Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-23 to Article II Concerning the Creation of a Rent Review Advisory Committee; and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XIV to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases. (Community Development 481005) REVISED AS OF JULY 21, 2015
Introduction of ordinances amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section two, Dash 23, Article two concerning creation of a rent review advisory committee and an ordinance adding Article 14 to Chapter six concerning the review of rent increases. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. On May 5th, staff presented two alternative ordinances governing rent review procedures in the city. City Council gave staff direction to move forward with the ordinance that does not require a minimum rent increase to access the rent review process. Council also requested that staff analyze the proposed ordinance to ensure it does not that it is not in conflict with state law, specifically the Costa Hawkins Act, which precludes certain types of local rent control. Legal staff has concluded that the proposed ordinance is consistent with state law. Additionally, council requested several minor revisions to the ordinance, including grammatical changes, the addition of a severability clause and modifying language regarding alleged violations of the ordinance so that the alleged violation would be evidence and not a complete defense in any court proceedings. These changes are highlighted in Exhibit One of the staff report. Staff has also made a few changes to the ordinance, including adding the definition of a housing unit and breaking the ordinance into two ordinances so that the rent review process is addressed in one ordinance. And the inclusion of the rack in the municipal code to better outline the specific duties and responsibilities is in a second ordinance. Lastly, you will note that a revised staff report was posted today to fix some minor typos, including clarifying that an alleged violation of the ordinance will be evidence and not a complete defense. This change was made in two subsections of the ordinance, but overlooked in subsection three. Based on the legal analysis that concluded that the proposed ordinance is consistent with state law, staff is recommending that two ordinances, one governing the rent review process and one codifying the RAC, be introduced this evening on first reading. And with that brief staff report, I am happy to answer any questions. Member Thank you, madam. Thank you. Ms.. Potter Just a couple quick questions. So there's this definition of housing unit. Room or group of rooms. So this ordinance only applies to housing units as defined in this in this ordinance. Yes. And this was really meant to clarify that if you are renting out an individual room in your house, that that would not that room rental would not be covered by the ordinance, that this is really to cover standalone. So that Mrs. Murphy exception in the old term in property law. But if you do that so like for example the Toni's yes councilmember de Suggs so his his tenant has no recourse if he jacks up the rent. If he doubles the rent. That's basically what we're saying. That's under this ordinance. That's correct. Then one other quick question on on the Housing Authority Housing Authority property, are they subject to this? Because I did receive some complaints from this. The ordinance has drafted would exempt the housing authority because the housing authority is governed by federal law so that that process is completely different than than state law and then local law. So all the folks at Independence Plaza, when they get a rate increase. They have there's a whole separate process that's established for for appealing that via the federal law. Okay. Those are my clarifying questions. Thank you. Member de SAG. Has to follow up on the issue raised by Councilmember Ody. I didn't say, oh, no, no, I'm not feeling defensive whatsoever. I think it's a valid point. I think it's important because I am of the opinion that I hate to use the word landlords, but landlords in the situation that I'm in ought to be subject. But so that begs the question, so why is there a legal reason as to why a person who lives in her or his own home and rents out an available room is not subject. Is there a reason why with. The precluded is the the logic that staff applied to this was that we we thought for consistency it would be better to line up the definition of a housing unit with our zoning with the city zoning code and to really kind of keep internal consistency within our municipal code. I was just curious. Yeah, that was the primary reason. Member. Ashcroft Thank you. So, Mr. Potter, in this staff report, there is mention of the. The study that is going to be done to study a study to analyze the impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. And I'm delighted to read that it's you've retained an economics group and the work commences on. Did it commence July one? We actually we had a kickoff meeting today, earlier today. And they've been working. Yes. Okay. And so will that study look at renters who rent individual rooms or. No, because it's not a part of this ordinance. So the charge really is to understand the impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. And so I believe the focus really is going to be on. You're a renter in a full park, full freestanding unit. Yes. Okay. And then just a point of clarification, because I know this was in the the May staff report, there was reference to both the Fremont ordinance and the San Leandro ordinance that have provisions that are similar, if not identical to the ones that are in our proposed ordinance. And so I checked with Michael Rausch, the assistant city attorney, who did our legal research on this, and found out that the Fremont ordinance was adopted in 1990 and the San Leandro ordinance was adopted in 2001. So those ordinances have been around and functioning for that many years, decades. Thank you. So I have a question. If someone is running a room and they go to Iraq right now, could they file a complaint with an rent advisory committee if they have a rent increase that they want to challenge? I'm sorry I missed the very first part of your. If someone is renting a room today and they had an issue with a rent increase, could they go to Iraq for relief? Would RAC review that? Or do they have to actually be renting what's being described here as a room with a kitchen and whatnot? But if they're just renting a room here in Alameda and they had a rent increase that they wanted to challenge, could they take advantage of our rack? Could they file a complaint? Yeah. Yes, I would say that's probably the case because we have not we have not had a formal ordinance on our rent review process where we have set forward definitions. But I am not aware that we've ever had an actual situation where someone who is renting a room has filed a renting company's rent increase complaint form. You know where I'm going with it, right? All right. So so is there a reason why this could not be broadened to include those that rent a room? Because I actually would submit that we do have a significant number of renters that rent a room. And if, in fact, today they could go to rack to file a claim, is there a reason why we would not staff want to be able to? Why would we want to preclude that. Taking away a right that. We can. You might go ahead. Seems like we're taking away a right that they have today to just to continue on the mayor's point. If the council wants to make that change. I don't I don't think that there is a big downside. We were really looking just to define it to end, like I said, consistency with the zoning code. All right. QUESTION So, Ms.. POTTER and Counsel, I think what I would rather see because I do like I do like data based actions, we are commissioning this study. I would like it to include looking at people who are renting rooms who may have felt that they had egregious rent increases. I'm not sure that we need to add this to the ordinance before we know if indeed it's a problem. So. Yes. We can discuss that. We can discuss that during discussion. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just saying, before we jump to say, okay. We may have different opinions. Okay. All right. So we have approximately. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And we have probably ten speakers, if you could try to keep your comments to 3 minutes and I'm going to call them three at a time. And if you do want to speak on this item, feel free to turn in your slip. Beth, Charlie, Catherine Polley and then Barbara Duncan. You may speak. Says, Beth, are you Beth? You called three? Yes. Beth first. Is Beth here? Then Katherine and then Barbara. How do we not have this? All right. We can call her back later if she does. Maybe she's the that the next Katherine falling, then Barbara Duncan. Hello, Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Council. I'm actually here on the part of Angela Hawk about. She's out of town with her family, and she asks that I read her letter to you and to record. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members. I'm writing today to encourage you to approve the rent review ordinance at this Tuesday's city council meeting. The Rent Review Advisory Committee needs to be strengthened now. The housing crisis has only worsened since we first spoke in January, and renters have few tools to address the rent increases that keep coming their way. You might recall Council Member De Saugus report on the census during the January 20th City Council meeting. It showed that homeowners incomes increased between 2011 and 2013, while renters decreased during the same time. Renters were not prepared for these rent increases and are struggling to hang on to their homes. Should say our homes. I understand that the council will be on break in August, which means that this ordinance will not be finalized until September. Renters have already waited months for the council to address this housing crisis. And while many renters applaud the upcoming new housing units coming to the market through the approval of sidewalk, those improvements are years away. Renters need help now. We hope for the swift approval of the rent review ordinance tonight and reviewing the supporting documents for the rent review ordinance. I appreciate that the council and the legal department have gone the extra mile to ensure the enforceability and legality of this ordinance. We hope that you will approve the rent review ordinance as a starting point to build more community stabilization in the city of Alameda. Much more needs to be done to protect the citizen renters of Alameda. Here are a few of my ideas. One. Make any application to the rock trigger an inspection by the Planning Department to ensure that any unit in question is up to code. We feel that RAK applicants often come to the rock with concerns about the quality of their rental units and that the only way to truly know the status of a unit is to inspect it. We believe that many of these rent increases would be reconsidered if the true scope of deferred maintenance on a given rental into a rental unit was understood to institute a moratorium on rent increases in the city of Alameda. This is the only way that some families will be able to remain here in our city. Three required landlords to give tenants 30 and 60 day notices to vacate to provide moving assistance, for example, or reimbursement for moving costs. And the full replacement of the security deposit. This will ensure a displaced renter can find new housing. In this housing crisis, the renters of Alameda are looking to the Council for Leadership on this matter. Thank you for taking the time to review the issue. I hope we can continue to find new solutions to address this very urgent crisis. And thank you for the extra 30 seconds. Thank you. Thank you. Barbara Duncan. And then you. And then Annette Zelinski. You may proceed. Okay. My name is Barbara. Duncan, and I'm for rent. Control. I came in tonight and gave Marilyn Ashcroft. Something for the mayor. And it's about the Berlin. Rent control and how. It's worked. And right now we have Richmond. Online. And we have San Francisco online. Okay. They both want rent control. The way it's going now. You want the. Council. You were put up there by us, by the people. Now we feel you should act. For the people. One way or another, if you please, would sit down and think about the. People. That cannot afford this rent increase, because Richmond has already found out that people are going in there buying their housing up and raising the rents. Alameda was known as a diamond in the rough. I don't know. Who said that, but that's what it was called. And it will not be. I mean, I drove down the street yesterday. And couldn't get from one point to another. Without stopping, so. That's it. I have no more to say. Thank you. And we will provide copies of your hand out to all council members. Thank you very much. U u t u t. E Boota. V to. Etta. And then Annette and then Bill Smith. Good evening. First, let me applaud. The mayor and the city council for going ahead with such a. I believe that's very important because there's plenty of people in Alameda right outside a it would have to move someplace else because they cannot afford to live here. And I hope this is a new beginning for the city of Alameda, because this is a very serious issue. I speak to quite a few people and everyone says the same thing. My my rent went up. I can't stay here anymore. My kids have to go to a different school. My husband has to travel 5050 miles. To go to work. So it's disrupting lives. And I'm hoping. It is a new beginning and the mayor and the city council will move forward to more affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. I'm Annette Zielinski, and some of you have heard me tell my story before, so I'll try to keep it really short. But basically, about a year ago, well, August of last year, my rent went up 20%. And I went through the rack process and I felt that a 10% increase was fair and was willing to pay a rack, supported that decision. And my landlord, when the ten days was up to supply me with a new lease to honor the recommendation of the rack committee, decided to call me and evict me over the phone. And said that he'd be following up with writing in the notice in writing shortly. So in that time I had called eco housing and renewed hope and got some help. And it took a couple of months, but after a couple of months they were willing to give me a new one year lease, but for the full 20% amount that they originally proposed. In that time, I had gone to look for housing and couldn't believe that in the two and a half years that I lived there, what had happened to rents in Alameda? And I got really scared because I was recruited to work here. I was living on the East Coast at the time and was recruited to work here by the North Face, which is like a fairly prominent business on the island. And for what they were willing to pay me at that time, I could afford a one bedroom apartment. Now I can't. Like I am at the max of what I can afford. I made my company aware of my situation and they, you know, instead of my annual 3% raise, I got a 4% raise, which really doesn't compensate for a 20% rent increase. I guess I really want to I don't know all the details of what's in this new ordinance, but I would like to see the committee have some enforcement authority. You know, I mean, they can make a recommendation, but if the landlord doesn't want to follow it, where does that leave people like me? I mean, I had to suck it up with that 20%. And to be honest with you, I've given up on looking for another place to live that's in this state. Like, I'm trying to head to Oregon, and that really bums me out because my livelihood is very specific to the footwear industry, which is what I'm doing here in Alameda. And it's I've been actively job hunting since January to no avail. So I'm really scared and I kind of lose sleep about this all the time because in that process, my landlord got a little heated with me and said that he he thinks he should be getting 2450 for my apartment. When I rented it four and a half years ago, my rent was 1500. It's now 1800. So come October, when my lease is up, I'm looking at nearly $1,000 rent increase in less than five years. So I'm scared, I'm desperate, I lose sleep. And I just beg you guys to, like, consider some enforcement authority for the rack. So thank you. Thank you. Bill Smith and then Pamela Tozer. And then. And Mike Harrigan. Mayor Spencer and council members and staff. I'm Bill Smith speaking on behalf of renewed hope. And as we've heard from the last speaker to thrive or community service workers who wait tables, who design shoes, who work in retail and clean our schools and stores. Rents, though, are rising faster than wages paid to the providers of these services. They threaten the fabric of our community. As was just heard in very elegant testimony. Rents are rising because many of us are thriving in the tech business and the tech businesses are expanding. There's money available. It will take time, though, for this money. The fortunes of the tech world to trickle down to retailers, restaurants, government, north face workers, allow them to pay wages to cover the increased rents will take time to build new housing to satisfy the increased demand. It takes almost no time for rents to rise and evict the service workers. The service workers need to suffer have buried a disproportionate share of the cost of accommodating the new workers and the success of the region. To thrive in our communities, governments, retailers, restaurants and other businesses to raise wages of service workers while housing providers moderate rent increases until those wages rise. I. I thank the city for leading the way by raising the wages of service workers at the Davis Street Transfer Station earlier this year. I urge the city to continue to assist our most vulnerable citizens by passing this ordinance. Greetings, Mayor. Council and staff. My name is Pamela Tozer. I shared a brief version of my story in support of site. You may recall that my 12 year old daughter and I share a room and a bed in an apartment that, due to rent increases is now. The rent is now more than half my income, half my monthly income. I also have a 20 year, 26 year old son who, through economic displacement in Alameda, found it necessary to move out of state and is awaiting the return of affordable housing. If my rent were to increase any further, I fear my fate would be the same for my daughter and myself. As a resident for over ten years, that would devastate my daughter. We moved here when she was two. You have seen her. You've seen her in The Nutcracker on the stage at Kaufman. You've seen her play soccer at Lincoln. At Lincoln Park, T-ball at Riddler Park and softball like Russi. You've also seen her sailing in the bay and in the estuary. We want nothing more than to remain in our home while we await the construction of affordable rental housing. I am not alone in my desires or concerns. Elderly, disabled and other single parents. We feel exposed and vulnerable and without protection and care. I believe strengthening the RAC is a great first step in establishing community stabilization. Personal Security. I encourage you to look at all innovative solutions to help Alameda renters. Thank you. Thank you. After and we'll be Barbara Price than John Spangler and then Garfield can cross. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council and staff and just, you know, Barbara did have to leave, so she will she won't be here to speak. I'm here this evening to encourage you to support these ordinances in strengthening the rack. The work they have done in the past has been beneficial to many, and I think the strengthening of the verbiage will help it, especially in the fact that it helps level the playing field requiring the landlord to attend. So often in the past that has been part of the problem is, is that the other side just didn't need to come and never did. And so I think that that's a valuable part. I also think that it's very important to accept as written in the sense that there is no specific percentage noted because markets do change and what may seem reasonable today may be extremely unreasonable in the past. In the future, I mean, we've had times where any kind of an increase may not be reasonable. So I think this allows the rack to be able to react to the to react to the market as it is at that point in time. I also want to thank member Ashcraft for asking to look into the the issue of borders in the sense of somebody who's living in your house renting a room. What? I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is those laws are quite different than those covering renters. So it may be that actually the act does not even cover those at this point in time. And I think it's really important that that that's that we are. Again ensuring that whatever ordinance we are writing, it is not in conflict a law that is already on the books. Thank you. John Spangler. And then Garfield came across and then Karen Bay. Thank you very much. Mr. Spencer, members of the council staff and fellow renters. It broke my heart to hear Annette's 3 minutes of comments here a minute ago. We will be losing a wonderful person from this community. If she is forced out of here and she unfortunately is not alone. My wife and I had been feeling the same pressure for the last five years because we are now renters instead of homeowners. The imbalance of power is really obvious when you change that one from one side of the fence to the other. And it's really disturbing. This ordinance even weakened as it is in the last 60 days and relatively. Ineffective to start with because it does not include rent control is still going to help a little bit and we'll take it. I encourage you to pass it tonight. But there's still no way to legally stop egregious rent increases and robber baron behavior on the part of people who happen to own property. And it just stinks. The United Nations holds that decent housing is a human right. And that's a little different than the free market seems to be able to accommodate. With the referral back to staff. The original implementation date of this ordinance will be six months later than it would have been. That's six more months of stories like Annette's. And journalists and unfortunately, a lot of nameless people who have just given up and left. I want to close by reiterating the points that Angela Hawk about who I wish was here tonight. Stated in her email. One. Make an application to the rack. Trigger an inspection by the Planning Department, the building department, to ensure that any unit in question is up to code. To institute a moratorium on rent increases in the city of Alameda. Three require landlords who give tenants 30 and 60 day notices to vacate to provide moving assistance. That's reimbursement for moving costs and the full replacement of the security deposit. Those are not rent control, particularly either, and they're not enough either. But those should be considered and adopted as soon as possible. We are far from done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Ken Cross. Hello. Good evening, mayor. And City Council members, I. Recently applied to the RAC and. Mayor. You saw the turnout for that. We received some recompense through the through the rec committee. However, you know, the landlord has no binding agreement, you know, or an obligation from the city to participate. We we had a difficult time getting his presence to be here. And I spoke to the other owner. You know, they had lots of people come out to the health department after I complained for four years to this landlord in writing about three different times over the over the past two years. Termites in the they they rendered our balconies unsafe. So due to the balcony collapse that that took place recently in the news they were ready to do this in in a you know, expeditious manner, which, you know, I'm glad they did that. But but they were very reluctant and even sort of laughed off the idea of a city mediation body like the RAC. And I still feel the pressure because there is no binding agreement for, you know, that that allows these laissez faire Ayn Rand types to, you know, use the market as, you know, as as their as their . You know, it seems like they're using it as a weapon on the middle class. You know, and I'm just I'm just tired of that. It shouldn't happen in the United States. You know, it's like it's like a leveraged overthrow of of democracy. You know, and this is serious to me. I've studied these aspects of of history quite deeply and. And I'm just appalled at that type of thing happening throughout the country. I'm an advocate for some more regulation. You know, there's deregulation taking place overall over the last several years in the banking sector, the financial sector. The tech sector is is at the helm of appointing, you know, people in big governments to do things in India like Narendra modi, bring it back, child labor or, you know, it's just and these things that are happening are just overwhelming to tell you in 2 minutes or 3 minutes. But I feel I feel the effects of this. It's like a war on the weak, you know, it's like what happened in Weimar Germany to a certain extent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Erin Bay and then Susan, Laura and then Laura Thomas. If you want to speak on this item, please turn in your slip. Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Members of the City Council staff. My name is Karen Bass, and I'm a landlord. In this city, I've been a tenant as well. And I'm here tonight to urge you to approve the two ordinances before you and then move swiftly to form some kind of a taskforce to discuss the next steps. The city of Oakland and the city of San Francisco did a joint conference a few months ago to discuss the housing crisis, and in that conference, they shared some of their shared ideas on some of the other tools that can be used to address the housing conference I'm sorry, the housing shortage crisis. And then they each went back to their respective cities and began to implement some of those. One of the ideas. It's a note. Examiner Today, San Francisco Examiner on page four, new strategies to address the housing crisis. And I know this might be a little controversial, but it's actually a great idea. But what they're proposing to do is to approve some of the sort of granny units that have been deemed illegal for some reason and give those housing providers an opportunity to make them legal and provide affordable housing. And they would go into a housing affordable pool. Now, this is not city wide. They're doing it. They just selected certain districts. But that's just one of the tools. And they they they they believe that this could create thousands of housing units immediately. And so these are the kind of tools that we need to look at. There are a lot of possibilities. I have some great ideas myself, and I would like to be part of that task force. But I think people need to see us working together to solve this problem. And I do believe that there are a lot of great ideas out there and I would love to discuss more. But please, tonight I approve the two ordinances. Thank you. Thank you. Susan. Good evening. We are definitely the bottom of the barrel at this particular point because we are landlords. I was born and raised in this town, as were my parents, and I love this place more than any place else I've ever been and always come home. So the one question that I have for the proposed study is that going to include the owners who have worked and have. Gone in and you know. Gone into hock to buy a place in the last 15 years, especially before 2008, and then still hung on. Are they are they going to be and are we going to be included in this so that we get our point of view across, too? I'm not saying that rack and this ordinance, both of the ordinances, I think they're a wonderful idea. And I think on a case by case basis that rap could do some wonderful things, but it needs to be a case by case basis. 20% increase from $1,000 or doing a 400% increase over the course of, you know, five years or whatever. It's ridiculous. No owner should be doing that. But they also have to be able to do what they do. They're there. We're in it for business. We're not. We're in it to make money to support our families, to help them out, too. This isn't just a one way street that we're coming in and doing this. Going in with a full replacement of security deposits is unfair. A full replacement of a security deposit because you've asked somebody to leave because they damage the property would be totally unfair to the owners. I mean, you know what? If they're just really bad neighbors, would you want them in your house? Because I'll be happy to move my bad neighbors right into your house. I'll even help them pack. But if they're in there and they've knocked holes in my walls, ripped up my carpet because they didn't like the color and laid down something they did. No. I deserve to get those damage deposits taken care of and done properly through the state of California rules that we have. So to to take it out on all owners isn't correct. But we definitely need to do something to cover everybody, including the owners. Thank you. Thank you. Laura Thomas. And then Carrie Thompson. And then she's our last speaker. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Laura Thomas. Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Of course we support this small boost to the powers of the Rent Review Advisory Commission. It's the result of a lot of work and goodwill on the part of both renters and the conscientious landlords in Alameda. And it ought to be approved tonight. I feel like I'm a kind of a broken record on this issue. But I thought I'd come one more time and say that renters in this town deserve more respect and they need a lot more protection than this minor change to the powers of the Rent Review Advisory to what the Rent Review Advisory Commission can now provide even with this. I think if we don't. Deal with this crisis than we're going to be in the same situation as Healdsburg is in at some point. And if you read the page one of the Sunday Chronicle, you would read about Healdsburg and how the hollowing out of that community from a rapid shift to wealthy people, some of whom mostly bought second homes there. I mean, they 42% of the population of Healdsburg has been there less than 14 years. And they may contribute to the tax base with what they spend on wining and dining over the weekend. But the city is a mere playground for them and they don't really contribute time. They don't even seem to be contributing their money and to community organizations. And the public school enrollment is dropping because obviously their children aren't going to school there. And I think when school enrollment starts to go down, then, you know, your your community is dying. And we're losing a lot of children through this rent crisis. What happened to them rapidly could happen to Alameda, perhaps more slowly. And we don't want a shell of attractive community. We want a real one. And I think it's crucial to stabilize the rents in this town and provide more power to one half of our residents or will become like Healdsburg historical lovely old homes redone for magazine features, but with no real people and no real place to live . Thank you. Thank you. Carrie Thompson is our last speaker on this item. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I Kerry Thompson. I am the immediate past president of the Almeida Chamber of Commerce, and I do support staff recommendation to pass these ordinances to help Alameda renters and to help landlords understand some of the burden that is on renters. Believe me, I have been a landlord. I've also been a renter. I am a homeowner. I've experienced all of those hats. And I feel like right now that frankly, landlords are being vilified. And that is not exactly a fair representation of all landlords. Yes, there are nasty landlords out there. There always have been. There always will be. But I believe that the RAC will help that situation and correct that situation. I really appreciate the fact in there. Councilmember O'Day and I were talking earlier today that, in fact, if the landlord does not show up to the hearing, nothing can happen for a year. No increases can happen. So I think that is a big step for the renters there. It also encourages the landlords to be more involved in what is going on with their tenants. I think some of the things that were requested are a little beyond the scope of rec and should be beyond the scope of rack because there is you can't control what people do with their rental property, just like you cannot control what they're doing with their own home. So to put some of those restrictions on those as far as requiring them to pay for somebody to move for an inspection, that it unless there are health reasons or something, I think you're kind of would be stepping outside the boundaries there. But I do encourage you to pass this ordinance because it is long past time for the renters here. Thank you. Thank you. All right, counsel. Russian comments. Right. And vice mayor. Yes. I'd like to resolve this point that was brought up about the housing unit, because really, this is a the way I read this, this is a ordinance that protects the rights by rent review advisory commission between a tenant and a landlord. And in some respect, the definition of housing unit is not material to that. If you. Read The definition of tenant. Because it does say any person having legal responsibility for the payment of rent or residential property. So that could mean a room that could be in a housing unit. So as long as that's resolved. And I'd like. The attorney and the staff to make sure that there is no unintended consequence of the definition of. Housing unit that precludes that resolution of of an issue between the landlord and tenant. Otherwise, I'm ready to vote for the first reading of this ordinance. So if there is a consensus on that council that you would like to cover, as has been the procedure to date rooms as well as for units, I have a suggested modification to the ordinance that if that if you're interested in hearing that, I'm I can share that with you. Well, and before Miss Potter gives us that suggested modification. I agree with the vice mayor that I would like to know from the city attorney's office, is there any legal reason that we couldn't do that? Not that we're aware of. And that was my my request was because this is truly the relationship between a landlord and tenant, not the relationship of whether there's a kitchen associated with the room or not. So, again, I think the the definition of housing is immaterial. However. I want to make sure that there's no exclusion because someone doesn't live in the housing unit as we defined it. So if they're paying rent under a contract with to a landlord. There should be protections and vice versa. So the suggested change, which I have worked on with our assistant city attorney, is as follows. So what we what we would recommend is that the definition of housing unit B be deleted. From page three. Yes, on page three. And that the definition under residential property, which is further down. So it would read that residential property means any housing unit, including a room or group of rooms designed and intended for occupancy by one or more persons or a mobile home. And so that would then capture. That would all be captured under the definition of a residential property, and we would delete the definition of a housing unit. And so that so that has been vetted with with the. Thank you very much. I would agree with that proposal. Any member would. Agree with that, too, because I could see. I understand the vice mayor's point, but as an attorney, I could argue that, you know, housing unit, because it was added, you know, we took the special time to figure out what a housing unit was. And even though we defined tenant, we further defined housing unit and we specifically excluded these these rooms from housing units. So therefore, we intended not to include them. Plus we had a discussion about it. So, you know, I could see where an attorney that's worth his or her salt can, you know, can. Can argue that we didn't include intent to include those. So I supportive of that amendment. All right. So do we have any other comments before we have a motion? A member? Odie. I'm sorry. I just have a couple of comments. Miss Potter, can you kind of explain again in December what this council is going to be receiving as far as data and a report? Yes. So the direction that was given to staff previously was to undertake a study that will be looking. It's a quantitative study that will be looking at the impacts of rising rents in Alameda, on Alameda renters, and that that is the analysis that is being looked at right now so that we're the consultant will be looking at impacts by tenure, by gender, by age, by race, ethnicity. And we'll be looking there was a number of points that the council asked us to study regarding the impact on rising rents. And then the council also directed us to look at some next steps in terms of policy recommendations based on that quantitative data so that our analysis will include some some next steps recommendations. And if we find that there is widespread rent increases that are outside the range of affordability for a tremendous amount of our tenants, can can that report include the analysis of this moratorium, this Berlin type rent freeze that that some of the people have brought forward today? Yes, we can include an analysis of that idea. And other ideas that have been put forth, because rent control is not the end all, be all in solving the issue of rising rents. And, you know, I would contend that it probably doesn't work in places where it's intended to, but we still have the issue whether or not we have it rent control or not. So I'd like to see a wide range of policy options that we have as a council to try and address this issue. If it turns out, as most people in the audience are telling us, that it is a widespread issue. Yes, we can do that as part of the report. And I would just also like to remind the council that the ordinance requires staff to come back and report annually on on the implementation of the ordinance. So we will also have those data points 12 in 12 months. Member Ashcraft. And one. Other member Sorry. And then I apologize. So on the the ordinance for the Iraq as far as the. The selection of the the members now that we're giving this body a little more teeth and it actually has, you know, some enforcement authority as to instead of just, you know, a simple well, you may participate. You may not participate. You know, I wonder if it makes sense that the council and the community have a little more input in selection because we're already. Pigeonholing certain seats for, you know, landlords, some for tenants, you know, some for for the other category. You know, if if we could have some, you know, public application process where, you know, we vet we have public applications for this and Berkeley these are elected. I mean it's a rent board are granted they have rent control and a lot more authority. But you know, I think the public would be better served in this council would be better served if for this particular board that it's a more public where we have applications, you know, perhaps we have interview public interview with the council asking the potential member because, you know, these individuals are going to have an impact on potentially 51% of our population. So that that's my my suggestion on the selection. I mean, no offense to anybody's ability, past or future in selecting these people, but I just think it's something we should have a little more public input in. Remember Ashcroft. So in addition to the comments I was about to make, I would wholehearted, wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that Councilmember Odie just made. I, I actually have been thinking that that is a process and it's a process followed in other cities, choosing their representatives to boards and commissions that it isn't the way we do it in Alameda, where the mayor appoints and the council basically rubber stamps. But all of the applications come to all the council members. The interviews are actually held in public so the community can see and hear, too, and then the whole council votes on it. And I do think now that we're putting some well-needed teeth into the RTC and the governing ordinance, that we should give serious thought to that. So I don't know, is that a council referral coming back in the fall member Odie, or you'll think about it over a break. Well, you know. I was just specifically talking about this particular commission, the. Iraq. Right, and we should stay on topic now. So let me go to the comments I was going to make and I know I said this last time this came up before us in May that I had then recently heard a forum on NPR. And I think I sent some of staff the the link. But the mayor, Libby Schaaf of Oakland was speaking and I've actually met with the director and assistant director of the Housing Authority, and we started to explore it's a state law and it allows a landlord who is willing to commit to having his or her building. And it might not even have to be the whole building, but a certain percentage of it rented to low income. As that is, that term is defined in state law. Residents for 35 years would enjoy certain tax breaks. So when we're looking at possible ways to address rights. So you had brought that up at the last meeting and we have incorporated those proposals into the work scope for the consultant to analyze and come back to us. Glad to hear that. Thank you. And and I would just say that I was poised and ready to support this last time around, as I am today. But I do want to just touch on a couple of comments that were made that we don't mean to vilify one half of our population or the other. Well, landlords are exactly half of the population, but renters are a little more than half. We will only find good, workable solutions if we all work collaboratively and avoid accusatory kinds of language and actions. And I do think, as has was we've seen in the past, a few bad apples will spoil the barrel. And that's why I really applaud the proposal to require to actually put teeth into requiring the landlord. I know there's another name, property owner or whatever it is, or someone who has authority to actually act to be at those hearings. So once that happens, I think, you know, you'll you'll see some improvement. And then with the statistical data that you're collecting, I think we'll have an even fuller picture of what's going on. But I do I, I appreciate the anecdotal evidence that comes before us, but I think, you know, we all need to remember that there are some very decent landlords out there. They've actually been working hard with their fellow landlords who aren't so decent to try to bring them around. And anyway, I applaud everything staff is doing and I hope the council is prepared to move this forward tonight. Thank you. I spare. Time for a motion. Or. I'll just make a quick comment if it's okay. Yeah. And you can make a comment after emotion. Do you want to make a move? I'd like to move that. We approve the first reading of this ordinance with modifications as stated by Ms.. Potter, that is, to remove the definition of the housing unit and the modified definition of residential property to include a room that is rented for habitation. I'll second second as well. Comment Member de sa. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for the members of the public, particularly those who are very involved in this process that has gone on for several months now. This doesn't solve everything, but from what I can see is a pretty well measured, calibrated approach to the rental housing crisis, with the caveat that there is going to be more work that needs to be done and the sooner rather than later. But it's a good start. So I certainly would like to join council members in supporting the the ordinance that's before us this evening. I also want to thank Jeff Canberra. There are many, many meetings along with the public members that participated to arrive at this. I also want to thank staff. It was important for staff to spend time reviewing it. There's a lot of work put into this, as well as trying to make it as legally sound as possible with that. Kind of information. Yes. That is okay. This is just the first. Rent review ordinance. All right, all those in favor. I oppose motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The staff is also requesting that the Council introduce on first reading the ordinance, codifying the rec in the municipal code. And remember, Ashcroft. I was going to move. But our second. Discussion. I want to thank staff for doing this work. This is something that many of us thought had been done years ago. And we learn by going through this process that had not been codified. So thank you, staff, for bringing this forward with that. All those in favor I. He's the landlord. Mr. De SA recused himself because he is a landlord. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And now we have 60. We're going to see 61st and we're go back to six. See for those of you that weren't here earlier. Yeah. Several actions for the master plan for the Del Monte Warehouse Project, which was approved in December 2014, including subdividing the property, authorizing an agreement to transfer certain city owned land to the housing authority, and outlining the required rent to develop affordable housing unit by adopting two resolutions and introduction of an ordinance.