and we analyzed the impacts of the Berkeley style rent control and also the Santa monica rent control, and those were the impacts that we saw. And week in, week out, through these type of meetings, you know, we've had populations come up to us and say, you know, we need to preserve diversity. But when you look at the research, actually, it was the very diverse populations who Berkeley and South in the in the south part of Berkeley. It's a very diverse population that was lost as a result of the rent control there that was put in place in 1980, as well as Santa monica. And frankly, you know, one can argue that even in the city of San Francisco, you've seen a loss of the African-American population as a result of the rent control put in place there. So we really need to think not just with our hearts and that we are right to respond to the plight of the Rasheen family. We are right to respond to the plight of the families at 470 Central as well as 20 years ago or so when it came to the Buena Vista. But we also need to fashion policy with our heads that look at all sides, both tenants protecting them, and also the smaller mom and pop landlords. And for that reason, I feel that that what's before us tonight just doesn't do that. So I will continue to do not support this. Thank you. Let's move this way. Thank you. I. Well, I'm going to say that I think it's possible for people to have different ideologies and be thoughtful and consider all sides and look for the best way forward and come to different conclusions. For me. I'm sorry. I have a really. Hard hitting microphone. Yeah, I bet it microphones. And then this one really doesn't seem to like me. So I will speak up. I'll eat it so I can. I mean, I guess I could speak for myself. I am a small mom and pop landlord, and I will tell you that I support what we're talking about doing tonight. And there are some places where, you know, certain outcomes are going to be more difficult than they were today. And if we pass the urgency and it becomes law today, things will be more difficult for me tomorrow in my family than they were yesterday. But that's a part of the bargain that I that we make going into this. You know, when we are both providing housing for somebody else, we have to really kind of start from a place where the people who matter in this are the people whose homes and lives we are. We are we as the council are trying to address. So I can't sit here and say that it's easy. There are no simple solutions. If there were simple solutions, everybody would do it. But the solutions that we have been putting into place have not been working. And and for that, I am I am fairly supportive of everything that is that is moving forward here. I would like to see a couple of places that that if there was interest, I would look at making some small tweaks. I think that we did have some public comment that came in referring to the temporary relocation payments and the idea that there should possibly be some sort of requirement for for yeah. In order to get the temporary relocation payment that once a unit is re available for moving back in, that there should be some timeline for that move in. I do think that there are some reasonable concerns about how much these the temporary relocation schedule here, which I think we can address and, you know, kind of readdress it at a future time seems very, very high to me. I know where the schedule came from, but that schedule does definitely come from the federal guidelines for visiting San Francisco, etc.. At the very least, I'd like to see something that says that the relocation payments for the housing especially would be based on some sort of receipts or direct payments. So it's not just a $335 a day payment. I think if somebody is is dislocated from their home, a temporary relocation needs to happen. But the idea that it could be a $10,000 a month relocation for 30 days before you even get into the food and everything else where nobody is making that kind of rent that can cause some problems, especially since a lot of the hotels in town even have weekly rates, etc.. So if we could clarify, I don't want to I don't want to to set up a dynamic where tenants and landlords are fighting over, you know, does everybody just share one bed and therefore, you know, like, right there need to be some reasonable assumptions as to is as to as to how this is worked out. But if somebody can find a room at that on Harbor Bay for $200 a night, then, you know, at the end of the day, that relocation payment for the housing should be for $200 a night and not just a flat 335. Here you go. So if we could look at that, even if it's bringing it back in a future, because this is the resolution, that would be good. I would like to see I have heard over the last couple of months strong concerns about the use of the data from the database. I also heard some interest in making sure that we are using the data there, both from Councilmember Ody, but also from the from Ms.. Pauline using the data to inform decisions. I would like to you know, we know that public it will be a public records request. You can ask for information about apartment X, apartment Y, and we will give you the information for that. I think we need to be a little careful, just like the county is with property value information, you can get information on one or two or three. You can go individually and get the information. But if you are going to ask for the entire database for property, it's actually about a $2,000 cost. I don't think we need to treat the database itself as as a public records, but I want to make sure that if we're going to take that tact, that we have some input with the landlords and tenants interests to make sure that we're providing the reports that are necessary so that when we aggregate the information, the information is aggregated appropriately, so that so that people are getting the information they need from that. Let's see. I did like the planning board member Teague, speaking on behalf of himself, did ask. That clarifying comment about partial payment when you are dealing with HCV and making it clear that the person that that the the the HUD voucher or whatnot doesn't count towards that partial payment triggering triggering protection and whatever else. I do think that that that there's something for that. And I'd like to hear hear my council members thoughts on that. I'd say lastly, because just in case I want to talk a little bit more, I'm not going to run out of time. But I do want to say this is really important. I am so sorry that that Mr. Ryan has has gone through what he's gone through, that we have to be here for this. Like Councilmember O'Day, I've heard from every single landlord I have talked to or heard from, people have reached out. Everyone is is just absolutely offended and, you know, upset about this. This is a community wide concern. And we're here tonight. I will be supporting emergency ordinance and I hope we can get there tonight. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Vela. So a. Few things and I think it'll echo some of my colleagues statements. Um. I'd be fine coming back on the temporary relocation amounts. Fine with passing it as written tonight. I would be interested in, you know, hearing more about this timeline. I do think one of the things that would need to be included in it is some sort of additional notice because you have to make. You know, arrangements for your accommodation. So there needs to be advance notice and then the unit does in fact need to be available on the date listed. And if we're going to say. And if I have to say. That there is a timeline for move in, then there needs to be a process for if the unit is not in fact available on the date that the tenant was advised. I'd also be fine with looking at, you know, direct pay. I think the receipts thing becomes very difficult because people then can squabble about what was actually charged, who actually stayed where. And you're asking the tenant to kind of put out money ahead of time. I think direct pay would be fine, but again, that we would need to actually look at that and how that would actually work in terms of making sure that suitable accommodations are found and that it's not just, okay, your kid goes to school over here and now I found this deal and you're going to be off island and driving through traffic in order to get there. I think that also goes against our Climate Action Plan goals. In addition, so I think we need to be thoughtful about how direct pay would actually work if we're looking at that. I do think that weekly and monthly amounts are are reasonable relative to the temporary housing. It'd be a little different for the meal allowance and things like that. But again, it you know, I think we could we could look at all of those things and I'd be interested to hearing back from staff, but passing it as is today. In terms of the the partial payment would not include the money from HUD. I think that that is the intent of what we have there. So I'd be interested to hear from the city attorney of what the clarifying language would need to be or if it would be a substantive change. If we could make that change tonight and still pass both the urgency and the the regular or if we would need to come back. I do have some concerns about the database with regards to kind of wholesale access to all of the information. And I'd like I think if we could kind of get a follow up presentation once we actually start collecting the information about how it's all working and the types of requests we're getting, I think that would be informative to counsel and I would just remind staff that we do. We did pass a resolution a few years ago regarding the Federal Government's request for information and to make sure that if there are any federal government requests for that information, that the Council be notified ahead of any information being released to the federal government or any of their agencies. Regarding the housing authority. While we don't have direct over oversight, we do approve the board. And I do think there are some things that we should think about, and there have been cases that have come up where we might want to think about the compounding issues for some of our most vulnerable population and how we can work together to make sure that there is a process in place. Back when I was in law school, I worked for the Mental Health Advocacy Project and legal Advocates for Children and Youth in Santa Clara County. And oftentimes it was a group of us that would get together, including an advocate for the individual who was there to represent the individual's perspective and what the individual desired. And I think that there's this desire sometimes by different organizations or groups to do what they deem best for the person. And that is not always what the person believes is best for them. And there needs to be a process to kind of talk that through before, you know, we move in to an eviction or the loss of of a housing voucher or something like that. And I think it behooves us to kind of create some sort of process that would allow for that conversation to happen ahead of a bigger issue occurring. I think, you know, with regards to and by the way, I'm I'm fully in support of passing the urgency measure tonight. I do think that there we would face a problem. Clearly, discrimination is already happening. I want to start with that. Discrimination is already happening. And I don't want to create a kind of period of time where people can continue to discriminate and there will be other cases that come forward. I think there is a very good example, but it's an example and I think that we risk having other cases similar to that coming forward. And that is why I think we absolutely need to pass the urgency matter, the urgency resolution, an ordinance in addition to the other one. And I think this is about protecting our most vulnerable. We need to do that. It's it's part of why we have these ordinances in place. I've heard some comments about, you know, we're all being held to the same standard or you know you're that were legislate over legislating we have to legislate for everybody we don't get to just make we are not a court we are not judges we don't get to just make decisions one off to specifically legislate for an individual. And so that's why we have to think about the consequences, both intended and unintended. And I think that the staff recommendations address that. I think that there's some room on some of these to discuss further, but I think that those can come back at a later date . Thank you. And I'll go last. I want to thank Debbie Potter, our economic development director, and also the staff at the Housing Authority who helped put this very comprehensive, thoughtful presentation together. I also attended a workshop at the library last week that Ms.. Potter and Mr. Katz from the Housing Authority presented. Just bringing people up to speed on these proposed changes. So I also want to say, I think all of us are horrified by the experience that Mr. Robinson had. And at the same time, I want to hasten to say that that one landlord or it's a pair of landlord in this case do not typify, do not exemplify the majority of landlords in this city. And I think that I would say our commenters made that distinction. We are we are not out to vilify landlords. We need our landlords. We don't need landlords to treat tenants like that. But it is certainly not. We are going to make blanket assumptions based on the very deplorable experiences that Mr. Risen and his family have had. I generally support this proposed ordinance and I support it as an emergency measure, but I want to ask the Council to consider with me avoiding some unintended consequences that I am concerned about. The first one has to do with the augmented relocation payments for certain categories of renters, and that would be people, tenants who are 62 years and older, tenants with disabilities, tenants with minor children in the household. And there is Exhibit A on the the resolution on page two has that chart at the top. So you can see that there is designated amounts. And those are based on, as I understand, the head numbers for the fair market rents in this area. It's specific to this area for a studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, two bedroom, four bedroom. But the augmented rent augmented relocation fee raises the amounts, the first in the two month's rent plus three, the moving fees by almost $2,000. And this is the unintended consequence I worry about in a tight rental market that we have in Alameda, a 2% vacancy rate. Any landlord is likely to get more than one application for a tenant for a unit that comes available. The landlord is going to know the applicable law. If they see that, oh, if I rent to this 62 year old or this household with a child, I and I have to move my mother or my child into that unit, no fault of the tenant, but they'll be relocated and they'll be entitled to relocation fees. That's going to cost me more money versus this 28 year old tech worker making a good salary, great credit score. I'm going to choose that one. That would still I know we can't discriminate based on source of income, but in this came out in the workshop, it's certainly valid to look at credit scores, to look at income . And is it a certain number of times the amount of rent? What I don't want to do is make it that much more difficult for these more vulnerable classes to find available units. But the rationale for having the augmented relocation payment is that these are folks who tend to have a harder time finding relocation. So I met with Miss Potter last week and we talked about this and I said, I want to help these folks, too, but what can we do short of throwing more money at them that might just dissuade some landlords to rent to them? And the idea that we we batted around and I think it's reasonable is that we could add a relocation consultant service and there are those consultants in the cities use them before that. When a renter in this category gets that eviction, that no fault eviction notice, that would trigger the use of this relocation consultant on an encore basis to help them get get relocated. Because I'm just concerned and the housing authority has talked about this, too, in a city like Alameda, we're not Santa monica. We do. Mr. Teague brought out in earlier comments we've had in place in our charter until and unless it's changed Measure A, which is a density limit. A new ordinance that prevents us from building housing of greater density than a duplex, with certain exceptions and certain hurdles that you you jump over. But it does mean that our multi-family housing stock is limited and it's getting older. So I would like council to consider that. And I spoke with the city attorney about this this morning, and he said it is easy. We could still move forward with this ordinance and on an urgency basis tonight, but simply decide to eliminate that particular column in this particular table. I also share the vice mayor's concern about the per diem rates for the hotel and motel rates. I, i, i understand the $64 a day meal expenses based on the per diem for a city employee if they were traveling. I don't have a problem with that. $335 seems awfully steep in Alameda. And as I think Councilmember Vella noted, there are weekly rates, there are weekend rates and it it averages out. I'm sure it is something less than that. So I and I also talked to the city attorney about this. We could make that modification tonight and still have this ordinance go through. But that's something we can discuss a little more and. It's not a big deal the that $85 a day for a cat boarding again could an unintended consequence be that landlords are less likely to rent to people with pets? And so maybe we'd want to take another look at that one. Um, I also want to just say that we, we do need, I think it was Councilmember Ody that said we need housing stock that's habitable and we do. Renters need good, safe places to live. But we do need to consider the financial burden we're imposing on landlords, especially smaller ones, by doing some of the things we're doing, like the augmented relocation fees. I will hasten to add that I'm not arguing for a distinction between larger landlords and small so-called mom and pop landlords, because the problem there is it's the tenant that then suffers. If there's a landlord who can do, who doesn't have limits, who can do anything because they only have so many units. But I think that we do need to think about what financial burdens we're imposing on landlords. It's one thing to say, well, they can recoup their expenses because they have appreciation in their property. And it's true property in Alameda has been appreciating that requires you to sell. And I don't want to see a lot of corporate owners come in and scoop up property and it is happening. So I think we're right to make these changes. The two that that give me cause though are the, the augmented um, relocation payments and the, the podiums on housing. So with that, do I hear any further discussion from Council Councilmember Odie? Just real briefly, I do agree with the comments made on that side about the per diem. I mean, I'd be happy to look at that again. I mean, my preference is to pass it as is and then come back and look at it because I think it needs a little more thought. I was concerned, too, about whether somebody would discriminate based on age or disability or child. I mean, I know it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So I don't know. I mean, on one hand, I'm running out of time. But on that, actually, I think we might vote to waive our time. I think this is I mean, just speaking for myself, but I think this is an important topic that is I'll. Make that motion. For consideration. Okay. Before Mr. Councilman Brody runs out of time, I do have a second to suspend the councilman. Okay, we've got a motion. A second. All in favor. I, i, i advise. I do. Okay. I mean, continue. I mean, on one hand, I mean, I don't want to attribute bad motives to any landlord that, you know, they're going to say, well, $2,000, five, six, eight years from now, you know, I'm going to pick person over person B, but on the other hand, I don't want to encourage discrimination. So I mean, I'm willing to have this. Is that since that's in a resolution, I think again, I'm willing to pass it as is, but then maybe have a further discussion on that, because I would like to know, you know, what other cities have experience that have these augmented augmented relocation. But, you know, it's I don't know if a landlord is going to discriminate over $2,000 that they may or may never have to pay. Mm. I don't know. So if I can, if I could just reply to your, your comments that again I don't want to ascribe. I didn't say you did that. No, I'm speaking for myself. I don't want to ascribe bad motives to someone's decision. But I do think that one could look at this table and know what their expenses are and that taxes are going up. I mean, you're now a property owner. You will get that tax bill. And trust me, it goes yeah, it goes up every year. And again, I think we've made a fair change. I like the fact I've been advocating for this for a long time, that rather than base relocation payments on what tenants were paying because some tenants were paying way under market and some had way too many people in, say, a one bedroom unit. But then that didn't help them when they had to go rent in today's market. So I really like that. We're looking at the fair market rate for rentals and it is pegged to the size of the unit and the unit, you know, can accommodate so many people . But I think that's very fair. We have moving expenses and I'm not saying leave these categories high and dry. I'm saying we can come in and do this relocation consultancy and and give people the help that they need. Because oftentimes and I know this from talking to tenants, you are thrown into a tailspin when you get that eviction notice, you have to, you know, figure out schooling for the kids and lots of things. And getting out and finding replacement housing is something that is, you know, one more challenge. So I see a Councilmember Vélez hand that tells me. Bill So I guess I'll start with the temporary relocation. You know, regarding the boarding for pets, there are also weekly and monthly rates for that. And I think that's something we also need to look at are the weekly and monthly rates for pet boarding. They do exist and I also think that it shouldn't be limited just to cats and dogs because there are other types of pets that require boarding. So just to throw that out there regarding the relocation, I kind of want to frame it a different way. It's not really I don't see this as necessarily basis for one to discriminate about who to rent to. Mayor, as you noted, we have about a 2% vacancy rate, so there's not that many units that are open. I see this differentiation protecting those who are already housed because it's so hard for these individuals to find housing. We want to protect them so that a decision based on discriminatory basis is not made to evict them, to say, look, you're senior, therefore you're paying less, I'm going to evict you or you have a family and therefore there's more people in this unit and I can now evict you and then rent it to, you know, and then I can move in and then stay here for a couple of years and then put it back on the market. So I really see this differentiation as a way to keep those housed that are having the most trouble finding new housing, in effect, trying to prevent more folks who are over 60 to more folks who have minor children from actually being out there trying to compete for the 2% vacancy by keeping them in their units by and by basically disincentivizing. Choosing them to be the one to move. I also I know that and I had looked into relocation consultants and spoke with some folks down in L.A. I believe L.A. tried it and it did not work out so great there. There were a number of different issues, and I would also worry about the cost to the city. Who's going to bear the cost of the relocation consultant? What happens if there's some issue that comes up with the new place that the consultant finds? Are we now liable because that that housing fell through? There were a number of issues, I believe, that came up in L.A. and I think if that's something that we're considering, we really do need to talk to the folks who work through that issue down there. And personally, based off of what I found through the conversations that I had, I am not necessarily inclined to support that unless there's information to the contrary. I also think that we should be looking. I know that you're evidence based and data driven, and I think that we need to look for evidence that there has been this kind of impact where for because people get more in relocation, there is this kind of discrimination that happens. I know that Santa monica, Berkeley, L.A. all have this. And so perhaps if they have any evidence that it is actually happening, then that would be something that would would convince me that that maybe we shouldn't do this. But but right now, I guess my my sense is to lean towards trying to keep the folks housed by disincentivizing and creating that tier because it is harder for them and more costly in the end. And just to respond to that. Your next vice mayor that I am also concerned with rehousing people. I mean, you know how much I'm working in the area of homelessness prevention. But my point is simply that I think there is more than one way to do something. And throwing money at a situation is not necessarily the solution. And I didn't consult with anyone in L.A., but I did consult with Mrs. Ms.. Potter, who has experience with those consultants here and that we've used them before. And as far as cost to the city, I you know, I think we could find funding in our rent program to pay for something like that when that happened, because I think it is important to keep people housed. Let's hear from the vice mayor. So I'd like to ask a quick question. We have to exhibit a resolution for relocation because of the other changes that are being made. We need to also pass that tonight. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. In fact, the resolution is probably the last thing on the council's list. The council would have to adopt the ordinances first before getting to the resolution, but it would have to it once we passed the ordinances, not passing the relocation would leave us with actually no fee schedule. That's right. If the council chooses not to adopt the resolution at all, it would simply cause no relocation amounts to be adopted . You're not required to do it. It would just mean that there wouldn't be any relocation being apportioned to the extent that it existed. It occurred. Okay. So for me, I think, you know, I think this is an important conversation. I can I'm at the point where I can I can hear both arguments and think they're very valid. And I'm a little worried that, first off, we have a very long meeting. And second, that that this is something that we should be perhaps more thoughtful about in terms of determining both how we're dealing with the temporary relocation payments and the permanent relocation. And so I'd like to make a motion that that we approve the and we can do this in order. But that that that we approve the the urgency ordinance. We approve the the ordinance is written and then we approve the relocation payment schedule as as provided with direction to come back when the nonemergency comes back for the second reading with a with a a discussion on the relocation around both, you know, so we can get some more information about kind of councilmember and and you have both pointed to different and Councilmember Vela have all pointed to different points of information that we could talk about. Perhaps Miss Potter will shed some light on. Our timing that staff staff can do that. The problem is probably not when you come back on second read because the start we would have to complete all our research in two days and our staff report we. Can do it. So if anyone can. Go back soon as possible. You're not Wonder Woman for another. Day. Because I think staff concurs that it would be important to have a fee schedule for relocation in place. And I would just say that we have not yet had a temporary relocation situation in the three plus years that the ordinance has been in place. So if we came back, for example, on October 1st, we would probably be okay and we would come back and we could come back. Then it sounds like we re revisiting the temporary relocation and we could do a little more on the augmented permanent relocation. Sounds like the issues at the council's. Discussion on both yes. Both sides with some conversation of cities that have the augmented as proposed as well as perhaps some cities. With your indulgence, October one versus October 16th. Okay. I think you can do that. Okay. That was Councilmember Vela. And also the cost of the alternative. Yeah. Yes. Right. And did you get the also the the cost if if we were talking about using a relocation consultant, the cost and where those funds would come from. As. You made. Yeah. So Michael was just reminded me that we are scheduled the rent program staff is scheduled to come back the second meeting in October with the annual report. So another option for us is to come back with a revised RESO for Council's consideration at the second meeting in October. That's fine. And then. We do. It as a percentage. By the by that meeting and that that can come back or something you. Want. That would be perfect. Okay. You're talking about all things housing. We could add that to it. Okay, good suggestion. I heard a motion. Did I hear? I hear a second. So all in favor of the. Yes. Madam Mayor. Chair, I'd recommend that given that you have two different ordinances and a reso that you take three separate votes, you vote on the emergency ordinance, the introduction for the first reading and the rest. Okay. Can you hold that? Well, we. Can move to split the question. Well, I mean, I think we can do what the city attorney we like to follow the city attorney's advice when every possible civil emergency. Yeah. So that's okay. Okay. This is on the emergency rezone ordinance. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I opposed the motion carries 4 to 1. Okay, next motion. Who's going to make that? Councilmember Vela. I'll go ahead and move approval of the ordinance. The regular non-emergency. Ordinance. Um, the non-emergency. Urgency? Yeah. Okay. I have a motion, Duncan. Second. I have a second from the vice mayor. All in favor. I opposed. Oppose. Says that motion carries 4 to 1. Okay. Vice Mayor Knox. Wait. You had a motion to move. Move? Approval of the relocation payment schedule as written with direction to staff to come back by the second meeting in October, with options for considering how to deal with the qualified tenant household column. Whether or not that's continuing as a as approved or some sort of relocation consultant or other options if you come up with them, as well as a revised language for the temporary relocation payment that allows for the well and I would say if possible Alameda based housing. I think if we can kind of specify that just because that way people aren't getting pushed to Concord for their temporary housing because it's cheaper but allowing a way for for direct payment, etc., is as discussed. And just for clarification, I heard you say the move approval of the relocation payment schedule. It's actually a resolution we're voting on. So you mean to include the resolution? And with regard to that payment, the exhibit, a relocation payment schedule, what you said. Okay. So, yes. Okay. So, I mean, you were seconded, right? Well, I will. If you. As you want. To do. I have now. I was running the show. Yes. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. Okay. That when carries. 4 to 1, and we will look forward to having that item come back to us on the second meeting in October 17th of October, whatever. The 15th, maybe. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. Well done. And we move on. Excuse me to item six, the. Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding. You have acquainted your. All right. Sorry, sorry. Oh, OC. Councilmember. Can we just. There's a there's a break. Are you going on? Oh. Okay. What shall we do? To the. Three. So do you want. To write registration for a2000. Rent registration form? A separate. Okay, so make that motion. Okay. Okay. So there you. Go. Okay. Sorry, everybody. It's speakers and the audience who are leaving. Could you do so quietly? We're still in session here. Thank you for coming. Okay. Sorry, Miss Potter. Where did we go? Wrong hands. Registration. We had also requested that the council approve the registration statement. Thank you. Which you said. Okay. I have a motion. Is that going all in favor? I oppose. Motion carries 4 to 1. Okay. And then we are just looking over. Okay. Before we go to item six D, do. Do you want us to take another item? Is it possible to. The change to the agenda. I would like to. Okay. So we go with infrared. Okay. So with I'm with your indulgence, we are actually going to hold item six D in abeyance. Councilmember Vela needs to go home and see a baby for just a little while. Bring him back with you. And and then we're going to take item six E and F and maybe keep going until she gets back. So we are then moving to item six E. Can I make a motion course? Cause and I'd like to move. I came here with our rules require, but given that we're moving up on 1030 and 11, I'd like to just move that we will hear all items. Including the referrals. Including the referrals tonight, since we have people here to hear, hear them. Um, I am willing to make a motion to go. I'm not past midnight, preferably to 1130, but I honestly think we can move through with some expediency. Others. Your thoughts? And of course, that's not been too long debating time because it passes. I'll second that motion, but I also would like to get out of here by midnight. My goal too. Okay. So the motion is we will continue, but not past midnight. Okay. Motion is second. It's going to take four votes to pass it. All in favor, I. All four. Okay. Good for you. Okay. But that doesn't mean we have to go to midnight, right? Okay. All right. So next item up is 60. Recommendation to provide direction to increase parking enforcement resources to support parking and transportation management goals. Good evening. Oh, yeah. Everybody speak into the microphone. We've been getting a good evening. Yeah, yeah. How's that? Better. Okay. No. Now, here we go. Talk loud. Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Knox White, members of the council, Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department. And I'm here with Liz Acord from the Public Works Department. The two of us are two departments have been working on an initiative with your police department and your base reuse department to really look at the citywide parking management program and prepare for the future. This item, Liz and I are going to present this jointly. We're going to do this in 10 minutes or less. Really? Based after sitting through your last item, this one's much, much easier. We are just looking for a little direction here. This is it. We aren't looking for any final decisions tonight. This is, as I said, an effort that we have been undertaking for the last few months among the departments. And we've gotten to sort of a fork in the road. And we need you to point us which direction to head. Any any way you direct us is going to require us, hopefully not like this, to come back. This is not a conversation that ends tonight. We're just sort of checking in for a little direction finding. So this is about parking management and parking, specifically parking enforcement. Just real quickly, why do we why does this matter? The council knows this, but for the benefit of the public, who may just think this is about parking tickets, we need to manage our parking supply. It's so critically important citywide, it's imperative for our business community to manage the parking supply. So we keep that our keep our economic engine going. Park Street, Webster Street, Alameda Point. All these areas need us to manage parking. The council has actually adopted policies around the 85% parking parking occupancy goal as a way of managing that parking pricing it so that there's always a few spaces available. We need to do it to manage our traffic. Number one issue in Alameda, traffic congestion.