Speaker 1: D introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Article 17 to Chapter six concerning fair housing and tenant protections prohibiting unlawful tenant harassment, disruption of housing services and housing discrimination, including source of income.
Speaker 0: Thank you, officers. Okay. And this is city attorneys. Yes.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm going to do a very fast staff report at this hour.
Speaker 0: We appreciate.
Speaker 3: That. This ordinance proposed in front of you tonight seeks to clarify housing laws for the city of Alameda. There has been there are a lot of federal and state laws that apply here, and there are also a lot of civil laws that may apply here. But this law attempts to put city of Alameda housing laws in clear terms. It essentially creates three components, and much of that is not subject to serious debate with respect to whether or not it has applicability in in a rental community. The first of the first of which is disruption of housing services. There is substantial civil law out there and also state and federal law that requires non disruption of housing services, such as disconnection of utilities or lockouts unless it's authorized by a court of law. This ordinance here makes that explicit in the city of Alameda with respect to tenant harassment. This law spells out certain behaviors that are clearly outside the pail and make them prohibited. The third component with augments state and federal laws with respect to discrimination. It specifically indicates that whether it's disability, age, housing status and perhaps most importantly, source of income, these categories cannot be bases of discrimination in the city of Alameda. I want to point out that source of income is the one area where probably the most substantive change is being proposed tonight. That particular change, its source of income protect this source of income protection will protect, for example, persons receiving subsidies such as Section eight. That protection does not currently exist in any other source of law. And so the Council will be making a significant substantive change here. And there has been two cases litigated, at least in the state of California, one by the city and county of San Francisco, one by the city of Santa monica. In both cases, California courts have affirmed local jurisdictions right to prohibit this type of discrimination and the ordinances before the Council for your consideration. I'm happy to take your questions.
Speaker 0: Any questions of staff? Councilmember Desai So.
Speaker 4: Currently isn't it correct to say that when a landlord accepts a Section eight tenant that they are also entering into a contract with the housing authority that, among other things, stipulates that the landlord is going to provide a unit that's going to meet certain standards established by HUD and managed or monitored by the local housing authority. Yes. Yeah. So so here's the question then. So that the changes that were contemplating then. Are we not then saying that? That landlords have to accept Section eight. I mean, because if they have to accept Section eight and it's no longer a voluntary thing. Then aren't we saying that landlords have to adopt or accept the the standards that are stipulated in HUD?
Speaker 3: Not necessarily Councilmember de Song. What landlords have to do is to essentially not discriminate on the basis of source of income. So, for example, a landlord could say, I want a tenant with a particular credit score or I want a tenant with a particular income to debt ratio, or I want a tenant with a particular background, for example. No, no unlawful detainers. All of these are legitimate bases. What a landlord could not do under this ordinance to say to say, my rent is $2,000 a month. I will take 2000 from any other source. But I if the two part of that 2000 comes from federal government subsidies, that's no good to me. That is the one behavior that this this particular source of income discrimination prohibition will seek to stop.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. But couldn't. A tenant. Advocate, legal advocate. Take up a case of a Section eight household who thought that she or he was discriminated against because they were Section eight, even if there was no language that says, you know. You will not discriminate against Section eight. It's just the point at which the prospective tenant had indicated that her or his source of income was Section eight. And so by not. Getting the unit could detect. Could that then set up a situation where that tenant was saying, well, I'm going to make a discrimination case?
Speaker 3: It is hypothetically possible, though, under existing law, for example, let's say it's a male tenant and the landlord sees the male tenant and then chooses to rent to a female tenant under existing law. This tenant could choose to sue for gender discrimination, even though the landlord may have chosen the female tenant because she's got a much better credit score. So it is hypothetically possible, though, it would fall into the same paradigm that is today with respect to other categories of discrimination.
Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions? Okay, let's go to public speakers.
Speaker 1: Okay. Alan T Cherry Johansen, Madeline Howard and Laura. Regina.
Speaker 0: Eleanor Schweizer.
Speaker 6: I'm actually going to talk really fast because I have several really questions. So my reading of the court cases regarding Section eight in terms of discrimination is that you are indeed required to enter into the agreement. You have to sign it. And according to the legislation analysis for the Section eight, the LED the bill that's going through the Senate and may have been defeated. They also said, yes, you will have to sign the agreement. You can't say I would accept the money, but I must sign the agreement. So probably want to double check that the burden of proof for a landlord who is abused by a tenant is a much higher bar because that involves termination of tenancy and that involves the whole unlawful detainer. So both parties should be really held to the same civilized behavior without having to resort to threatening to terminate tenancy and going through all of that. So every place in this where it talks about the landlord as the offending party really should be either person. Everybody should be civilized. I asked the question I did not get an answer in regards to if a landlord or some other authorized person while lawfully entering a rental unit sees damage in the area that they're in. They see the door has a giant hole punched in it. They see the toilet cracked. Can they document that? Can they act on that knowledge because it says harassment, says you cannot collect evidence and I just need clarification that that is indeed. Yes, you can document it and it's totally a cool. That would be great. So otherwise everything else in this. Totally support.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Speaker Sherry to him. Of.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everybody awake? I am speaking right now as Sherry Johansen for Alameda. Progressives and the Alimony Progressives have worked with our allies and this council to extend renter protection to most of the residents of Alameda, including tonight's ordinances. We agree with with Councilman Odie that housing is a human right. We would like to keep our neighbors and our friends and our families, our children in Alameda and help prevent this epidemic of homelessness that we have in the Bay Area. I am hoping that this ordinance and I'm not a lawyer and neither is anybody on the Alameda Progressives Board will extend the protections that we have fought so hard for to as an umbrella for residents who do not have the income, who are disabled, who may be in Section eight or may be covered under the housing authority , because these evictions and harassment we had harassment of for 70. So I'm glad that that's taken care of as extended to to the entire rental community in Alameda. So we are in favor of this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And Madeline Howard, then Lorna.
Speaker 2: Hello again. I'm Madeline Howard with Western Center on Law and Poverty. I also live in Alameda. Thank you to the city attorney and to the council for this ordinance. I strongly support it. This is incredibly important for to protect our most vulnerable residents. And I also wanted to point out that as I'm sure the city attorney is aware, there are increased obligations under a new state law that we sponsored AB 686 that requires the city to take affirmative steps to end segregation and to promote integration. And this ordinance would be an important step towards that goal because people with housing choice vouchers are disproportionately people within protected classes, people of color, people with disabilities, as you've already heard. So allowing these members of the community to have increased protections would be an important step towards that goal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Sheen.
Speaker 2: Good evening again and thank you very much to the mayor and the city council for voting today on an emergency ordinance. And my father and I are very grateful, as well as many people in Alameda who rely on Section eight. I'm sure they do appreciate it as well. Thank you for closing the loophole and doing the right thing. And a second, thank you to the city council for this ordinance. You did a tremendous work here, and it's very important that this ordinance is enacted, because today I think that the Alameda Housing Authority addressed that issue, that people in Section eight might be discriminated against. Well, the way to close this and to, um, to protect them from discrimination would be to enact this very ordinance. And I can tell you that during the last two years ordeal, I scoured the Craigslist numerous times. And what I find deeply offensive is when I look at it and it says, no dogs, no Section eight. Full stop. This should not be allowed. And I think this is very well the ordinance is very well worded. I think it will allow protection to the most vulnerable people and I encourage the city to vote for it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Uh, is there a speaker? Correct. Okay. Um, council. Council member. Only did I see your handout. Sure.
Speaker 5: I'll go first. Um, as a result, we did include immigration status in here.
Speaker 3: We believe that's fully protected because.
Speaker 5: It has a David choose. Okay. Also is thank you for bringing this forward. I mean, I trust our city attorney a judgment over anyone else's in this matter given, you know, he's litigated in this matter and worked in a city that has sworn to protect tenants. And you probably even may have worked on that case. I don't know. So I'm fully prepared to support this. And it's about time.
Speaker 0: Set in motion.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 0: Is there any further discussion?
Speaker 3: Can I just ask a quick question? There was a the speaker asked a question. You were nodding your head, but he wasn't looking at you. He was looking at us. Can you just answer that? Yes. With respect.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 3: With respect to the question of whether a landlord could legitimately go into a unit to document actual legitimate damage, the answer is yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. So we've had a motion. Did we have a second wave of discussion? And Councilmember.
Speaker 4: So just some quick points. I believe the city of San Jose had passed a similar ordinance last month and I think there are certain provisions in it where. A certain there is language about a fix up period. So if someone found a Section eight landlord to be not compliant with whatever. Rather than go immediately to litigation or encourage that that that some kind of fix it period was adopted. The other thing, too, was that there was a delay in implementation for 60 days. So that so that the so that stakeholders, both sides, all sides could understand what was the ramification, clear ramifications of this. So I'm wondering if that was something that anyone would be interested in.
Speaker 0: I will just. Say that? Well, first of all, this would need a second reading, correct? Yes. So it does. There's 30 days and it comes back and there's certainly time for some landlord education. I would hope that the prohibitions in this ordinance are the sort of thing that a landlord wouldn't need to be told are wrong. I do know what Miss Ritchie was referring to about Craigslist ads, but that's one of the places where we're doing enforcement. We might you know, we might look. But I would think that the the time it takes to enact the ordinance for it to go into effect would would address the need for landlords to be educated. My thought. Okay. Any further discussion?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm just going to assume if we approve it tonight, there's 60 days before it goes into effect. So it does. Right. All right. Any any action we have has that.
Speaker 0: 30 days before the second reading and then 30 days before it goes into.
Speaker 2: Effect.
Speaker 3: From my position.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 3: It's 45 days. So the second reading will be two weeks from now and then it'll be another 30.
Speaker 0: Days before that. Okay.
Speaker 7: I'm not inclined to add another 15 to that.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say I am a big fan of conversation and education, but I think where we're actually trying to stop discrimination, the idea of holding off and stopping discrimination for a few more days so that we can help people understand that they shouldn't discriminate. If that's if that's really needed, then we should figure out how to get this happening. So.
Speaker 0: So you agree with me? Okay.
Speaker 4: My my concern isn't only that this is a discussion about discrimination, but this is also a discussion about HUD standards that some smaller mom and pop landlords might feel that they have to they might not be inclined to get in volved in the program because for whatever reason, they might feel that previously they might have felt that it was bureaucratic. But by virtue of adopting this now, they might feel like they have to, but not quite recognizing that if they adopt this program, then they're not only that, one of the implications of that is also having to then adopt. Certain standards that we might have that that HUD or the local housing authority might have. For example, I think one of the standards that our housing authority has is that, you know, as part of Section eight, you know, every unit has to have a 60 B 65 degrees between the month of October and May. Not only does every unit have to be at a minimum, 65 degrees between October and May, that. If if the heating unit or air conditioning unit breaks down. A temporary replacement. One of those things that you bring in is not allowed. So it's these kinds of details that I think people need to be aware of when they're entering into the Section eight. And I think it takes time for people to understand that. But I don't know. I mean, I.
Speaker 0: So I, I'm I think you raise good points. I also am, as was noted earlier in the previous housing item, there will be workshops in September and October and we can certainly ask staff now that we know. And Mr. Katz from the Housing Authority is nodding in agreement in the audience now, and the workshops really are excellent and informative, and they also videotape the one at the library. So even if you can't be there in person. But I think those are valid concerns to raise. But I think there are ways that that can be addressed in educational forums. So I know Mr. Odie and Councilmember Odie made a motion to approve this. Did I have a second? I do. Okay. Councilmember Vela seconds. So all in favor of this ordinance amending the municipal code i. I opposed. Abstain. Okay. So that motion passes for in favor of one abstention. Okay. We got to move along, people, because we're only going till midnight. So we've got one more regular calendar item, which is six F and that's also your.
Speaker 2: Is also me. All right.
Speaker 3: This to make this one fast as well mayor and council the proposal in front of you tonight requests that the city attorney's office is staffed with a prosecution unit consisting of one city prosecutor slash attorney and one paralegal investigator. The proposal will allow this unit to work with the district attorney's office, our partners at the police department, fire department, code enforcement, in order to enforce the various laws that this council has adopted, and as well as having the opportunity to enforce state laws. And one of the most important things I want to point out and maybe a few important things that one in in order for us to do prosecution, we do it in the name of justice. So there is not a particular group or a particular agenda that this group will be undertaking.
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVIII to Chapter VI Concerning Fair Housing and Tenant Protections by Prohibiting Unlawful Tenant Harassment, Disruption of Housing Services and Housing Discrimination including Source of Income. (City Attorney 2310)