Speaker 0: Any comments? Discussion. All those in favor. I, i, i opposed the motion passes unanimously. Now we're moving on to our regular agenda. Item six, a.
Speaker 1: Update on the process regarding impact of rising rents in Alameda.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. Mayor. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. The item before you this evening is a request by Mr. Jeff Canberra, who led the community engagement process for the rent review issue that was undertaken by the community starting in September of 2014. When Mr. Canberra's presentation came before this council in January of this year, the Council gave direction to staff that we should move forward with drafting an ordinance that was based on five points aimed at strengthening the city's rent review advisory committee, and to work on those points that the community engagement process had yielded consensus on, and that while we were working on the draft ordinance language, if consensus was reached on the six point that we then would tackle that that issue to staff has been moving forward with the draft ordinance language and we are prepared to come back to council within the 90 days that was requested by the Council in January to publish so that we would be able to make a presentation in in May. However, during this time, in conversations with Mr. Canberra, a request was made that we take a little time, allow the community process to continue on with staff's draft recommendations in hand. So there's an opportunity to go back to the stakeholder groups that what staff's recommendations are prior to staff's presentation to the City Council, so that staff would have the benefit of that feedback and input from the community so that that's the direction we're seeking this evening. If council would like staff and Mr. Canberra to work together and send Mr. Canberra out on his community engagement process. We would then work with him to do that. I'm prepared to answer any questions and Mr. Canberra is here this evening also to answer any questions. Should there be any.
Speaker 0: We have any speakers on this item.
Speaker 1: We have no speakers.
Speaker 0: Member questions.
Speaker 5: Madam Mirror I, I have two questions. A thank you. These are questions that are raised. I sent to the city manager staff and I believe it was subsequently posted on the website. I also raised them in the public and I'm just going to mention them here and I'm mentioning the questions here, you know, to elicit not just staff's thoughts, but also to see what the public has to. What's on the public's mind. I think the key question that I have is and I'll just restated here, you know, what arguments have been raised or can be raised to say that to say that the community stakeholder groups are better or are better suited or less suited than legislative bodies like the Rent Review Advisory Board. When it comes to vetting the recommendations that you're putting together within the context of the original 90 day time frame. That's that's one of the questions. And yeah, I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I can do provide a brief answer. And then I think Mr. Campbell would like to also try to answer. And I would just say that I don't think that these two are mutually exclusive. I think that Jeff is preparing to go before the RAC at their April meeting and present to them. If this if this process is given the green light this evening by the Council, then Geoff will go before the RAC at their April 6th meeting to talk about the proposed changes. So with that, I'm just ask Mr. Campbell to come forward and give his thoughts on your question to.
Speaker 2: So. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. I'm Jeff Canberra, the community facilitator. So first of all, thank you. Councilmember de Song. I was able to get the questions, although it was a little late and I actually have responses to all three. If you would like to hear those responses, I'd be happy to give them to you and then address any other questions that council may have. So the first one was the reason for the slight delay. A couple of things have happened since January 20th. There was a proposal from the Alameda Renters Coalition on point number six, which we did not have any consensus on when we first started. And that proposal is now going forward. We have some landlord support, not 100%. So I don't want to represent that. But it has gotten some traction and I am continue to work through the housing provider groups in order to get counsel letters so that you can understand and see why there is a support for that. The next thing I think that's probably the most important is that when I came back to when I came to council in September, this was a pitch for a collaborative process. And initially that collaborative process involved two stakeholders, housing providers and tenants. There is now a third stakeholder and that is the city, and we want to continue to work collaboratively with the city so that not just tenant and landlord needs are taken care of, but also the city's concerns are take care of as well. So we've had a couple of issues that we were not able to address in our community process. One was the enforcement, which was definitely something that the city would be dealing with because neither tenants or landlords would propose how the city should enforce the provisions. And the second was any possible funding issues. While we had lots and lots of support for strengthening the rec, there was always a concern is that if there was an increased cost, how was that going to be paid for? So we needed the information from the city in order to be able to continue to build that collaboration so that when we do come back to you in the next 30 days, we are able to give you that collaboration of the three stakeholder groups and not just two. And finally, the discussion points that we had brought to you were somewhat conceptual. In fact, even then when we presented them, there was a discussion about, well, what does this mean and how would it be implemented? So now by seeing the hard language, then the two stakeholder groups working with the city will have the actual language of how it would operate. So we think we is better off to hear it ahead of time. Work out any of those may be small details. Get rid of any assumptions so that when we come back, we are speaking with a unified front. In January, I was very fortunate to have both tenants and landlords here speaking. There were three of us with almost a total agreement. That's what we would be trying to do now. And also just to touch lightly is that Councilmember Desai would raise the issue that we are in crisis now, and I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But what has happened since December is that we have stepped up as a community. There are now 540 members of the Alameda Renters Coalition. And because of the publicity that the community groups have gotten, the idea that there is a place where tenants can go to file a grievance with the RAC is that that is now being utilized? I'm not going to say any more than it has, but people are now aware of they were they were not aware of it before. The press has done a great job of educating as well. We are also now identifying the crisis situations prior to the RAC hearings and that the Alameda Renters Coalition Facebook page gets these situations coming to us earlier and were able to intervene and I have been privileged to have several of those come to me before they were even filed with the RAC. We have been able to resolve some and if not we have encouraged the tenants to file with the RAC so that these can be dealt with upfront . We are now monitoring the RAC and that is tenants and landlords both and we believe that we're having pretty good success in resolving issues, even if the RAC doesn't resolve them. In January there was a property that noticed six rent increases at 18%. We were there. We heard the presentation that housing provider was not going to accept the recommendation of the wrap after words. Landlords in this community contacted that landlord, and then that landlord agreed to the recommendations that the RAC had made at that hearing. And as late as March the first Monday in March, where we also had another six rent increases, again, three of those have been resolved and I have been contacted to be an official mediator, uncompensated in the remaining three. To see if we'll be able to resolve those in the next 30 days. So we are being very active when we know about them to be able to resolve them. Obviously, there is some that we are not. Secondly, as Ms.. Potter said, that we are going to be going before the RAC in April with these six proposals. And if we can if we have the draft ordinance language, it will be presented at the RAC in detail for them to comment on as well. Obviously, we'll all be there because we consider them one of our stakeholders since they're going to have to implement this. And finally, just to make sure that everybody is clear, we as a stakeholder group do not feel that we are the end result here of all this. That Council ultimately has the prerogative to accept what we are suggesting or to make recommendations of their own. What we're trying to do is present a more united front, though, so that you will know what the committee is thinking and what the community is thinking. And ultimately, for me, I believe that this is the best in participatory democracy, is that our community has come together to find resolutions that will work. So we're asking for the 30 days. We actually are not sure we needed it. But staff said they thought it was the best way so that we make sure we had the necessary time. So with that, I'm happy to answer any other questions, if there are.
Speaker 0: Any other member questions? All right, this member.
Speaker 7: I guess I'm still confused what what we're going to get in 30 days that we don't have today, because I thought back in January we had an agreement to a conceptual framework of the five things staff was going to go back, draft the ordinance, and then the council was going to, as is our prerogative and our elected responsibility, that these in a public hearing where anyone in the public could come and speak and give comments and that if the six item was not resolved, I mean, I don't know. You know what? In my practice of law, it was always good to have deadlines, especially for settlement, because if you had a deadline, things always got done right at that deadline. And know, from what I'm hearing from other people in the community, this this number on item six, for those that don't remember, it was the number at which you would either go to the RAC or not go to the rack. Some people wanted a ten, so people wanted five. Some people wanted zero, I guess. No. If you can't decide, then, you know, we're kind of the deciders we were elected to be. The deciders will be the deciders. I mean, I don't know what this thing needs to get done. I mean, it's been six months already, and I'm just a little bit concerned about adding another 1 to 2 months to the process.
Speaker 3: So you're you are correct that the process that you just outlined is the process that staff has been following. So we have been working on the draft ordinance language and we will be bringing forward that direction at the January meeting was to publish our recommendations in 90 days, which is the end of April, for a main meeting . The request has been that. The community, stakeholders that participated going into this and reached consensus on the five points might benefit from having staff's recommendations vetted and discussed prior to coming back to the Council, and that it may be more efficient and effective by way of a process rather than, you know, doing it at the council meeting and then following up and coming back again. But that's it's really why staff has come back before the council and requested direction from the council because we were prepared to work either way. And we're we're, you know, we're happy to take the direction of the Council on this process piece.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Mr. Spencer And I think, Ms.. Parrish, you just answered at least part of a question I had, which was what is to stop members, ranchers from coming to our public meetings and having input on the proposals that you would bring before us the next time you appeared? Because I, I to I think I agree with what member Odie said, especially remembering that this process was first introduced before prior council and it wasn't a unanimous vote. That doesn't matter in a democracy majority rules. But the reason, given the argument given for outsourcing, if you will, and by the way, I should have said at the outset, I think all of us unanimously really, really appreciate all the time and effort and goodwill that Mr. Campbell has put into this this endeavor. So thank you very much. But the rationale for outsourcing is what I will call it outside of the council, because really this is a council prerogative, is that if you did it within the council, it just slows things down. It takes longer. And this is a problem that faces us, faces our renters right here, right now today. And so I am concerned with extending that timeline out still further when I feel all this, you know, is probably the discussion our council will get into. But I feel that this is a city council responsibility. The council, the stakeholders can still address the City Council about any proposals that staff comes forward with. I, too, am aware that a coalition of landlords has been reaching out to landlords who are had been suggesting some more excessive increases. I think it's something from my conversations with the landlords community, it's something they've always done and they're stepping up their efforts to do it even more so, which is a lovely ad hoc effort. I think they will do it regardless of whether council steps in from here on out or or Mr. Canberra holds on to the process a little longer. But I think especially when you're talking about possible amendment to the municipal code amending procedure to the the RAC, the rental resource and Rental Rate Advisory Committee. That to me just sounds like our city attorney's office use. The staff who deals with this really need to be involved. So I feel like this is the time for it to come back into the council and the staff.
Speaker 0: I. Okay. Well, I have a comment. So before we start going around again, you don't think at this point and I'm going to. So I would be amenable to going along with Mr. Cameron's recommendations. My understand there are no speakers on this item. And and I'm confident that this was shared with landlords and tenants before came to us this evening. So. So I would have expected there to be landlords and tenants here to express another opinion if they didn't think that this was the best way to proceed. And given that, that makes me think I would do.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, finish.
Speaker 0: If you want to respond to that.
Speaker 2: Yes. I did want to respond to that because I did not blast out to all of my 125 contacts that there was going to be a request for a 30 day extension. So I cannot tell you in good conscience that this has been distributed to every member of the community so that they are aware of it. I know that this talk about from the Alameda Renters Coalition was aware that we were doing it, but it never came before the HRC as an official. Requests. So I don't want to misrepresent me being up here.
Speaker 0: And if you can remind us, she represents.
Speaker 2: Alameda Renters Coalition 540 friends on a Facebook page.
Speaker 0: And my I think she's been very effective at representing them. And so personally that tells me that she's willing to defer to your recommendation and how I would interpret that, since she's not here tonight or anyone opposed to, you know, oppose your recommendation.
Speaker 2: Well, what I, I did contact this talk about we did talk about this. And she said that if she was able to make it tonight, she yes, she would have spoken about the democratic process and being able to participate. That's what I can tell you, because we had the conversation, because I've been texting her to see if she could make it. I would like to make one point, though, because way back when, when this council voted three two to move forward, it was with the understanding that we would be able to move faster. And I want to make sure that the council is clear that we did move much faster because under the task force proposal, the recommendation was not to come back until May or early June, and then the council would have been taking action from that recommendation. We came to this council in January with five of six proposals that were agreed to, for the most part, by the community. And now between January and February have come up with. What was the deal breaker back in January, which nobody thought we would ever come to any agreement on. And now there is some consensus. So the fact that we would be able to come back to you with more definite language, we don't think you will have to deal with that split the way you would otherwise. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And then so so I have another concern. I have. Why? Why I've been supportive of the process and and new working with landlords and tenants to strengthen the rec. And I attended the last meeting. I, I agree with your representation of what occurred, and I'm very happy to hear that the owner has now been working to accept the recommendation and they had several cases. My understanding is one had settled, one went the direction in favor of the landlord and one in favor of the tenants and the members. I thought did a really good job of working with the community to settle cases. And my my interest in settling the cases is for those right for those of us that don't know about what rent control can do and what it can't do. If we had rent control, it would not address the issues of every tenant in this community. And maybe our counsel could shed some light on this.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly. I think the issue here is and with this committee and what staff has been supporting is strengthening the rent review advisory committee, not doing rent control. And I think what the mayor is mentioning is there's apparently some sentiment in the community that that's not enough, that really the issues are so egregious that the council should be considering the possibilities of doing rent control. And while my office has not been asked by this council to do any major analysis of that issue, you have rather focused on strengthening the Rent Review Advisory Committee. I think the mayor's point is that the problem with rent control is it's very difficult in the state of California. It's not an easy concept. The law is such that Costa Hawkins provides that it would, if you can adopt rent controls, it only applies to properties built prior to February 1995. It only applies to properties that are not individually personalized. So that would mean if it's a single family home, if it's a condominium, it would not apply even if it was built before 1995. So it's limited in its application. It's limited and difficult in how it is enforced. And that's why I believe the mayor's concerned particularly and of council members, are that the best approach? And I think what Mr. Cameron, his committee has been looking at is rather strengthening the rent review advisory committee.
Speaker 0: Which can apply to every renter in our town. Which is why I support any recommendation at this point of view, continuing to work with our landlords and tenants, because long term that is the best solution to best serve all of our tenants in our community. My opinion, yes. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: I have a question that I think I heard that are 90 days from the January 20th is the second meeting of April, is that correct.
Speaker 3: That we would publish the the staff report, which is the 12 days before the meeting. So we would publish at the end of April for the May 5th Council meeting would have been that we promised. Our commitment was to publish the the recommendations.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. And what Mr. Cambria suggesting is within the envelope of that time, correct?
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 2: Not to extend beyond that time.
Speaker 3: Well, but the idea is that or the disclosure that we were making in the staff report is that we could go beyond the 90 days just because it takes time to convene your meetings, hold your meetings, get your feedback from the community and, you know, book a room. Just kind of the logistics of it may require a little more time. So we just wanted to kind of do full disclosure to the council. If we undertake the community process that's being requested that it could just add a little more time. But we're not expecting that it's going to add a lot of time. And if the council kind of to council member Otis Point wants to set kind of a new deadline to have everyone being held to the fire on that, we would do that. And I think Mr. Camber would endeavor to do as much of the community engagement work that he could do within that time frame.
Speaker 2: And is it on just that one point?
Speaker 3: Well, the I think that it's the community engagement would address two issues. One, we would have for the community to work with the draft ordinance language and then the consensus on point six that we could fold in if if there was sufficient consensus such that that council could act on all of this. When it comes to the council with a staff report and a draft ordinance, that's what we're preparing for. Staff's consideration is a draft ordinance to address those five points that really give more more teeth to the rec effort and work.
Speaker 2: One of the other things that's uncertain right now is that we were not going to be going before the Iraq until April 5th. And we don't know exactly what they are going to be saying about all this great work that we have done. So it would be nice to have their input as well. And so as and as part of said, we're kind of hedging our bets just a little bit and then getting all of the cats together in one room to be able to address all of those concerns.
Speaker 5: Madumere Thank you. See, I think the way what you just said kind of began to kind of illustrate a different path that we're talking about. The path that I believe typically happens is especially including when when volunteer community members are involved, volunteer community members raise an issue, take part in formulating what are the questions and what are the answers. Staff puts together, you know, a formal response and then see and the volunteer members review those responses and give their recommendations. And staff is then moving forward and and putting it through the process. And one of the process would be the the legislative body, in this case the Rent Review Advisory Board. And the rent review advisory boards ask is to report to the city council. Because what you just said is that the rent review advisory board is going to report the. The housing task of the volunteer group.
Speaker 2: So it's great review is going well.
Speaker 5: Hold on. So to me it's not clear as to what we're talking about about this, you know, three days to 60 days. To me, it seems as though if the one core issue is that you want the community members, the Rent Renters Coalition to get involved in the argument that I have to hear is that. At the rent that the process that we have in place now, the 90 day time frame, somehow precludes a substantive involvement by the by the community members. And I'm not and I'm listening for an argument as to why it's exclusive. So to me, the way that it's unfolding is. We've got this 90 day time frame. And in April, staff is going to have a report regarding their their, you know, how we should change the ordinance and then up to and even immediately after the report. Why can't the community group give their substantive input, however they so choose, and still influence the Rent Review Advisory Board and subsequently influence the City Council? To me, it's. I just need to hear the argument that.
Speaker 3: So maybe maybe a way of looking at this and approaching this is that we as staff could publish the draft ordinance language sooner than the typical time frame for getting the packet out sooner than the 12 days we could get the the draft ordinance out within the next week and a half and that it could go before the RAC or the community engagement could happen kind of during the month of April and it would get as far as it would get before everything comes to the council in May as scheduled. So rather than the 12 day window, we would be providing something more like a 30 day window. And that could be the time frame in which the community engagement process could happen and we could meet the schedule and it would get as far as it would get. The one I mean, that's a possibility.
Speaker 5: The one problem with that is it's altogether possible that the rent review advisory board members will have one opinion as to how ordinance language should be crafted with regard to the Rent Review Advisory Committee, and that opinion might be different from the rent group. So it seems as though somehow those two have to be reconciled or not.
Speaker 2: So I think that's the point.
Speaker 3: We would just reflect that in our staff report to the council that the feedback from both of those entities would be reflected in the staff report for council.
Speaker 5: But but my point, though, is that the Rent Review Advisory Board asked to also comment on the pluses and minuses of what what the Rent Renters Coalition has to offer. That's why the Renters Coalition has to comment on the staff report when it's issued. Those comments have to be part of the public decision making when it goes for the Rent Review Advisory Committee. And the Rent Review Advisory Committee then gives its recommendations to City Council. Right now you're talking about two parallel tracks. They might coincide or they might.
Speaker 2: So I think the distinction might be, and I alluded to this earlier, is that there are now three stakeholder groups as far as I think at least I am concerned. There is the renters, there's the housing providers and the staff, and the three of us are trying to work together so that whatever staff comes up with that , we look at that and as the two other stakeholder groups and make sure that we can all come to an agreement before it comes to the council. So it's a slightly different role, but our stakeholders want to be involved in all of the decision making process, not that it's going to usurp the council's authority, but I think it's better if we can all come together in an agreement. And I know that tenants and landlords are going to understand the position that staff is in. The idea is trying to come to an agreement. I believe we can. Back in September, nobody said any of this was going to work. And then we came here and we got five out of six and people said the sixth wasn't going to work. And here we are in the beginning of March with six. Now it's not uniform, but people have been talking. We view the staff as our partner. We view Vive. We view the RAC as our stakeholder partner.
Speaker 5: I'm not clear as to what you mean by the city staff being a stakeholder, but I'll just.
Speaker 2: We'll just leave it at that. Enforcement. We can't talk about enforcement. Only the staff can do that. And so we've had informal discussions about how enforcement might be. That hasn't gone back out to the stakeholders. And I can tell you, depending on how enforcement works, we could undo part of the agreement that we have. If there are serious funding issues, we might undo the agreements that we have so far because some of them were predicated on certain presumptions. But we couldn't address those presumptions because staff wasn't involved. And that's why we want them here now. I alluded to them earlier. Enforcement and funding.
Speaker 0: And Brody, I guess.
Speaker 7: What if there is a funding issue? I mean, isn't that for the council to decide, especially if there's a budget allocation? I guess I'm a little confused because I thought the original charge of the community committee was to put together recommendations to bring to the Council on High Level Principles, and the Council would discuss them as we did. And then we, as is our responsibility, give direction to staff to draft an ordinance based on those all five of those principles. And then the sixth one, I guess I'm. I'm a little confused that I think. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought only the council gave direction to staff. It seems like. It does seem a little usurping, to be honest with you. And the mayor made some good points about the value of of of the rack and how important it is and how important it has become. And what we're trying to do here is strengthen it. And it seems to me that given the crisis that Councilmember De described, we want to strengthen that sooner rather than later. And we've already drag this out like a really long time. And I think it's time that if you can't decide, we'll decide for 21520322, whatever it is. I mean, that's our job. That's that's our responsibility. And I don't know why we keep dragging this out any longer.
Speaker 0: Well, I'd like to.
Speaker 3: Any other member comments.
Speaker 0: On that issue? So for me, my concern on that pushing for saying anything from our position down is that we depend on the landlords and the tenant and RAC to solve these problems. We actually cannot intervene in a lease between a landlord and a tenant. You and I cannot get involved in that. That is why we have RAC and that is why it is so important that I think why why in fact, we've had so much participation in this issue and trying to encourage landlords and tenants within our community to work together. And by that, I mean actually monitor the rent increases, which is what has been happening. And I'm very encouraged that we have more a lot of. In the past we had many tenants that were not aware of RAC, even though RAC has been in existence for many years. And so this is a good thing. Now, I think that we have had tenants utilize RAC, they've been working with the landlords and RAC and reaching resolutions and which is why I continue to support this process because it is through them that we actually have the teeth to encourage RAC to be effective to protect our tenants. You and I cannot do that on our own. We can't do it with rent control for actually many of our renters, which is why it is, I think, why you have landlords stepping up and tenants stepping up actually not just for themselves, but as a group, which is very powerful and I think has been successful. So that's my concern about taking our approach and and why why I support continuing to work with the landlords and the tenants and RAC and Mr. Cameron's staff.
Speaker 7: But I. I think those are all valid points and valid goals. I mean, first of all, we haven't decided what we're gonna do with rent control and it's not before us. I don't think that's something we could talk about, but. Your point about it being of the RAC being a valuable asset to the city and a valuable asset to the tenants and landlords to resolve issues? I totally agree with that. But we're not trying to take away the rack process. We're not trying to say don't go to rack. You know, we're not trying to take that power to have you or I or any other council member mediate rent disputes. What we're trying to do is strengthen a process that we all agree is beneficial to the community, beneficial to tenants, beneficial to landlords in resolving disputes. We're delaying the ultimate strengthening of that process. And I think we've delayed long enough. I mean, I agree with all of the points you made about the value of of the rack and the value of the process. But I don't think we're doing anything today to take away from that process. And I do think that, you know, the community the community voice and the community analysis of issues, that's that's the city council. I mean, we put out an agenda with a policy position, a staff recommendation, and the community comes to the meetings and they have input. They say, we like it, we don't like it in that is the community process. So I just think that, you know, we're kind of adding an extra layer of bureaucracy that's probably not necessary to come up with the ultimate community process, which we're all going to have to decide on eventually.
Speaker 6: Member Ashcraft You know, I'm I'm pretty much going to echo that. I think that we've long known the value of the rack and what it needed needs is more teeth. And I, I would not want to see us delay giving it more teeth. And I think the process that Ms.. Potter has started with staff takes us well down that road. And I would in fact, I'm ready to call for the vote. I'm I think that I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: We have we have.
Speaker 2: Comments.
Speaker 0: Outside us. There were no public comments on this. And.
Speaker 2: And so I just want to let you.
Speaker 0: Know, I mean, no one had turned in a slip. We have a.
Speaker 2: No, no. So, actually, Miss Hawk about just arrived. And so if counsel had any questions for her, she can be part of our process, if that's okay. Or we can get a speakership if somebody had questions on how the tenants felt.
Speaker 6: And just for the record, I'll note that I don't think we had any emails I didn't about this item from the time the staff report was published until today. So.
Speaker 0: So I'm interested in allowing her to speak at this point. Did any or any objection to that?
Speaker 7: We hope in the coming weeks. And if that's not close.
Speaker 2: Why not?
Speaker 0: All right. So if you'd like to speak, please. Thank you.
Speaker 6: It was never open because we didn't have.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor. And members of the city council. I'm Angela Hawk about from the Alameda Renters Coalition.
Speaker 4: And I'm here because we didn't get a whole lot of notice about the questions that Councilmember De Saag had. But we are fully confident.
Speaker 3: In the process that has been put forward by Jeff camera. And I understand that the city council is very capable of hearing renters.
Speaker 4: But because this is such.
Speaker 3: A huge crisis, we can't usually wait for like two weeks to meet with the city council. We need to be working with people as soon as possible who have the power.
Speaker 4: The landlords actually have the power to.
Speaker 3: Deal with these.
Speaker 4: Rate increases. So any group, organization that allows us to interact in a positive way is hugely important.
Speaker 3: And to be able to have that process be a part of a political process as well.
Speaker 4: Is is amazing.
Speaker 3: The fact that we were able to come together and talk and that we still have this opportunity to take a look at what city staff puts forth as actual written ordinances is invaluable because. We're actually able to sit across the table.
Speaker 4: With landlords and instead.
Speaker 3: Of like each of us talking independently in front of city council members, we're actually having an opportunity to listen to landlords and hear their concerns.
Speaker 4: And usually.
Speaker 3: Renters aren't very excited to hear that that.
Speaker 4: Perspective. But once landlords hear.
Speaker 3: The renters perspective and renters hear the landlords perspective, there's a lot more equanimity, there's a lot more cooperative ness and an overall willingness to stand behind ordinances that might actually work. So I urge you city council not to discount the work that Jeff Canberra Bellamy to renters coalition and the landlords who are coming to the table and let me tell you there are.
Speaker 4: Landlords who do not want this to.
Speaker 3: Happen. There are landlords who don't like that. We're all coming together because they feel it threatens their their ability to raise rents really high. And it's happening all over the place. And even though I hear that they're asking for an extra month, I'm confident that we will be able to get the consensus from the other landlords well in advance of that time, and we might still be able to meet the original date. So I urge you to give us a chance, and I really thank you for listening to me this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Amber comments. Well. Member De.
Speaker 5: Saag. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. The comments and the questions that I have raised, the essence of which was basically. Why can't we stick to the time frame that was agreed to in January and within that time frame will allow for substantive input by the rent people? And I have not yet heard a strong argument why it can't happen within the time frame. Now let's get to the other side. We can say, well, what's the harm in in, you know, extending this out? Well. There are several issues here. You know, as a city council, I think the first thing is there's a lot of important issues that that we as a city council have to deal with. And at some point in time, we have to make the decision and we have to, you know, go through the process of involving everyone, getting all the best input that we can. And we do it within a timeframe. And the extent that that timeframe was initially reasonable. And you know, there's a certain point in time when we have to decide or it goes back to the issue. The question that I had is, why can't we work within the timeframe that was agreed to and why does that harm in any way? The Renters Coalition from sensitively contributing within the time frame. I just haven't heard an argument as to why we need an extra 30 days to 60 days. It's not just 30 days, but it's 30 days or 60 days on top of the 90 day time frame that we put. And, you know, we could easily just say, sure, okay. You know, it's good politics, you know, to say to you guys, okay, you know, your 500 members strong, you're very active through your Facebook. You know. Sure. You know, you can have that extra time frame. But we have to make decisions here. You know, we're constantly being asked to delay decisions because somebody, you know, didn't feel that they were part of a process that perhaps had been going on. At the end of the day. You know, what matters the most is that there is a substantive decision that makes sense and that the community was involved and had avenues for being involved. And I do believe that that is the case. If we stay within the 90 to 90 day timeframe agreed to in late January, we could, you know, do 30 days to 60 days. But we as a council are going to find ourselves on this issue, on next issue, on many other issues, always delaying these important issues.
Speaker 6: Member Ashcraft and really quickly and I do appreciate Mishka Bhatt's comments and I love hearing that landlords and tenants are sitting down across the table from each other. More communication is always better than less. There is nothing that would stop you from continuing to do that, and I wholeheartedly encourage you all to do so.
Speaker 0: By spare.
Speaker 2: The municipal code will be changed by ordinance. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: By spiritual outcome.
Speaker 4: Yes. And frankly, the city attorney's office working with staff have been drafting proposed revisions to that story.
Speaker 2: In that case, I don't think that it a delay because people are not precluded in meeting and because there are two readings. Of an ordinance there it is.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: There's a weeks in between. Beyond, I think there's ample time to get what's in our 90 day period to get what needs to be done on item six, as well as input on a draft ordinance and meet the current timetable. So I, I'd make a motion that we stick with the current timetable, with the understanding that the groups are going to continue to meet doesn't preclude it, and that there is a two week additional between the first reading and the second reading of the ordinance by an additional time to adjust, to tweak, to receive new input, just like every other ordinance that we passed that goes to two reading cycle motion.
Speaker 7: I'll second.
Speaker 6: And just for clarification, so you're vice mayor. What you just proposed is that staying with the standard proposal and that with the.
Speaker 2: Understanding there this note doesn't preclude meeting and that there's a two additional week to Republicans for public input.
Speaker 7: And it doesn't preclude a draft ordinance being circulated sooner.
Speaker 2: Then the sooner the better.
Speaker 7: With the various stakeholders. But you said I think I said okay.
Speaker 0: All those in favor, I suppose. I oppose motion passes 4 to 1, and I wanted to share that there is a vacancy on the Rent Review Advisory Committee at this time that they are. The city is soliciting applications for landlords. The applications are due by April 2nd to the city clerk. Thank you. Next item six B.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority regarding the construction of a replacement seal haul out at Alameda Point and final passage of ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 60 year lease agreement and approve a temporary right of entry permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority. 4.73 acres of undeveloped land real property and 3.4 acres of submerged lands located at West Hornet and Ferry Point streets at Alameda .00.
Update on the Process Regarding Impact of Rising Rents in Alameda.  (Community Development 7010)