Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XIV to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases.  (Community Development 481005)
The. Point of information. Maybe this is what you're doing. I'll let you talk and then I'll ask the question. I'm sorry. Are we combining speakers for both? So that's. Thank you. So I was going to speak to that. We have 12 speakers on five Q And we have one on five. I would propose of counsel agrees that we go through all of the speakers together and address these items together. Do you want to just inform the public who might not know what those items are? You look at five Q and she will read five Q and then five are and they both pertain to the rent review advisory committee, right? So five Q When I just read about adding the rent increases to the municipal code in the next one, five are is amending the altimeter missile code by adding Section two, Dash 23 to Article two concerning the creation of a rent review advisory committee. All right, so do we have any presentation by staff or. I'll just go ahead with the speakers. I'm going to go ahead with the speakers. The first speaker u. T. E. You take outta your chair. And then Barbara Duncan. And then Doug Smith. Thank you. Good evening. I'm here because. We need your help desperately. I had to move in 2014 after September because I had a $600 increase. I moved to new unit and just this year when the lease was up, I had $130 in increase. And I know it's not going to stop there unless the mayor and the council members do something about it, because a lot of people are being displaced, seniors and fixed income, Social Security alone, they have no place to go, no raise. They're trying to decide whether they should pay the rent or buy the food. And people on fixed income that make minimum wage. Same thing. So I'm asking the mayor and the council members to please implement some kind of law that protects some of our citizens as tough and in many others. Because without your help. People like me have no place to go. So that's what I'm here for. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. I'm Barbara Duncan. Of course you know me. You see me here? Every politician meeting. For the microphone. Just a little four. You pull the microphone down. Okay. Yeah. 1985, we tried getting rent control. It was they had 6000 and so many voters on that. Okay. The reason we didn't get it is because they were not ten pages and there was no holes in the paper. That instead of the people that try to get in the rent control. Go ahead and do this. They didn't do it. They dropped the ballot. They said, no. We won't do it. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to get that back because we. Definitely. Need rent control. There's no way we can survive if the rents keep going up. If they want San Francisco people here, let us know now. You know, I mean, we're all hanging by a ladder wondering are we going to be able to stay? Or is San Francisco or Palo Alto going to move us out? And if they do look at Healdsburg, the history is there. Right. Today, there are no more schools in Healdsburg. The town is almost closed down because they went there and raised the ranch, just like they're doing in Alameda. And I guess that's about all I have to say, that I have this. Gone and read what that says for our audience. Would you say. Could you read what that says for our audience? I rent and I vote. I voted for each one of you on here. As a matter of. Fact, you were in my front. Yard. On pieces of paper and I and sticks. So each one of you, I read up on you and I thought, this is going to be good because this they are fair. Prove your faith. Please let us have the rent control. Thank you very much. Thank you. Doug Smith. Doug Smith and Garfield Cairncross and then Stefan Paul. Good evening. My name is Doug Smith. I am a housing provider in the city of Alameda and I do generally support this ordinance. And the only concern I have with it is 6.5 7.10. The issue about preventing landlords from increasing rent for an additional year if they do not follow the procedure, this ordinance. So other than that, I do support it. And any time we can get a form together where we can bring landlords and tenants together and discuss and understand each other's circumstances. And I just want to remind everybody that from 2001 to 2012, the rents in Alameda did not go up at all. 2001 to 2012, they did not go up at all. Thank you. And audience. Audience, please show him respect. Thank you. And there is a there is a lot of talk about San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland. I just heard Palo Alto. The things those have in common is they're all rent controlled cities. Thank you. Thank you. Those of you in the audience. I know we're going to have a. Thank you. Let's go. Let's proceed with our next speaker. Hello, Councilman. And introduce yourself. Yes, hello. My name is Garfield Cairncross. Hello. Mayor Spencer and Congress are council members. Ten Facts about rent control. Fact one Rent control laws limit annual rent increases. Without rent control. Landlords are free to raise. Rents in any amount as often as they want. Fact number two Rent control promotes stability. Tenants stay in their homes longer and are more invested in their local neighborhoods and communities. Fact number three Rent control leaves tenants with more money to spend in the local economy. Fact number four Rent control does not protect tenants who fail to pay their rent or violate their lease from eviction. Tenants also can be evicted if the owner wants to live in the property. Fact number five Rent control has no impact whatsoever on the development of new housing. New construction is exempt from rent control under state law. Fact number 612 cities in California have some form of rent control. Berkeley. Beverly Hills. East Palo Alto. Hayward. Los Angeles. Oakland. Palm Springs. San Francisco. Santa monica, San Jose. Thousand Oaks, West Hollywood. And now Richmond, California. Rent. Fact number seven Rent control laws are popular with voters. In 2008, California voters defeated a landlord attack on rent control by a decisive 22 point margin statewide. Fact number eight Landlords do just fine under rent control. All rent control laws are required to allow landlords to. Earn a fair return on their investment. Landlords are allowed to raise the rent every year by a set percentage. Pass through certain additional costs. And charge any amount. At the start of a new tenancy. Back number nine rent control can be cost neutral for cities. Any cost to administer the program can come through a low per unit fee paid by landlords and shared with tenants back number ten. Rent control is perfectly legal. Courts have upheld rent control laws for decades. Editorial Comments. Up with wages. Down with rents. Don Lindsay paraphrased. We don't want government interference. I consider that poster ignored political dementia. Ronald Reagan quote Government isn't the answer to your problems. Government is the problem. I'd like to have one more quote from Benito Mussolini. Ill first. She's more a corporate tease mode that translates into fascism is corporatism. Income of renters is up 4.6. Rent is up 18% in the Bay Area. The foxes aren't guarding the hen house. They are the hen house. Our next speaker is Stephen Hall. Please hold your applause. Thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Stephen Paul. Our office serves as a joint council of the California Apartment Association. CAA is the largest statewide trade association of owners and operators of rental housing in the United States. Over 50,000 members, over 2 million residential units, 1500 of which are in your city. We generally approve and generally adopt rental mediation ordinances, and we have reviewed your proposed ordinance much similar to the one in San Leandro and in Fremont. There is one serious concern, however, about your ordinance that I wish to bring to your attention. It is the subject of my letter of August 13th to the Mayor, which I trust. All the council members have reviewed, and that is the suspension of rental adjustments for one year for violation of this ordinance may very well serve as a violation under California law and subject your ordinance to attack. And if there is such an attack were to occur, the entire ordinance would be suspended. And that's and I've spoken to your city attorney about that and offered an opportunity to try and correct this situation while keeping the intent of the ordinance. Without that defect in the proposed ordinance, which I don't believe is terribly material to the the the thrust of the ordinance, I don't believe it would suffer a challenge successfully. And we're willing certainly to work with your staff on that issue and answer any questions that the council may have. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Karen Walled and then Patricia Nash and then Angela. Talk about Madam Chair, can I ask you a question? I noticed we've got some young children in the audience. I wonder if you would consider if those parents were interested in maybe letting them go ahead because it's getting a little late for young children. I'm not sure. Well, you might ask if anyone who's a speaker with young children might like to be allowed to go. We have anyone with young children. If you are on this agenda item and if you'd like to go ahead, please let the clerk know your name. Thank you. Otherwise, let's continue, please. Thank you. WARD Patricia Nash and then Angela Hawk about. Hi, I'm Karen. I don't know any of you because I only moved here a few months ago, but I hope I'm going to get to know you so. Especially since I'm expected to vote for you within a reasonable period of time. My daughter and her family moved here and so that she could teach in this area. And so I moved to both because there's lots of nice things about Alameda and because I don't like being more than 20 minutes from my grandchildren. And there's lots of good volunteer work to do here. Every day. I came out to the Bay Area in 1965 when I graduated from Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations and have never thought of going back East not only because it's too cold, but because I really like the Bay Area. I've lived in Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and now Alameda. All of the other cities that I lived in did have some form of rent control and some kind of renters rights office that the city sponsored and that I learned a great deal from. And even when I was a homeowner, that I felt was a very worthwhile contribution to our community. Among the. Well, I won't go into all the good qualities of Alameda because I think you all know them. But one of the things that does concern me is the lack of diversity. And what hit me directly was the lack of economic diversity. It was very hard. I'm a retired teacher. I live on CalSTRS. We get 1% at most increase per year. That doesn't even come to a fraction of what landlords feel that it's okay to raise rents. So it really was not easy. I had to spend a lot of time trying to find a place that I could live here. I actually had to have my children cosign with me to be able to rent here because they didn't feel that that I could afford to rent in Alameda. Although I've never in my life had any trouble paying either my mortgage as a homeowner or my rent. I think you want people like me. I think you want people like us. My daughter is also a teacher, an educator. My son my son in law works in solar energy. But this influx that other people have mentioned, especially come in from San Francisco, is making it harder and harder for working families to actually settle here. The kind of families that I think you want you want to have here. So what I'm hoping. Is that since you're surrounded by other cities that do have rent control and renters rights ordinances, that you may already be doing this. As I said, I'm new. Here, but that. If you haven't, that you work together with them, you know, consult with your colleagues in other cities and find out what's working in other cities so that we could have that here in Alameda, my daughter and son in law are hoping to buy a house when as soon as they sell their house in San Jose, they want to buy here in Alameda, which means I want to stay in Alameda, too, but I need to be able to afford it. So I'm hoping that you're going to work to make that possible. Thank you. Patricia Nash And then answer our Haggadah. And I'd appreciate if you'd hold your applause. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, sorry about that. Madam Mayor. Spencer and city council members. I am Patricia Nash. I've lived in Alameda for 33 years. I'm a grandmother of four, mother of three, and I love it here. I'm a member of the Alameda Renters Coalition. Disability. Committee. Our committee members have come here to show our support for creating a rent control ordinance and finish passing an ordinance for universal design in Alameda. People with disabilities. Are much more affected by the renters crisis than many other people because many of. Us live on fixed. Incomes and many places were not built to accommodate disabilities, which narrow our choices for homes. We are seniors. We are 17% of all Alameda. We face much discrimination. We need housing protection. Like all renters, we need affordable housing. But unlike many renters, we can't so easily move away because finding work is so much harder for us. Moving involves complications arising from access and mobility issues. We have deep roots here in Alameda. Generations of families. Are affected by this. Whole families will be broken up. And our lives made unnecessarily harder. Let's stop greed from ruling our retreat. Community and make all housing accessible to all people. I love it. Here and I want to stay here active in my. Community. Thank you very much. Angela Hawk about Jason Buckley and then Gary. Good evening, Mayor and vice mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Angela Hawk about I live on Bay Farm Island and I started the Alameda Runners Coalition and I'm here this evening to thank you for getting the rent review ordinance this far and that we're here tonight to hopefully finish it and provide a modicum of support to renters. Right now, unfortunately, over the summer, I've seen more and more people get displaced out of their homes. And this rent review ordinance does nothing to address 30 and 60 day notices to vacate. I'm seeing elderly people. I'm seeing seniors, single family, single parent homes. And at this point, they can't even afford to meet the 30% requirement to rent of their income for a new rental, even if they wanted to pay that extra money. If they wanted to pay three fourths of their income instead of 30%, they can't. The the rental property agencies won't take them because they don't meet the requirement. And so what I'm trying to say to you is that the reason why all these renters are here tonight is because they are worried that this rent review ordinance isn't going to be enough. And I really strongly encourage you guys or you all as the council to find additional solutions and keep the conversation going. This is a great first step, but it shouldn't be the last step. Thank you very much. Yeah. Based on Buckley and then Grover Rudolph and then Gary Hart. Hello. And good evening. I would just like to say, it seems that, you know, there's a lot of talk about collecting data, figuring out if there is a crisis. And while we're doing that, the crisis is turning into class warfare. People are getting pushed out of their homes. People are getting evicted given 60 days so they could jack up the rent by double. At some point, we have to just say no to this. Greed. It is. Naked greed. And as a community, is this what we want? Do we want to be the community that just pushes people out so people can make more money? Not only do we need rent control, we need. Some kind of moratorium on rent increases and these evictions. If we want to stop our community from bleeding people. That's pretty much all I. Have to say. Thank you. Grover Rudolph. Hello. Good. Good evening. What I want to caution you guys against what some of the other cities do in and around the country. I'm I happen to be in the middle of this sort of thing. I'm a property manager also. I've been a renter as well. And what I would encourage you to do is to not take a one size fits all approach in your city should be some sort of formula that you guys will utilize that balances. Infrastructure, current needs and market forces. Just consider those things. When you take a one step fits all at once. One size fits all approach. End up with a lot more problems than you're going to want. And again, I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I would encourage you to do something that takes into consideration a formula that's some sort of one size fits all, because it really creates more problems than you think. Thank you. And I'm a Gary. Do you have Gary? Looks like b a tr. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Council members, thank you for reviewing this subject matter and trying to do something about it. Please excuse me. I'm not a public speaker, so I'll try my best here. But I've lived in Marina Vista apartments on the beach in since 1993, and our building just got purchased by the entity that also owns the summerhouse . And within seven days of closing on August 12th, 20, about 25% of us were notified of a rent increase of about 30 to 50%. There hasn't been any work that's been done to the to the building, except for some work that maybe started today. But. This is a very huge amount and it seems to me like something needs to be done, some sort of ordinance to be put in place, to have some sort of fairness. I used to manage the building as well. I managed the building from 2006 to 2013, and in my time of managing the building, I did manage to move the rent by. The rent rose by 25%. I was able to do this by. Basically renovating and fixing up the apartments for the new tenants coming in. Who knew what the rents were coming in. They were happy with that. They didn't have to raise the rents on any of the existing tenants. They didn't have to raise the rents on the elderly, didn't have to raise rent on anybody for like that. So to me, it seems like it can be a workable formula to be able to. Not have to raise the rents on people 30 to 50%. You know, that's going to displace a whole lot of people. I mean, it might even displace me. So of course I'm here to talk about it and hopefully you guys can do something about it. So hopefully you can keep the effort and maybe put some sort of fairness in place that just keeps companies that are coming in to just be fair to the, you know, to the tenants instead of just corporate greed, just jumping in and raising 30 to 50%. That's a huge amount. So I can understand that, you know, there needs to be some sort of an increase. But fairness, you know, in the past it's been like 10%. So anyway, that's what I wanted to say. Hopefully you can do something about this and continue the effort. Thank you. SA three. I believe this is Sara Tariq and then Lucia and Jon Sullivan and then Jon Klein. So. Hello. So Southwest overnight. Hello. Here we are living in the same building. 2019 and. We are first generation here in this country. And my wife has breast cancer and I'm the only supporter in the family right now. And like Gary said, the resentment from the base line, whatever, we are paying it for 30 to 50%. It is it is only unmanageable. We are not asking you sympathy, but I want you to do something about it, to fair to both parties, not just, you know, take the money. We can't even afford it. And also, you know, as a household provider, I'm having two part time jobs. If rent goes this, have within six months or after six months, it goes more higher than that. I mean, where are we going to live? So you guys consider this all and hopefully we are going to have some kind of resolution. Thank you. A future rent control, please. We are. Just try to have one place. Nice place to come. Speaking to the Mike Wilkinson. Thank you. We just want to you know, we are community, we are neighbors. And and we are we just. We want a place we can come into the job and have a place. This is. My home. And we just try to, I don't know, have a consideration for all of us to have a rent control. Is is three four 500 depends of the people will be a lot of money in our building is a lot. And I mean very hard work, but right now I cannot even help or there's going to be a lot of. But to all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Jon Sullivan and then Jon Klein and then Linda Weinstock. And our last speaker will be our Minda Rocca. Unless we have another speaker. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council and city staff. I'm John Sullivan at housing provider, an employer and a taxpayer in Alameda. I very much appreciate your efforts and, you know, the energy that was devoted into getting this far, really, and. And updating our rent review process. As a housing provider. I've been involved in that process. True. There are some versions of it that I don't quite have of the new ordinance that we are proposing that I don't quite agree with. But at least I had the opportunity to, you know, to debate its merits. One big exception, really, is, which is No paragraph six, dash 56 of the new proposed ordinance. And that's failure to participate. Failure to appear essentially. If a landlord. Is deemed to not be participating properly or whatever, and he not alone is deprived of his right to raise the rent, the rent that he feels justified in asking. But he's also can't put another increase in place for a whole year. Two years without a rent increase can be really hurtful. Now, that issue was never part of our discussions in the many, many meetings that we had. Essentially, the rent review board at that time was asked to submit their recommendations, their areas of concerns, and they came up with six, I believe, if my memory serves me right. Recommendations and concerns and those six and only those six items were came on onto the table for discussion. We're allowed on to the table for discussion. No. It's obvious that the rent board did not consider that item a concern at that time. It somehow got in later. Maybe well-intentioned, yes, but clear it is necessities to deprive a landlord of an opportunity to impose and increase. And for a whole year. In order to maintain its property. It really is not, you know, not justified. No. It appears that there's a legal challenge being initiated on that matter. This could cost our city thousands of dollars to defend as a taxpayer, as an employer in Alameda. I ask you to really please consider omitting this penalty portion or letting the ordinance go forward, but placing this penalty portion on hold to give your legal counsel an opportunity to speak to the plaintiff's counsel and. Try to work things out, get better legal opinion or whatever. Lawsuits, just like penalties, can be very divisive. Very divisive. In the spirit of mediation, I think that's what it's all about. I think we should work on that. But thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns this evening. Thank you. Thank you. John Klein. Linda WINESTOCK. John Klein. Linda Weinstock WINESTOCK and then our Linda Graca. Good evening. My name is Linda Weinstock, and I'm. I want to thank everybody here on the council and the city of Alameda for all the hard work they've been doing. And and I hope that we can continue to move forward. I came here tonight to tell my story. I've been here for almost seven years, and I've been a very active part of Alameda. And I'm very proud to. Be a residents. Here. I moved here and I was. Paying 1650 a. Month or a two bedroom. I am paying. 2950 now, just got a. 10% increase. And I was told I asked, what can I project? My husband just got his first Social Security check. What can I project for the next year? I was told. A 15 to 25% increase next year. So they're already projecting where I live, a 15 to 25% increase and letting all of us know to expect that. And I just think this is just unreasonable. It's almost like they're asking me to leave. And so we're planning our exit plan. And I think that is horrible because I have given to Alameda everything I searched out for Alameda for six years. I found you. And now I feel like I'm being asked to leave. All I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. And our is the last speaker we have. If you want to speak on this, please turn on your slip it. Evening. Good evening, Mayor. And everybody else. And will you. Please, good friend of mine that. I'm actually going to be with. You. Could we ask you to pull the mic? I'm sure. And then if you could just say your name. I didn't get it. I mean, Doug Rasa. Good friend that I'm going to be losing. Due to this. I came across. An article now Me Beach. I asked the person who wrote it. If I can read it tonight, and he gave me permission to say, I'm going to be the narrator for John Michael Chiodo I'm not slaughtering his name. It says Rent increases. As you may. Or may not know. I'm a realtor, real estate broker of 18 years. And it breaks my heart that of many of my friends and people. Are getting hit with. Ridiculous rent increases. This has been going on for a couple of years now and I've remained kind of silent on the issue. While I have no answers, I do have a response to landlords that are doing this as the movement grows from tenant rights for tenant rights and rent controls from Alameda Rent Coalition, it is because a view that there is a fire burning in the renters bellies of Alameda causing him to organize. You will be the sole reason that rent control passes. It will be. Your short term thinking and greed that will. Affect the effect the majority of good and fair minded landlords in the city. I urge you to come to the table with to the city and the Alameda renters. He kind of like messed up. A little bit that Alameda renters coalition to work out a fair strategy for rent increases before you permanently screw yourselves and the rest of the property owners. Your greed is not only affecting families, seniors and those soon to be retired, but also affecting small business owners of the city who rely on the expendable incomes of those individuals who go out and enjoy this city and what they have. What it has to. Offer. Huge rate increases will affect their ability to take kids out to eat, taking few classes, sports programs and even deny them of Tucker's ice remain. And. Cookie bath. You're causing a great deal of stress on families with children, seniors and children who help take care of. Their parents for short. Term gain. And when the market turns. Against you, you will be locked into lower rates controlled by rent control. Based on your actions today to the Fair Property Owners, I urge you to be involved in these meetings being held with the city and. With the Renters Coalition. There are others that are going to. Decide the fate of your. Investment and your rights based on your noninvolvement. This is a real problem and I urge everybody to get involved on both sides. There can be a mutually beneficial agreement, but if the good landlords do not come out and and work and fight against those landlords that are no longer living here or our our after short term gains will not only ruin the family orientated nature of the city, but also ruin the rights that you currently have as an owner. I urge renters. Rental agents. Property management. Companies. To start the dialog with your owners to explain the consequences of their actions. Not just financially, but to Alameda families to Knutsen. Thank you. Thank you. We have two more speakers. Definition. Definition. ARD and Christoph. Crystal Felder. Hi. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Shannon. I am a longtime Alameda resident. I will confess, I did move to San Francisco for a minute and I came back. I am an educator. I am a consultant. I have been an active part of the Omni community. I served on the Alameda Slow Food Board where we did a lot of investment back into the community. When I was still around and. I can barely afford to live here. I live in I. Just received a 15% rent increase. And so the property management people who own my building or my. The property living. Are not Alameda. They are stationed in or they're headquartered in New Jersey. So 40% of my take home pay is going to New Jersey. It's not coming back to Alameda. That $223 extra a month that is now going to New Jersey instead of Alameda. It's not just a $223. Rent increase per month. That is now leaving the city. It's that I have had to adjust my lifestyle. I have started teaching an extra class over at City College of San Francisco, which means that I am in town less often. Which means that I do not get to. Participate in the activities I want to do. It also means that I have adjusted my lifestyle so that I am spending less. Instead of going to monkey bars on Park Street to buy. My toddler, which is I was making a record. So he's gone now. But instead of buying him a toy at monkey bars, I now go on Amazon instead of buying him books. I think I go on to Amazon because I can buy them cheaper there instead of going and buying the produce box at Dan's produce. I now go to Safeway or wherever I can buy sales, so I've really adjusted my whole lifestyle to accommodate this. And again, it's more than $223 a month extra. That is leaving the community. It is now my choices that I have to make. So it's a snowball effect. Again, it's more. Than a 15% increase. I have not worked at a place that that has given me a raise, a 15% raise annually. But that is where I'm having to dig in to find that. To establish a home for my family. Thank you. Thank you. There's still Felder and then Lisa. Brown. And those are our last speakers, I think. You want to speak on this? Please turn in your slip. Good evening, honorable mayor. Deputy Mayor, my name is Crystal Felder. I live at 2019 Shoreline Drive. We've resided there since August of 2004, so we've been there about 11 years now. Recently we received a I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous on the door, just a piece of paper folded with things that are going to happen. The first one was a letter stating that the building had been bought by a new owner. They didn't put the owner's name on there. Then we got something saying that we would have to pay garbage and sewage and water. And then today they gave us something that said in 60 days we would have a rental increase. That was basically double what we're paying now. And then something else that said they were going to start doing renovations to the patio, we don't have a patio. Our window was right on the driveway. I wanted to show you if I can, why I think there should be a moratorium on the rent increases. Is it okay if I ask this to you? This is. Rather constant as far as the apartment that we live in, it comes regularly. It's pretty bad. It comes up from the shower or the toilet, it comes up from the tub. And so I think the new owner should really invest in. Doing. I don't know what they do to stop that, but I think they should do something about that before they consider raising the rent of 40 or 50%. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is John Klein. All right, John Klein. So I'm in support of the ordinance. I live in Alameda. I don't have any horror stories, and I certainly hope that I won't. But I am a renter. But this actually doesn't go far enough. And there's a lot of stuff going on there other than rent increases that the landlords need to be watched. They need to know they're being watched because their what the person there was. I was reading an issue where a new owner was back charging tenants for utilities, which is typically the landlord's responsibility. And so the tenants are going, what do we do? What do we do? But in any case. But really what I want to say. So I was looking in the binder outside with the email that the correspondence you have, you have one from. The San Jose Law. These are all opposed to the ordinance. You have one from the San Jose law firm, one from Hayward residents, two from residents of Pleasant Hill, two businesses in Belmont, one from Castro Valley, one from San Leandro, one from the Rental Housing. Association in Hayward. One was unknown. Excuse me. And one was just simply a Bay Area housing provider. That was the majority of the correspondence you have in opposition. All except one speaker tonight is an Alameda resident and they've all been in favor of the ordinance. So you have to pick who you represent. And our last speaker, Lisa. Hi, I am Lisa Brown and I actually came to speak on another topic. So I'm not entirely prepared for this, but I'm I am a property owner here in Alameda and I have a two unit place and I live in the other unit. And I guess, I mean, you know, I, I feel for the people who are being displaced. Um, I, I don't think that all landlords are greedy. Um, and I would. I would offer the idea that this. Be there be some sort of an exemption for for smaller landlords? I mean, I have one unit, so I'm and I live next door to those people. And if I have a problem with them, you know. Being loud and they're next door to me. I'd like to be able to get them out so that I can still live in my property. So, you know, I am on both sides of the issue here, and I would just like some sort of a consideration for maybe four units or less that there there wouldn't be. And I haven't read the ordinance, so I don't know what it says, but. And, you know, and I'm I'm not a wealthy person. I just happen to be able to use the FHA loan when the market was down. So I'm very lucky to be in the position that I'm in. But I, I would like for you to consider it to be specifically related to people with large number of units rather than all landlords. Thank you. Thank you. Thank. She's our last speaker. Staff, did you have a presentation? Thank you. Good evening. So the action before you this evening, which is five Q and five are on the consent calendar is actually a second reading of two ordinances, one having to do with the rent review process and the other having to do with the formation and operations of the city's Rent Review Advisory Committee. The ordinance was approved by this Council on July 21st on first reading. That action was the culmination of about a nine month community engagement process in which there was a community led initiative to work together to look at ways to strengthen the city's existing rent review process. The action before you this evening is to do a second reading of both of those ordinances, and if the ordinances are approved on second reading tonight, both ordinances would become effective on October 1st. So just a couple of things that I think might be useful to point out based on the public comment this evening is that the ordinance is not a rent control ordinance and people may, you know, have their views about whether that's a good or bad thing. But it is not a rent a rent control ordinance. It is an ordinance that is aimed at strengthening the city's rent review process. Staff really adhere to the spirit of the community engagement process. And what is reflected in the ordinance that was adopted on first reading in July reflects that that nine month process. It is not an accurate statement to say that if property owners violate the provisions of the ordinance, they cannot raise their rent for one year. That that's an overly broad statement. There are two instances in the ordinance where we talk about how rent increases are handled. And one is one of the new provisions is that all tenants must be given a notice of the city's availability of a rent review process when they receive notice of a rent increase. And if failure to notify a tenant of their right to access the rent review process is not provided, you cannot that rent increase notice can be a defense of you as a tenant or served with an unlawful detainer that that violation of the ordinance can be cured by a re notice seen with the proper notice. So there is no penalty about any delay of a rent increase for a year that the cure for that is to simply re notice properly and consistent with the ordinance. There is a second provision of the ordinance that does talk about the rent review process. If if a tenant desires to file a rent increase complaint form with the city for a hearing before our rent review advisory committee and a landlord decides not to participate in that process, then their decision not to participate. The consequence of that decision not to participate is that they cannot the rent increase they cannot increase the rent for one year. And if an unlawful detainer is filed, our ordinance becomes a basis for a defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding. So in that one instance, if a landlord affirmatively decides that they are not going to participate in our mediation process, then there is a consequence in the ordinance. It is still a mediation process. The only obligation for the property owner is to participate in the mediation. The landlord does not have to comply with the the direction or the determination of the Rent Review Advisory Board. It's strictly voluntary. So as long as they participate, they then have the ability to have their rent increase stand. So what we are doing is implementing the recommendations that came from the process in the community that involve property owners and tenants. And we have to, as staff, have respected that process and captured that the outcomes of that process in this ordinance. So that's that's where we at. That's the genesis of the two ordinances that are before you this evening. The other thing that the council directed staff to do in July was to do some additional research about three items that were raised by the Renters Coalition in July, where they asked that we study the more to a moratorium on rent increases, that we look at inspections when rent increases are given. We got that direction from council and council asked us when we come back with our report at the end of the year about the impacts of rising rents on tenants. We will be addressing those issues per council's direction at that same time. So we will be continuing. This is an ongoing discussion, clearly a huge. Issue here in Alameda. And lastly, the ordinance does have a provision that we as staff report back to the Council on an annual basis about the effectiveness of the rent review ordinance. So we will be coming back first at the end of this year with our with our report on the impact of rising rents on Alameda residents and on the three issues that the Renters Coalition asked the Council to address in July. And then six months later, we will be coming back. If the ordinance goes into effect might be a little more than six months. If the ordinance becomes effective October one. We will then be reporting back next year on the data and kind of an analysis of how the ordinance has been working over these 12 months, if it's adopted. So that's some context for the audience and for the council, and then I'm happy to answer any questions in addition. Michael Rausch from the City Attorney's Office, who's been working with us on this, is here. And I might just add one more thing. That council also directed us in May to do a legal analysis about the validity of the ordinance. And we reported back in July with a very comprehensive analysis of the legal validity of the ordinance, and the Attorney's Office has opined that this ordinance meets all of the requirements of state law. So staff continues and council reflected the confidence in that legal opinion by introducing this ordinance on first reading in July. So we as a staff do feel confident about the legality of of the ordinance. That's before you for a second reading this evening. Thank you. Member Ashcroft. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Potter, for your remarks. That was some of the most emotional testimony I've heard in this chamber in a lot of years of serving on the council in different bodies. And I appreciate everything that you're working on. I'm confident that we're going to pass a to do our second reading of these two measures before us. One of the things I wonder, and maybe this is already part of your work plan, but are we looking at what is being done and what is working in other cities to address these problems? I know Alameda is not alone, but as we say more than once, we shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel if there's something, something more that can be done. I'd like that to come back to council when you report back to us at the at the end of the year. Yes. That is part of the work plan, part of the review. The report that we're doing on the impact of rising rents will be looking at best practices about the issue of, you know, the adverse impacts of very large rent increases on the community. And the other. I was just ready to move approval. But maybe there's other comments. Well, do we want to do the motion and then come in or how would you like to do that? I propose first we look at five. Q Are we making comments after a motion? We could, yes, I'll hold. Off. If you want to make comments now, you could. Yeah. I can make them now, so. Let's make them now. Doyle has the sign there. I rent and I vote. I rent and I vote. So I totally understand all of the issues that have been raised today. Before doing what I do now, I was a landlord tenant attorney, and as Councilmember Ashcraft said, this was a very emotional thing. And the legal profession, you know, I think the only thing that's worse emotionally than landlord tenant dispute is a family law dispute. So we're talking about a basic need and that's a basic need of housing. So. You know, I didn't say this last time and maybe I should have. It's a little disappointing that this came to the council. You know, I wasn't here. I don't think anybody up here voted for this path last September. And it'll be 15 months before we have data on on the extent of the problem. You know, that's really disappointing to me that, you know, we had an opportunity to address the issues and the concerns that the tenants have been raising. And, you know, it hasn't happened. And we still have to wait another three months to get that information. You know. Each time we discuss this, more and more people come out. So I'm beginning to wonder, you know, in my head as I think about this, is this, you know, isolated to 30 or 40 people or do we have a larger problem? You know, I hear more and more people say I'm getting the 30 and 60 day notices. You know, Linda. 25% this year and 25% next year. I mean, that's that's obscene. Okay. And I'll say it. So for tenants, you know, I apologize to tenants for what we're going to do today because it really doesn't move the needle , I think, where it needs to be moved. This is I think it's a good thing that we're going to have notice and that more tenants are aware of their rights and maybe we'll take advantage of the process. But all landlords have to do is show up. You know, they don't have to mediate. I mean, they don't have to lower the increase. They don't have to listen to that to the the rent poor. They don't have to listen to the counsel. So we haven't really done anything to stop these egregious rent increases. And that's really disappointing to me that we don't have something in front of us that we can do. So, I mean, tenants, you all a lot of you talked about rent control. This isn't rent control. We haven't talked about just cause eviction. You know, we haven't talked about moratoriums. We haven't talked about rent control. But I will say to the landlords. You're pretty lucky that this is all we're doing. And without having the one year delay, if you fail to show up, there's no tooth teeth to this ordinance. There's no teeth. And all you have to do is show up. Come to the meeting, come to mediate, and you can get what you want. I don't know. I can't see where that's a burden. I can't see where that's a burden on landlords to come to one meeting and get what they want. So I'm not sympathetic to those complaints where if you don't show up to the mediation, you don't get a chance to raise rents after another year. So one thing I will say to the landlords. If it turns out that the 30 or 40 people that we keep hearing from are are not isolated, if they're a part of a bigger pattern of massive 30, 60 day notices, if they're a part of a pattern of massive ten, 15, 20% increases, this council is going to be forced to act. And if we fail to act, 51% of our voters, our citizens, our tenants, they will either kick us out or they will put something on the ballot. And what they will put on the ballot will probably be far worse for landlords than anything we could put together. So if you're doing this, if you're giving out these massive increases, if you're routinely evicting people with 30 or 60 day notices. Stop doing it. Be reasonable, because we are watching. The tenants are watching. The council is watching. And I'll be really interested to see the data that we see back in December. Thank you. Member. Ashcroft Thank you. I, um, I endorse everything my colleague, council member Odie just said. I wrote in my margin as people were talking and I even lost track of how many speakers did we have? Madam Clerk? Roughly 19. We're hearing alarming reports of extreme rent increases in Alameda. The council needs to take action on these two measures tonight. That's what's before us. But trust us, we've heard what you said. I know there are people I've gotten your emails who are impatient. They don't want us to wait for data. Just act as do something. Now, whatever a resolution is will be better and sounder and more effective with data to rely on. And we have a very competent staff working on that. I also want to address the issue of the one year suspension of a grant. I was a little surprised that the attorney for the apartment house owners raised that because I know he's talked to our city attorney and knows that it passes legal muster. And and, in fact, those same provisions are in place in other cities in the Bay Area, Fremont and San Leandro. And they have been in place for decades. What I noticed in the last term on the city council was we had two instances that happened in fairly close proximity where there was an egregious rent increase. A couple of them, two different properties. And the landlords just didn't they didn't come to the hearing. Then they're called to come before the city council. They didn't come to the the city council. They said, we don't have to. One of them sent their attorney and said, We read the ordinance. We don't have to come now. It's not a panacea. But one thing we do find and in the mediation process is that if you can at least get parties to the table to sit down face to face and look each other in the eye and hear about the things we heard about today, which is what I would call the impact that this is having on people's lives. It's possible that you can reach some middle ground. It's a whole lot more possible than if the the landlord and it's not by the way, and a level playing field because the landlord has everything the tenant needs. So that's all we're asking. It's very reasonable if you're an out of state landlord. The provision also says you can send an agent, but that agent has to have authority to act and better come prepared to enter into an agreement. If you're just going to sign us off, if you're just going to blow us off as has happened before. Then you lose. If you don't show up, you won't get to increase your rent for a year. And that's completely reasonable. And then I just want to end with quoting Angela Hawk about and I'm also very moved and impressed that so many of you have gotten together in this organization of the Renters Coalition. And I know there's Facebook groups and there's a lot of communication, and I want to encourage the landlords. We know there's good, decent landlords out there. Don't let the bad apples label you get in there and make the difference that you're able to make. But Angela, talk about said this, these ordinances that we're about to vote on tonight, they're a good first step, but they shouldn't be the last. And I couldn't agree more. Thanks, everyone. Yes. Member j soc. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to everyone who came out took the time to share their situation. I think it certainly is indicative that members who are raising their rents were not here, but that the tenants who live here in Alameda are here because you're turning to the city council for not just support but for action. I think tonight is a first step. It's not enough, but it's a first step. Ultimately, as I had indicated in talking with members who are affected by the rental increase, I want to see stronger steps. You know, I want to see specific language with regard to just cause eviction. I want to see specific language with regard to moratorium on prices. Now, I think we here in the city of Alameda, we're going to lose something if we lose a lot of the tenants who are here. You guys are the ones who have made Alameda a dynamic place. You know, we're not just, you know, some affluent Silicon Valley town. We're a town that does have that. But it also has a working class. It has young adult, it has older adults, and we're going to lose that flavor. So we need to take action. You know, all of you know that, you know, I have my twice office hours and I to me, you know, the number of people who come out and let me know that their rent increases is just coming down mean I know that it's a crisis already. It's not about gathering data. The facts are in front of us, in front of and in the faces of that people and the stories that they have to tell my neighbors, Gina and Steve, now, they had to move out of town because their landlord who lives in Kensington, you know, jacked up their rent, all because once again , when I got better tenant, you know, at Farmer's Market, you know, someone came by and told me that, you know, she's active in the church and also she's affected by a huge rent increase. A neighbor of my good friend on Broadway. It's happening across town and we're really losing a significant part of our town. So I look forward to passing was before us right now, but I also look forward to specific action. And, you know, I want to see I want to make a vote up or down. With regard to living wage, earner living wage, with regard to just cause evictions as as well as any temporary moratorium, some kind of emergency trigger that that councilors or the mayor can pull in times of crisis, emergency triggers, as opposed to, you know, something that's lasting. But maybe we have to do something that's lasting. I don't know. But we need we need specific action because we're losing people right now and it's sad. Thank you. I swear I'm ready for the vote right now. It's. We've heard that there should be some changes as well. We can always evaluate as we have this ordinance in effect for the next six months and see if those changes are warranted. Also, any decision that's made at the Rent Review Advisory Committee is appealable to the council, so there's no reason to delay this. Let's take this step. Things. The stories are getting worse. And. We have to. Protect it. The matter of fairness in business here in the city of of people who rent and people who are providing houses, it's got to be fair. I also heard that Santa Rosa City Council is also looking they're looking at rent control. So I think the speakers alluded to the fact that people better start acting fairly. Otherwise, there's going to be there's going to be a groundswell of action similar to what we're seeing in other cities. I'd also like our representatives to League of California Cities to push this issue to see what the league is doing because it affects every city in California. Again, I'm ready for the vote now. I think we should pass this both ordinances at this moment. Yes, but. Member de. Sa madam, I'd like to pass make motion adopting the first item as the second reading. We have a second. I'll second that. So that's five Q But correct. Okay. Five. Q I wanted to speak to that. It defines the base rent as other than fees or charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider. And a concern I have it's been raised as it's my understanding and we had to speak one speaker us to that at least one this evening that landlords are passing along more charges, whether it's for utilities, electricity, sewage, things like that. And I'm not sure how we can where that can come in, but that can also be a significant increase. That is a new increase, even though it's not defined as part of our definition here on base rent. So I would propose that can we include utilities in that definition? Well, doesn't the paragraph say, Madam City Attorney, help me out? Or I guess it is Mr. Roush So I'm reading this is under section page two of our staff report. You know, page two of the staff report, section six, dash 57.2 Definitions based rent means the rental amount, including any amount paid directly to the housing provider for parking, storage or any other fear charge associated with the tenancy other than fees or charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider. I wasn't clear whether the speaker who charged was saying that there were now the tenants were being required to pay directly to pay junior or whatever. But perhaps you can clarify that terminology for us. Madam Mayor, members of the council, Michael Roche. What? The city attorney's office here in Alameda. I think the concern that if if we were to do sort of as a procedural matter, if we were to change that tonight. We would then have to reenter and. Reintroduce it tonight, have a second reading, and that would cause some delay. So leaving that issue aside, I think the idea here with the with the definition was that. If the if the. Tenant is paying the utility directly to the landlord, then that would not be included. It's only when the utilities are sort of embodied within the the rent that the tenant is paying. We can certainly come back. And when we bring back the the report in December, take a look at that definition. If if that issue is arising and causing a problem, we can certainly fine tune that a little better to try to deal with the issues that have been voiced here tonight by our residents. And we've also received, I believe, emails or other communications of, for instance, a landlord taking the total amount of the water bill because they don't have individual water to the homes. And then they divide that by the number of people and they just demand that they pay that now. And I believe there's other utilities that are these new charges to tenants in the past the landlord has absorbed. So this is a new this this seems to be another tactic that we're seeing of landlords being able to charge additional moneys to tenants that are already. Feeling, you know, that they're being over having too it's too much. Too much. So if we can address this, look into that issue. There is certainly some law with respect to mobile home parks, with respect to that issue, in terms of requiring sub metering so that the you know, if you if you're using more utility than your next door neighbor, you shouldn't be you should be paying for your charge. We'll have to take a look at whether or not that is as applicable with respect to residential rental units. I'm just not sure that answer, as I said, or stand here tonight, but we would certainly look at that as part of the report we bring back in December. Okay. So if you could also look at that, which I appreciate. Thank you. And also making I've also heard of a landlord of making it retroactive, going backwards and saying that they have utilities that have not been paid and charging tenants to make to make them whole. Can you look into that issue also or would you have an opinion in regards to the legality of retroactivity on something like that? Councilmember It was probably much more well versed in that issue than I am. I don't know the answer to that, but we certainly can take a look at that as to whether or not a retroactive application can be applied. It certainly seems somewhat suspect, but without without delving into the weeds with respect to that issue, I wouldn't be able to answer that definitively today. Thank you. Did you have I. Just want to say, I think the points that Mayor Spencer is raising is important, because what she's what is really getting at is whether we're going to define rent in terms of gross rent or we're going to define it as the, you know, the cash contract rent for purposes of affordable housing policymaking. It's really the gross rent that is always used in terms of defining people who are at or below the 30% threshold. So in a way, it is correct to somehow take into account utilities for those who have to pay utilities and for those who don't have to pay utilities. So gross rent is a rent plus zero, whatever the utility says. The only careful thing you need to watch out, though, is that whatever language that you have, utilities is always going to change from month to month, season to season. So, you know, somehow that nuance has to be incorporated, but I think we could certainly catch it later this year. But by the same token, you know, if we can start on a lot of other things, too, that people are concerned about, like just cause eviction and things like that. I also wanted to thank Jeff Canberra as well as all the tenants and landlords that participated in the multiple hearings that resulted in this. I also want to acknowledge that I believe that there's been a change in the landscape, if you will, and I'm not sure if we looked back that we would be arriving at this solution , quote unquote solution today. There. I am also a renter. I will share. I've been renting the same home for 16 years. Under. Costa Hawkins single family homes are not and would not be affected by rent control. Many of us do rent single family homes in this town. And one thing that this this approach goes to is trying to address all renters and under Costa Hawkins. And that's something that I encourage all of you to look at, anyone that. There are exclusions to it. And that's the state legislation and it excludes from rent control. Currently in the state of California, single family homes and apartments that were built after 1995. This is Brian, it's my understanding. One. One thing you see sometimes is condo conversions because then you end up with essentially a single family home from an apartment. So there are responses. So at this point, I will be supporting I'm confident this will pass this this. This ordinance that is really goes to mediating. However, when we see these increases, for instance, $650, up to 2900, and I can tell you, my landlord and I know many local landlords are not doing this. We have a serious problem here and that that's been alluded to as we have. But I'm going to call out of town onwards that. Don't really seem to be to to to care. If you will, what our about our community. And this is a serious problem. Of our local landlords are trying are trying very hard to help mediate this from what I've seen. And I want to give them credit for that. So this is a step. However, when we see these large increases from apartments that could be addressed through rent control. As well as the 30 to 60 day notices to vacate. We have a problem. So going back to what I had said earlier, I, I don't believe I'm I can't help but think that we would be asking for more concessions at this point if we were looking at the current landscape, which means this does need to circle back sooner rather than later. We do need all of the tenants who renters. If you're experiencing these increases, you need to strongly consider taking advantage of the rent review advisory committee. We want you to use that process and then we encourage the landlords to also participate in that process. And I have attended those meetings and many of the cases are resolved. It is they it is taken seriously. And cases cases are resolved. There is resolution. It's not all of the cases, but a significant number. And that's actually what we're hoping that we will see, especially now, is that we want where we want more of the cases to be mediated through this process. So that's what this goes to. We will, as a council and staff, be monitoring the cases. So please participate in the process. And we will also have that data to see if the process is working. And so that is a means that is can impact all of our renters can fall under that. So it's a way for us to address every renter with the cooperation of our landlords. So this this like others have said, this is a step. And and I do appreciate all of you coming out this evening. What I call the question. All those in favor. I. That's for five Q which passed unanimously. Do I move passage of the ordinance? This is item number five. Are I the final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding section two, Dash two three to Article two concerning the creation of a rent review advisory committee. Like any discussion. All those in favor. I know that five are also passed unanimously. We're going to take a short recess right now. And those of you that are not interested in staying for the balance of the calendar, you may now leave or. Please take your seats so we can read them first. If you could please take your seats, we're. Going to review. Thank you. We are now going to resume the meeting. Please take your seats. Thank you very. Much for that, Sergeant, at. Our. Part of the job description. All right. And we have a request from counsel to actually have the 60 from his counsel. UNESCO sorry. Of regards to item six be to have that item brought back. I know we have at least two speakers on that item. The concern is that. We are paying someone to be here now for this, and we'd rather do it at the next meeting because we have all these other items. If that would be the two speakers that are. I think there's two speakers. Would you mind if we reset this and imposed upon you one more time to come back? I'm really, really sorry. As you can tell, we have not yet made it to the regular agenda items and it's 9 p.m. that we have. So thank you very much. And we will kick over six B until. The first being October. It'll be in October, October and then won't. Thank you very much. I promise. Appreciate it. So we'll try to get to that first on the agenda next time. So we appreciate you. Tucker's is still alive for any inconvenience this may have caused either of you. Yeah. And we do appreciate your service on that commission to. Next. We are now on 6 a.m., adoption of resolution. Three. Adoption of resolutions appointing Arnold Bollinger and Susan Deutsch as members of the Commission on Disability Issues, David Mitchell and Sandy Sullivan as members of the Planning Board and Hoyt to the Public Art Commission on the motion. Adam prior to the Park Commission and Chris Smiley to the Transportation Commission.