Speaker 9: And if that if the ordinance is approved for final passage this evening, it will take effect in 30 days, which would be March 31st. So that's the first item the staff is recommending that you take action on the final approval. The second item is to approve an ordinance extending the existing moratorium that has been in place since November 5th that has been amended on several occasions. The moratorium has limitations on certain rent increases and prohibits evictions except for cause. And that moratorium is scheduled to expire on March 9th. And we staff is recommending that we don't have any gaps in tenant protection measures while the 30 days elapses before the effective date of the permanent legislation. And therefore, we're recommending adoption of this urgency ordinance that would extend the moratorium for 22 days and it would then expire on the 31st when the new ordinance takes place. That concludes my staff presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any clarifying questions from council? We have at this point 11 speaker steps. If you want to speak on the side and please turn in your steps. Counsel I'm planning to continue the 2 minutes at this point. First Speaker Unless there are people sitting time. Is everyone comfortable that it's 11?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Latin speakers.
Speaker 7: We have 18 speakers on the next item after this two. This is 11 in one more. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. And that's because this item is a fourth time. I think we've been referred so. All right. Our speakers and some of you have to people see it in your time. So then it'd be 6 minutes. Yeah, you get. Three, so be six up to six. That was what we had done before. So that's Barbara Thomas, then John Sullivan and then Greg McConnell and many more. All right. Barbara and John would each get 6 minutes. Barbara, your first.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I appreciate the early Ms.. Ryan and I said all those things earlier. I said all the good things earlier. Now I'm here to make a record as an attorney on behalf of a client. And that is, once again, I do not feel that this ordinance complies with secure. And that is primarily the point that I made before that it was.
Speaker 9: Didn't deal adequately.
Speaker 6: With preserving the historic buildings and historic element as mandated by the charter of the city of Alameda. In reading all the case law, I just said, you know, I've been looking at the tree and I missed the forest because this doesn't hasn't been addressed in your housing element.
Speaker 9: And I know your city attorney's going to tell you about.
Speaker 6: The black property owners versus the city of Berkeley and how my dear friend, Judge Jackie Joyce Tabor found it for the black property owners, saying that if you didn't address your housing element adequately, it isn't law. Jackie, who is a wonderful and one of the most beloved judges in Alameda County when she retired for the third time at about age 98, was overturned. And the Court of Appeals said they did address it in their E.R. for the housing element. You guys didn't. So guess what? Doesn't pass muster for the housing element. Compliance under the government code. Mandatory element of your what used to be the combined land use plan. Before I made the comment that it didn't adequately preserve the historic buildings and accommodate their preservation through. The. It extensive the lot, costs a lot of money to maintain a house, historical building, a Victorian brick foundation. You have to pull out your knob and tube, you have to redo your roofs and to recover that. And I know one of the persons who sent in some evidence on this indicated that he spent $1,000,000. $1,000,000 on a single family dwelling because he had to comply with the the historic with the historic preservation. Ordinance. And so along those two lines, I think that and I do think you guys do a lot of work, but I think you would have done a little bit less work and a better job could have been done if this had gone to the historic advisory commission, as well as the planning board on the housing element . I think this ordinance is premature. It's not well thought out. And you can see no matter what you do, you're making people angry on both sides. I mean, that's a good, good sign that there's a compromise that's workable. But everybody is angry. This isn't the right ordinance and it doesn't comply with the law, in my opinion, my humble opinion. The other thing I've addressed and I've read the city attorney and it's not this young man, but it's another person who responded that there are not conflicts of interest because more than 50% of the households or something in Alameda are renters. And that's that's apples and oranges. It's people. You guys are people. You're not households. So you have to get up the number of actual renters and compare it and see whether you. You are an exception. I don't know if you're an exception under government code 1090, which is a felony. And I think very seriously about whether I voted on something which I hadn't been cleared by my attorney in my personal circumstances. She will be allowed to vote on this. Everybody's not the same up on this council. Some of you are in different positions. Then you are vulnerable. Hmm. Violation of government code ten is a felony.
Speaker 9: You can't hold office and you can't be a lawyer.
Speaker 6: And it does come to pass. When I was on the council, our city attorney was accused of it and had to withdraw, resign. So even the best of advice is sometimes wrong.
Speaker 9: Anyway, I.
Speaker 6: Asked a lot of questions about the warehouses last time I was here. Nobody answered any of them. We'll see if that is going to hold up in a court of law. And thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker John Sullivan. You have up to 6 minutes.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Members of the Council and city staff. I'm John Sullivan, a housing provider here. Mm hmm. I might ask you, I just followed. I did get this passed up to you earlier. I just follow through on it. This color. I've been very closely involved with the rent mediation services.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm going to end it before you start speaking, because we're going to have to make a motion to continue. So I'd rather do that before you start speaking. So let's restart this clock and let's check our motion.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that. That motion is to be able to add.
Speaker 0: Because we're approaching 1030, we need to make a motion to consider the remaining items after this one, which is nine a the referral on the mixed use zoning and we have 18 speakers on that and that require four votes. So we have a motion. A second. All those in favor. Hi. Any oppose? No. So motion carries 4 to 1. So we will be able to hear the nine and then we take another vote around 11. So we're going to restart the clock for you, Mr. Sullivan. 6 minutes.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. I've been closely involved with mediation programs here in Alameda County and also in San Leandro, Fremont and so forth. And I really. Feel read that there's a you know, concerned on some of the items before us on this and this rack structure as proposed for instance, when tenants receive notice of a rent increase going forward. They will receive instructions on how to file for the you know, for a hearing. And then with the new ordinance stating that every. Every increase above 5%. The landlord has to notify the city and that triggers automatically Iraq hearing. I think we are being naive, really, if we feel that the Iraq war can, you know, handle that kind of a lot going forward. So we really should look for some modifications to that. Our annual cost of operations tenants pay half. Landlords pay behalf. Obviously the cost of operations will depend to a big degree on the number of cases filed. Since the tenants can file regardless of the rent increase amount. Why mandate the automatic filing when the landlord notifies the city later? About 5%. That's redundant. You know, it's duplication. It runs up the costs to tenants and to landlords. And obviously it justifies, you know, future. Raises to the budget. You know, the obvious way, of course, to avoid this would be to raise up the threshold from the 5% to 8% or 7%. But I would be naive, I guess, if I expected that to happen tonight and then the second reading. But there are and maybe we should take a look at some alternatives, some really numbers to to if we could work through. And there's an alternative number one. We all know, of course, that the tenants, regardless of the increase, they can file for a hearing. When a landlord issues a 5%, he must notify the RAC. And this now would be a suggestion, alternative suggestion. The RAC would take no action unless the increase exceeded 7%, in which case the tenant would be notified. The indirect hearing would be would proceed. Alternative. Number two, if a landlord issues an increase exceeding 5%, he notifies the rec. Here's a suggestion then alternative suggestion. Rat would take no action if the landlord provided the landlord demonstrating in his notification to the RAC. Two things a and B they. Since a tenant moved in to the property. The average annual rent increase, the average annual rent increase has not exceeded 5% and the increase being offered at that time does not exceed 7%. That's a responsible landlord. And that really represents about, I'd say 80, 85% of our good landlords in MM. Today. And we don't want to run, you know, run them out of town. If the goal is to collect information on the increases about 5%, then that's being accomplished. But the other vital concerns are also being addressed. Number one, safeguarding our rack. This issue less cases protecting landlord tenant relations, no redundancy tenant can file if they wish, and keeping the operational costs to a minimum. No. I think adopting any either of those would be a win win situation really and would help our Iraq going forward . A few other concerns on the next page and I'll just you can maybe read through them, have ability questions and and some suggestions attached to it. And also a concern concern number three landlord representative representative visited there new ordinance says that a landlord representative must have an ownership interest in the property and this could be problematic for the reasons stated here you might look through them and then concern for would be. Relocation fees and a sensible remedy. I think that I have put in there. You might just look through that. I've been, you know, obviously being involved. We have here by voice here many times and. But because I'm really passionate and my desire to see this new look rack and board operate successfully and efficiently. None of my requests here tonight or suggestions are going to call them that involve any major change just by, you know, vital clarification. And please do take the time to give them some air tonight. You know, we need a little bit of clarity, just avoiding conflict. Now, to finish up, I've been actively involved with the housing issue here for the last 18 months or so. I appreciate your enormous efforts, really. I know you've put a ton of time and effort and worry and so forth into this. You're dealt a really a bum hand in not winning hand in court if you're talking about cards. I thank you every member of the city council for your dedication and your efforts. And also that would go to the staff for their continued effort and diligence. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. If you want to speak on the side and please turn on your step. Great. McConnell is our next speaker. And then Mimi more. And then Philip James. Greg McConnell. Mimi. Philip James. After Phillip, I'll be Rosa, Linda Fortuna and then Maglia Vella. And then that's. I don't have any other speaker steps on this item.
Speaker 5: Mayor Spencer and esteemed council members. I was raised in Alameda and have the privilege of living here now. But I see friends of mine, other sons and daughters of Alameda unable to live in the city that raise them or getting priced out of homes that were once affordable to them. The plan before you does have some technical concerns that do need to be addressed. But I worry myself about getting priced out of the city. That is my home. Something to keep in mind as we make these deliberations. Alameda like the rest of the bay area, like the rest of california is facing a housing crisis. It's getting more expensive to live here every year and the housing supply is shrinking as more and more new residents move to the area. As existing alameda see their rents go up, where are they supposed to go? Alameda needs more housing, but it also needs to protect its current citizens. I urge the Council to look at this measure as a first step towards helping alleviate housing stress for alameda families. Keep alameda in alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Rosa. Linda Fortuna. And then. And then those are our last two speakers on this item.
Speaker 9: Mayor Spencer, City Council members. I'm concerned with the operational costs of this rent stabilization ordinance. Why do we need $1,900,000 budget per year? Debbie Potter said she estimates approximately 20 cap capital improvement plan cases that will come before the RAC every year. So that's 20 May or.
Speaker 7: Spencer said that she feels with the 5% annual rent increase, it will not trigger the RAC and the majority of the landlords will go along with.
Speaker 9: The plan and that it should be no additional burden on on the RAC. With this in mind, why.
Speaker 7: Are we projecting 1.1.
Speaker 9: Million 900,000 for this? Why can't we have the fee study group estimate a lower amount and decrease the bureaucracy involved? All across the United.
Speaker 7: States, voters are expressing their their anger with big.
Speaker 9: Government. And many Americans are endorsing a revolution to reduce the excess.
Speaker 7: Bureaucracy that the big.
Speaker 9: Government is imposing on the citizens. So, I mean, you've got.
Speaker 7: The Bernie Sanders, you know, people.
Speaker 9: And so it's it's just. Not something that we want to see to continue. So thank.
Speaker 0: You. Thank you. And our last speaker on this item. Malaya. A chance to turn in your stats.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor Spencer and City Council. I think the.
Speaker 9: Polling that we just looked.
Speaker 7: At shows the overwhelming concern of voters in Alameda regarding the rising costs of.
Speaker 9: Housing. And I think it really is the.
Speaker 7: Purpose of government to provide justice.
Speaker 9: That's what was discussed when people were actually.
Speaker 7: Writing the Constitution.
Speaker 9: And talking about what.
Speaker 7: Type of government we wanted. They talked about the purpose of government being justice.
Speaker 9: And housing costs have soared.
Speaker 7: We need to take a first step. It's been a couple of years since.
Speaker 9: This issue was.
Speaker 7: Raised again for a second time before the council. And this is really what we need to do. We need to make sure that the council is listening to voters and taking a step to make sure that everybody stays honest. If you're going to make improvements to the property, making sure that those improvements are done, making sure that we're collecting data, I think that this ordinance.
Speaker 9: Takes.
Speaker 7: An initial step in actually looking at that and making sure that people are following through when they say.
Speaker 0: They're going to do something.
Speaker 7: I am still concerned about some of the issues in the in the ordinance as it was presented at the last meeting, in particular with the different types of leases that could be offered. I think there needs to be a strong look at that to make sure that we aren't allowing for major loopholes that will undercut what this council is intending to do. So I hope that there is some sort of remedy for.
Speaker 0: That that's looked at.
Speaker 7: Thank you so.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. All right. She was our last speaker on this item. Council members once to go first.
Speaker 3: Anybody I'll I'll I'll just off for day. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for everyone who's come out and. Showing their support on whatever side of the issue. I think it makes our civic life that much richer. When people are actively engaged, as is so many of you are offering your different perspectives and solutions. So believe you me. You know, we take notes and we try our best to incorporate the thoughts that are out there. I appreciated the yellow pamphlet that Mr. Sullivan put together is what it appears to me is some small steps, perhaps, that if we adopt some of these small steps in sending a message to the smaller mom and pop landlords here in town, that that we're doing our level best to try to. Is what I consider to be the burdens of this ordinance, as is especially on the smaller mom and pop landlords. I think for the renters in town, it will work effectively in terms of stymieing the excessive rent increases. So I think if this is adopted that we have a system in place, but I think it's come at a great risk, at a great cost, especially to the smaller mom and pop landlords who are being asked to bear certain burdens similar to what the larger apartments are are bearing, even though it's the larger apartments who cause this problem. So in the yellow pamphlet that Mr. Sullivan put together, I do see some ideas that perhaps if we adopted, we could send a message that, you know, we're trying our best for the small or mom and pops. For example, like the idea that he has here about the having eco housing come in or or an entity like echo housing to come in to evaluate instances when a renter claims that the situation the habitat ability of the unit is in question so that. The Rent review advisory committee then doesn't just have a he said she said think of or do I believe the rent or do I believe the landlord they can turn to eco housing as as a source for to validate if the what the situation is. So I think that's I think that's a a great suggestion. And I also I like the idea of. Well, the concern number three here is kind of interesting. I mean, having making sure that whatever relocation payment is required.
Speaker 1: For actually Mr. Rudd, is it.
Speaker 3: Number four. We. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, whatever. I need my glasses, I guess. Whatever relocation assistance is provided that it's provided, it's placed with the the next landlord. So that's something that makes sense because we want relocation assistance while we have. Concerns about the amount of relocation assistance. The relocation assistance ought to go to the home, because that's the whole point of it is for relocation. So. So I like that. I also like the idea that I what I saw on the. On the Internet today and which I do actually want to pursue. And again, it's along the lines of sending a message to the smaller mom and pop landlords. I mean, I would love to exempt owners of up to two residential units and only two residential units in Alameda from the requirement of relocation assistance in the specific instance of family move in. I think if we adopted that. A change in the relocation assistance formula. We would be sending, I think, a great message to the smaller mom and pops in town. I personally would have wanted to expand the definition of smaller mom and pops to those, you know, with less than five units. But, you know, I recognize the direction of the council. But if we can do something like that, I think. We would be, you know, demonstrating that we're for a strong rent protection ordinance. But we're also trying our best to lessen whatever impacts there are on the smaller mom and pops as so defined here, in which cases those owning no more than two residential units. So. Those are ideas that I want to throw out.
Speaker 0: At member Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. So and again, thank you to everybody who for months now has has talked to us. And former council member Barbara Thomas is right. We have talked to dozens and dozens of people for hours and hours. But that is the way we get better informed about this very complicated subject. I, too, was intrigued by some of the suggestions that I read. However, I would like to see this ordinance move forward tonight in its second reading in the form in which we approved it at the first reading. However, we've said all along, not only do we have an annual review built into this process and a three year sunset, unless this subsequent council renews, we can, as a council, bring this back before the Council to see what I want to do is at least give these very, I think, well-thought out vetted proposals a chance to be be used. And we can see, let's see the kinds of cases that are coming before the rack. Let's see if I don't remember hearing previously that the RAC has been inordinately bogged down by claims of properties being uninhabitable. But I think that if I know some landlords have raised the question of, well, what do we do if we pay 50% of the relocation fees and then the tenant doesn't vacate or stays longer, and then you have to go to court and do it in lawful detainer and it costs money. If we start hearing those those cases happening, if they're documented, this council can make a change before the year is up. And I think I mean, I think it's rather intriguing to to think of paying that 50% of the relocation directly to the new landlord. But let's just see how this plays out. I think we're making some assumptions that just aren't there, aren't there? Based on any verifiable fact at this point. And also speaking of assumptions. I know there's a tendency to want to believe that it's the large landlords who are causing all the problems. I've been on this council long enough to know that's just not true because they I mean, one of the most egregious cases that came before the council when I was first elected had to do with a four plex and senior citizens with disabled adult children getting 65% increase in their rent just because a landlord could. So, I mean, it's we want to protect all of our tenants and I don't want to create different classes of tenants. We want to be fair to our landlords, too. But what I think we've done is we've we've struck that balance. And I think we've spent a lot of time, put a lot of effort into this. I don't think it's time to start carving this ordinance up now before it's even had a chance to to take effect and be tested. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Amber. Amber.
Speaker 3: I just if I. Thank you. Two quick points. The first quick point is that, see, dealing with the relocation benefits situation to me is an emergency issue, because once we adopt this ordinance and once it takes effect 30 days after we adopt it off the bat, someone who owns a granny flat behind them or and they want to move in there, they're their their grandmother or their or their or their adult senior adult parent into the backyard home that's being rented out. Off the bat, they're going to have to pay up to $10,000 right now. So I think that's why we can't wait to see, well, is it going to happen? And we know that that's going to happen. And that's just an amount that is. And I think the reasonable person would agree that for family move in situations, especially for someone who only owns one rental unit, that's not reasonable. The second point is that the data is clear that it is the larger landlords. Of the 40 case cases that came before the rent review advisory board over the last two years. Of the 40 units that were subject to the Rent Review Advisory Board. Of the 40, 33 were larger apartments. The case that councilmember, as he Ashcraft is referring to is in Benton Avenue, and that was in 2013, prior to the initiation of the housing crisis that really started in 2014 and caught flame in 2015. So over the last two years, you know, it is clearly the larger land landlords, the larger apartments that have been driving this and caught between all that crossfire and fortunately has been the smaller guys.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 2: So. Thank you, Madam Mayor. We've all talked a lot about this, so I'll try to keep my comments brief. You know, just to kind of address the point that my two colleagues were discussing, you know, I recall hearing a gentleman who lived I can't remember it was over near Blanding, but, you know, his rent. I think it was a veteran, a senior veteran back the first meeting we had over at Kaufman that his rent was raised like one or 200%. So that was a four unit building. And there was a couple senior couple that sent me an email saying that, you know, they were getting evicted for a move in when there was a vacancy and they weren't given an opportunity to stay in that one. So that was also for unit building. So I'm sure if I stretched my recollection, I would find other stories in my email and my talks with people on the street that, you know, there are smaller mom and pop landlords that are not behaving properly . So it's not just limited to the large ones. And on the flip side, you know, there are probably larger landlords that are not behaving badly, that are doing reasonable rent increases, that aren't evicting, you know, willy nilly. So I just I'm going to support this ordinance as it's written. I mean, there are things, I think that can be improved on it if we find that there's data showing, you know, there's hardship or if there's data showing that it needs to be tweaked, then, you know, we're all free to put in a council referral and have that discussion and kind of modify the ordinance. You know, we receive a lot of emails and a lot of communication and some of them get a little a little bit hostile in tone. And usually I try to just kind of brush them aside and say, I mean, these are our constituents. They're allowed to vent, you know, and that's kind of the deal we sign up for. But one in particular I do want to talk about somebody said that if that if we pass, this is going to increase hostility and hatred between landlords and tenants. And if that happens, that's our responsibility. And I don't I don't like to get up here and be preachy because that's not my way. But seriously, it's not. It's between. You all out there. It's between you, the landlords, and between you the tenants, too. It's up to you on how this works. If you maintain respectful relations, if you get along with your tenants, know if you do the right thing, there's not going to be hostility. All the small people, landlords that we heard said, I don't evict people. I don't raise my rents, not I don't raise my rent 7% or 5%. Most of them said I don't raise my rents. You know what the reality is? I think John White mentioned this back at the last meeting. And Kaufman. If that's how you're behaving, then. You're not going to be subject to any of the provisions of this ordinance because you're behaving right. So I didn't I was a little preachy back in the summertime, and I said, if, you know, if this keeps going, then the council's going to have to do more. And it did keep going. We kept hearing stories of rent increases. We kept seeing we saw the for 70 central happen within days of us passing a moratorium. So I plead to everyone, you know, let's see. Let's do the best we can to get along. Let's do the best to have positive human relations. You know, let's have peace in our city. Because if we don't. There was a measure ballot measure filed yesterday, I believe. And those are very strict rent control provisions. And without passing a comment on them, you know, one way or the other, I think if we continue on the path where we continue to have mass evictions, we continue to have people try to find loopholes. We continue to have massive rent increases at the tide in this community, and the public opinion is going to turn against landlords. So I plead with you, if you want to stop that ballot measure from passing, let's all just, you know, not to channel Rodney King or anything. Let's all try to get along. Let's all try to be reasonable. Again, I apologize for being preachy, but I think these are solid tenant protections. I think there are. With the CFP and some of the other exceptions that are in there that reasonable landlords can still earn a profit and still do reasonable things. But come on, folks, this is a long journey that we've had. Let's try to treat each other nice and try to treat each other fairly, and we won't have to have any more additional regulations.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I feel strongly about the mediation process and having observed it. It's success and. I think. Looking at this ordinance as its package, I do think it sends us a way on down the wrong path. And that path is a formulaic, one size fits all for probably the most important part of of the crisis that we've just seen. That being said, I think there are some good points. So another point is we can look at this and monitor it and change at any time we want. And secondly, I think the point about protecting from mass evictions by a proportion of low cost evictions that's allowed limited is a good provision. But at the core and we spoke about it earlier in the session that preceded the regular meeting, that mediation has been successful. And I strongly believe in it and. Well, we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: Mary Spencer, may I just interject in response to things that were said about my remarks? Very briefly.
Speaker 0: Ah, yes. Member Ashcroft Nicely.
Speaker 1: So with regard to the success of the RAC, and I've said this before. It's difficult to really place value on the statistics we've seen because we have also heard from many tenants who were too intimidated to even approach the rack. The fact that they were tenants in larger associations. I'm aware of some of those. I mean, in larger buildings, groups of tenants went in together, so they had the power of numbers. But how do you measure the people who were too intimidated to use a process that was completely voluntary, that had no teeth? The the landlord could be there and they could listen and they could say, oh, you know, you say it's a hardship. You can't afford this. Well, I can do what I want. There was nothing that could be done. We've now put some teeth into the the mediation process, which I think has great value by adding the subsequent step of being able to take your dispute to a mediator. So I agree that I think mediation is very useful, and I do see some potential, even for some of the concerns that the small mom and pop landlords are bringing to me. I'm not unmindful of your concerns, but I agree with Councilmember Odie. I want to see this ordinance go forward as as constructed. If the if the rack was working so well, we wouldn't have have, you know, had to come to this point. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. I wanted to ask, we had a public speaker speak to the E.R. for a housing element. Not being there doesn't. Protect us like it needs to. That somehow we're not complying with secure this. How to have a response to that.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, first I would point you to the sequel recommendation in the staff report, and you will see that the staff report makes a finding that this the passage of this ordinance is exempt from sequel as not a project. We stand behind that determination and we have Mr. Brown.
Speaker 4: From the city attorney's office who might want to speak to.
Speaker 3: This as well.
Speaker 0: Would you like to speak to this as well? Actually, I was going to defer. I'm happy to speak on it. The attorney that prepared that particular staff report is also here, Mr. Roush.
Speaker 9: So if.
Speaker 1: If he's in.
Speaker 0: There, I didn't see him back there.
Speaker 3: Mr. Roush. I misspoke. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Though. He's our city attorney. I didn't realize that. And way back there. Yeah. All right.
Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, members of the council, Michael Roush in the city attorney's office, the. With respect to the housing element issue, in fact, very clearly, the housing element does address this particular kind of matter. Housing element indicates that the city has a responsibility to maintain its housing stock, to provide a wide range of of housing opportunities, to make sure that persons of all income levels have housing opportunities. And this is exactly what this ordinance at least attempts to do makes those opportunities available. And so, quite to the contrary, the housing element does address that issue very clearly. And secondarily, with respect to the ordinance itself, as we indicated last time, if there are older homes, Victorians, etc., that need additional funding, that is a consideration that both the RAC and the hearing officer can consider when they look at rent increases that a landlord might bring forward. More fundamentally, this ordinance, though, does not change, does not have any impact, any direct impact on any physical environmental situations. This is really a a a, you know, it's so rent control. It's a it deals with rent. It doesn't going it's not going to cause any kind of environmental concern. And that's why.
Speaker 4: We concluded that it's not a.
Speaker 5: Project. And even if it could be construed as a project, there's no physical direct impact and therefore it's exempt. That risk was well. Glad to answer any questions on those two issues if you have any further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have other questions, but I appreciate those answers. In regards to government code 1090, if I'm correct on that, that that was the code section that suggested that, yes, that I'm a renter. And there's, uh, I understand he's one of the runner up here. And I think the comment suggested that because we're renters, we would be possibly subject to some criminal violation by voting on this. Could you address that?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam Chair, I believe that the information that you heard was slightly misplaced. Government Code Section 1090 is about conflicts of interest by decision makers when they're entering into contracts. That's not what you're doing tonight. You're passing an ordinance, a law. So the application of ten, 90 to 90 is not applicable to the action that you're about to take tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. I appreciate that. It's actually quite a relief.
Speaker 6: Oh.
Speaker 0: Okay. Also there to me, there is a legitimate issue that so this is something that we can revise. And at some point I think council may want to look at in regards to if there's consecutive one year term basis, um, there could be small fixes like that that we may want to address at some point. Circle back at this point, I do plan to support it as is. I think that it is very important. I actually think it's extremely important that we take action tonight. I want to thank all of the members who have come out and shared their concerns for and against. This is really, really since November 4th, I think our council has stepped up. I want to thank council for all of their work on trying to I'm going to say, exercise your best judgment to meet the needs of our community. I want to also thank staff. This really is a lot of work. And and I think it's just extremely important. We have an unstable housing situation for many of our community members. And to me, that is something that we are trying to address and a what I'm going to describe as a balanced, measured approach. That we do have the ability to revise, which is to me one of the things that it is very important for 11:00 motion to continue.
Speaker 1: To make a really quick. Yes. Okay I move that we continue this meeting past 11 p.m..
Speaker 0: All those in favor I was announcing so. So I do think it is the role of government and our council specifically. And I commend our council and our staff for moving this forward. I really think that we have tried our hardest to add that I want to say is teeth to Iraq and honor the work that Iraq has served our community well since 1979 and that we are adding a layer and that we can we can continually revise this measure. It is very different from a ballot measure that would be permanent, as my understanding, versus this this weekend, continually get feedback and we can modify it and make it better. It also includes by definition, part of it is annual reviews. I think it really is a is a very good effort by our council. That being said, we have a motion.
Speaker 1: It would be my pleasure to move that we we need to do this.
Speaker 9: We don't mean.
Speaker 1: Miss Potter so that we may have adoption.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 1: One. Sorry, this.
Speaker 0: Got it. That one. The first thing I get.
Speaker 1: I move that we approve final passage of an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Article 15 to Article six concerning review of rent increases applicable to all rental units and rent stabilization applicable to certain rental units, and concerning limitations on evictions and the payment of relocation assistance applicable to all rental units. Amending Section 2-23.4 concerning the duties of the Rent Review Advisory Committee and suspending Article 14 of Chapter six in its entirety and determining that adoption of the ordinance is not a project. And is California Environmental Quality Act secure? Or if it is a project, the ordinance is exempt under sequel. And do we do? There are.
Speaker 0: Two separate.
Speaker 1: Separate. Okay, that was a motion madumere.
Speaker 3: I'd like to make an offer, an amendment I would like to offer as an amendment that we move to exempt owners of up to two residential units and only two units in Alameda comma for from the requirement of paying relocation assistance in the specific instance of family moving. That's an amendment that I'm offering to this main motion.
Speaker 0: I would I would not support that.
Speaker 1: And and I don't want it to be part of the motion I just made.
Speaker 0: So we could address that separately. At this point, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Speaker 2: Yes, second.
Speaker 3: Well, that was. I'm sorry. No, that's.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You have to address the amendment first. Okay.
Speaker 0: For you. So. Okay, so we vote on that separately, then.
Speaker 1: Then if he has a say.
Speaker 0: Is there is.
Speaker 3: There a second for the amendment?
Speaker 0: The proposed amendment fails for lack of a second. Now we go back to the main motion.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Speaker 2: I'll second the motion.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I made.
Speaker 3: If I can make other comments. What I said two weeks ago still applies. My grave concerns about the impacts on especially the smaller mom and pop landlords continues. But. As I said two weeks ago, in reflecting on what two different pastors had to say about the season of Lent. One talking about how in this big house we should work so that all benefits from, you know, what society has to offer. And that in this season of Lent, it's also a season of change. For that reason, I think the bigger picture my concerns about. The impact on smaller landlords notwithstanding. I think the bigger picture is that we need to move forward in addressing the rent crisis and we'll still have to figure out how to deal separately with my concerns. So I support this.
Speaker 0: All right. So I'm going to call the question again. Although some favor I oppose.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: Motion carries for two one and thank you. And then second motion.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And I also move that we consider adoption of an emergency ordinance extending within the city city of Alameda, a temporary additional 22 days moratorium on rent increases for certain residential rental properties and on evictions from all residential rental properties except for just cause.
Speaker 4: Back.
Speaker 0: Any questions? Comments?
Speaker 2: Just one question. I mean, in the event that the audience we just passed skits, referendum referenda or whatever the proper verb is. I mean, what are how can we make sure that this moratorium covers the period where this ordinance might be suspended or held in advance?
Speaker 9: I believe we would come back with another ordinance, another emergency ordinance extending the timeframe.
Speaker 2: Or would there be a gap between.
Speaker 0: And that it's hard to hear. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Would there. Would there be any gap?
Speaker 9: If needed, we would. We could possibly schedule a special meeting to consider the urgency ordinance. We will know. I guess we would know if it's if the ordinance is referenced by the 31st, the same day that that the moratorium would expire. I suppose in the alternative, you could it.
Speaker 1: Could be a stretch.
Speaker 9: Or a moratorium a few more weeks. Or sorry.
Speaker 2: Conditionally.
Speaker 5: It. I think it a michael Roush again. Madam Mayor members of the council. I think what would happen is if we find that a referendum petition is being circulated, we will know that probably within a very short period of time. And if we see that effort underway, we would bring back and schedule for the council's action before the moratorium would expire and an extension of that so that.
Speaker 4: In the event the petition.
Speaker 5: Was filed timely with enough signatures in the council, still one to continue the moratorium.
Speaker 4: You would have adopted something so there wouldn't be a gap.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So we have a motion to someone, so we have a second. Any other questions? Comments? All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right, now we're on item seven, City Manager Communications. Yeah.
Speaker 9: I remember I think I said most of what I needed to say before. I thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Number eight, oral communication, non agenda. Do you have any more?
Speaker 7: We do have additional speakers on.
Speaker 0: All we do under public comment. Okay. Non agenda. Public comment. Non agenda. Public comment. We have two Catherine Pauling and can Peterson.
Speaker 3: Nothing.
Speaker 0: And you may have 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: And I thought.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Pauline.
Speaker 9: I'm what I wanted to comment on is when I was double checking language and requirements and everything, I went to the business office.
Speaker 0: To try to find out what data.
Speaker 9: Existed on rental units in the city. And I figured with people paying that $20 annual fee for each rental unit that.
Summary title:  Consider: 1) an Ordinance regarding Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions, Amending the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), and Suspending the Current Article XIV of Chapter VI regarding Rent Review; 2) Determining that Adoption of the Ordinance is not a Project Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, if It is a Project, the Ordinance is Exempt from CEQA; and 3) an Urgency Ordinance Extending a Temporary (Additional 22 Days) Moratorium on Rent Increases for Certain Residential Rental Properties and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Properties Except for Just Cause.

Final Passage of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (A) Adding Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning  Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and Concerning  Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units, (B) Amending Section 2-23.4 Concerning the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, and (C) Su