{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 1, "text": "481\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -NOVEMBER 4, 2015-6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(15-671) Recommendation to Receive a Report Analyzing the Impact of Rising Rents\non Alameda Residents;\n(15-671A) Public Hearing to Consider Additional Tenant Protections and Provide\nDirection to Staff about Policies to Pursue regarding Enhanced Mediation/Rent\nStabilization, Just Cause Eviction Protection and/or Relocation Benefits, the\nComposition of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), and the Use of\nBoomerang Funds to Expand the City's Supply of Permanent Affordable Housing; and\n(15-671B) Ordinance No. 3140, \"Imposing within the City of Alameda a Temporary (65\nDay) Moratorium on Certain Residential Rent Increases and on Evictions from All\nResidential Rental Units Except for Just Cause Eviction for the Immediate Preservation\nof Peace, Health or Safety.' Adopted.\nMayor Spencer inquired by a show of hands how many minutes the speakers wanted\nfor speaking: one minute, two minutes or three minutes.\nMembers of the audience indicated support for two minutes.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested allowing three minutes.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft and\nVice Mayor Matarrese expressed support for giving speakers one minute.\nMayor Spencer stated the majority of the Council wants one minute; announced\nspeakers would be able to cede time to other speakers.\nJanet Smith-Heimer, BAE Urban Economics, began to give her presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the speakers while technical\ndifficulties are resolved.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 2, "text": "482\nStated that he will be retiring soon, has had heart failure; has medical costs and\ndepends on his rental income; maintaining a Victorian is costly and he does not want\nincome restrictions: Mark Landreth, Alameda.\nStated that he bought his first apartments in 1976 and loves Alameda; rent control\nwould be a hassle; in Berkley 5,000 property owners took their properties off the market\nbecause of rent control: John Cashman, Alameda.\nStated that she does not have a pension; her 6 unit rental is her retirement plan; she\nwas a member of the RRAC from 2003 through 2015; the RRAC is an objective board\nthat makes recommendations fair to all parties; the RRAC works because no member is\nan advocate: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nStated that she owns a 5 unit apartment building in Alameda with the highest rent being\n$1,450 when the median rent is $2,800; urged Council to take into consideration that\nsome landlords are moderate landlords and do not charge excessive rents: Pauline\nZazulak, Alameda.\nStated that he and his wife are mom and pop landlords; he is not out to gouge anyone;\nthe small profit is their livelihood; a moratorium would be a wage freeze; he would like to\nsee how the new provisions with the RRAC first: Mark Palmer, Alameda.\nStated that Ordinance 3131 has only been in effect for two months; the cost of living\ngoes up for everyone, not just renters; urged giving Ordinance 3131 a chance: Ken\nGutleben, Alameda.\nStated that she owns a 3 unit Victorian; urged Council to not make it impossible for\nlandlords to make money on a long term investment while providing housing for good\npeople in Alameda: Lila Wahrhaftig, Alameda.\nStated that she was on the RRAC, and talked with the tenants; Alameda had a 30%\nvacancy rate a few years ago; in the last 10 years there have been 4 parcel tax\nincreases, and landlords have had to reinforce their buildings for earthquakes: Linda\nSoulages, Alameda.\nStated that she is a small mom and pop landlord; urged Council to continue with the\nRRAC: Marie Kane, Alameda.\nStated that she has been a renter in Alameda for 9 years; she hopes she can stay 5\nmore years so that her children can graduate from high school in Alameda; large\ncomplexes are increasing rent by 30 to 50%: Catherine Pauilng, Alameda Renters\nCoalition (ARC).\nStated there are bad apple landlords; citizens need protection from 50% increases and\nno-fault evictions: Duane Moles, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 3, "text": "483\nStated that he is a mom and pop landlord and spends money on his buildings for\nrepairs; each rent increase is only 10% and that equates to $75; he sometimes chooses\nnot to give rent increase depending on the situation because we all need to take care of\neach other: Tom Hurtubise, Alameda.\nUrged Council to approve the moratorium to save the community from the predatory\nlandlords at least during the holidays: Jason Buckley, Alameda.\nStated that he has not found a good landlord; he received an email from someone that\nreceived a 60 day notice for a 50% increase, which is like an eviction for her: John\nKlein, ARC.\nStated that he is a mom and pop landlord; the study presented is skewed because it\nonly focuses on property owners with 50 or more units; the maintenance costs for mom\nand pop landlords are significantly higher; the report focuses on the rent increases that\nthe bigger units have generated; stated the measures being imposed would impact the\nviability of the properties and cause further depreciation: Michael Brown, Alameda.\nStated rent control and a moratorium will hurt only the small property owners, not the\nlarge corporations; small property owners do not charge high rent increases; there are\nmany old buildings in Alameda that require maintenance that will not be done by\nproperty owners if a moratorium causes insufficient profit margin: Dominic Passanisi,\nAlameda.\nStated that she is opposed to a moratorium on rent increases and no-fault evictions;\nurged Council to give the new process with the RRAC a chance to work: Ann Bracci,\nAlameda.\nStated that she represents a diverse group of owners with more than 3,000 rental units\nin Alameda; studies conducted do not give an accurate picture to what is happening in\nAlameda; Alameda owners and residents have had positive outcomes from mediation;\nthe RRAC has not had the time to work effectively; urged Council to uphold the RRAC;\nstated rent control is not one size fits all and Alameda is not an urban high rise\ncommunity; stated there is no evidence that rent control provisions would be better for\nresidents than the current RRAC process; she feels the moratorium should include 30 to\n60 day evictions and excessive rent increases of 10% or more; property owners need\nthe ability to remove residents that are truly troublesome; reasonable and appropriate\nprotections and provisions could be added to the RRAC process; urged amending the\nRRAC and giving it a chance to work: Marilyn Schumackar, Alameda.\nStated that she has only increased the rent on her property by a total of $30 per year\nand $2.66 per month; she has over $26,000 in investments in the property and is\ncurrently working with a negative cash flow; rent control would make landlords have to\nsell their properties; renters who have complaints should use the RRAC because it has\nbeen effective in mediating disputes: Maria Dominguez, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 4, "text": "484\nStated that she recently had a case on the RRAC agenda; the RRAC treated both sides\nfairly; the Committee allowed both sides to be heard in a non-confrontational dialog and\nmade both parties see the other side's view; both parties were satisfied with the\noutcome; she feels having the RRAC in place allows the parties to effectively\ncommunicate: Lisa Lawley, Alameda.\nStated rent control does not work; two of the top rent control cities have the highest\nrents in the nation: San Francisco number 1 and Oakland is number 5; the focus should\nbe on excessive rents; she supports raising fees to go into a housing trust fund to help\nwith relocation assistance; she would like to see the focus on the larger 50 plus units:\nKaren Bay, Alameda.\nStated her family owns property in Alameda and their tenants are paying well below\nmarket rate; urged Council to give the RRAC a chance, there are plenty of landlords in\nAlameda who treat their tenants with regard: Lynn Adrers, Alameda.\nStated their income property is their retirement plan; they treat their tenants fair and do\nnot raise rents; urged Council to let RRAC work: Chih Wu, Alameda.\nStated the RRAC has not had a chance to function; rent control suppresses tax rolls\neverywhere it has been implemented; Alameda has long term unfunded liabilities; 98\nsoft story units in Alameda are un-retrofitted; questioned how retrofitting will be funded if\nrent increases are stopped: Eric Anders, Alameda.\nStated Council has not given the RRAC a chance to work; there will be less revenue for\nthe City with a moratorium; rent control will adversely affect small property owners;\nmany property owners depend on rent for income: Jeanne Allea, Alameda.\nStated that he feels there are already enough regulations; property owners already do\nnot have many rights as to what can be done with property: Mark Wyman, Bayside Real\nEstate.\nStated the problem cannot be fixed unless additional housing is built; boomerang funds\nthat come back to the City of Alameda should be used for affordable housing: Doug\nBiggs, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:28p.m\n***\nUrged Council to enact a moratorium on uncalled for evictions and excessive rent\nincreases and the long term solution; stated if rents are increased 10% every year, rents\nwill be tripled in 12 years; salaries will not be tripled in 12 years: Barry Benioff, Alameda.\nStated a landlord can raise rent 10%, yet tenants do not get raises for 10%; urged the\nmoratorium: Ute, ARC.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 5, "text": "485\nUrged pressing forward with the moratorium and the boomerang funding concept for\naffordable housing: Lisa Hall, Alameda Home Team.\nStated that she is a Berkley student; her landlord has given her and her mother a no-\nfault eviction; she makes minimum wage and will soon have to start paying rent:\nAnonymous, Alameda.\nStated her rent has increased $300 and she received a no-fault eviction notice;\nsomeone ran into the stairs in the back of her apartment and the landlord said she could\nnot afford to fix it and she would have to move out: Renee, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer stated this is the renter's time to explain their situation; requested\nspeakers to address the percentage rent increase, the number of increases in the past\nyear or whether an eviction notice has been received.\nUrged Council to pass a moratorium; stated it will give tenants time to think; speculators\nare buying up land and no money is staying in Alameda; money spent for rent increase\nwill come from somewhere else in the community: Michael Miller, Alameda.\nStated her coworker cannot afford to move back to Alameda because of high rents;\nurged the moratorium be enacted: Marion Kidder, Alameda.\nStated teachers can be better teachers when they can afford to live in the community in\nwhich they work: Jenny Hoobler, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over property management firms benefiting from rent increases:\nKathryn Hopping, Alameda.\nStated there is a big housing crisis; Alameda should be a model of working with\nlandlords and tenants to be fair to both parties; she gets 10% increases and has less\nmoney in her pocket to spend in Alameda: Marie Chavez, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over a member of ARC being arrested: Doyle Saylor, ARC.\nStated that she lives in a corporate owned building and is in terror of the next rent\nincrease; the moratorium is needed; a real study should be done to be fair and equitable\nto everyone, not just the landlords. Tomi Thomas, Alameda.\nStated that she moved to Alameda one year ago; her rent has been increased 9%; she\nwill have to move if her rent is increased again: Raquel Garcia, Alameda.\nStated that she is scared about being able to afford her rent: Gwen Hammer, Alameda.\nStated that she has a good landlord, but cares about the fiber of Alameda changing;\nurged Council to implement protections: Jennifer Strongen, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 6, "text": "486\nStated his rent went up 10% the last two years and he is afraid of reporting\nmaintenance: Justin Isaac, Alameda.\nUrged the rent be kept down to allow Alameda to be a place for artist: Jessica Warren,\nStudio 23.\nUrged Council to get rid of the loop hole of the 30 and 60 day notice; stated landlords\nare giving 60 day notices to avoid having to go to the RRAC: Tim Ginley, Alameda.\nStated that she lives in a large complex which has had a 7 to 9% increase annually; she\nmay have to leave Alameda: Jane Giswold, Alameda.\nStated that she paid $2000 in rent and was evicted because her landlord said they\nwanted to renovate; however, instead the landlord rented the unit for $4,000: Rachel\nBeson, Alameda.\nStated that she would like to start a family but the insecurities about rent increases\nmake her feel uncomfortable: Sarah Dawson, Alameda.\nStated that she does not know who owns her building; rent has increased 12.5% in two\nyears and her salary has not increased; she will have to move out of Alameda to retire:\nHelen Gilliland, Alameda.\nStated her rent was increased by $245 after one year, $145 the next year and will\nprobably increase again; she is speaking on behalf of neighbors in her 11 unit building:\nNanette Lanz, Alameda.\nStated that he is a single father and disabled vet; there are some good landlords and\nproperty owners out there: Mio Flores, Alameda.\nStated the Costa Hawkins act prevents rent control in California; outlined various cities\nstabilization and mediation; urged approval of just cause provisions: Brian Geiser.\nOutlined impacts on children when their parents do not know how they are going to\nmake ends meet every twelve months: Rachel Tischer, Alameda.\nStated her landlords sold the property she lives in and she received a 9% rent increase;\nthe new landlord is evicting tenant's one unit at a time and increasing the rent: Vicki\nAutumn, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:22 p.m.\n***\nStated that she upgrades and maintains her property; she has had three tenants for 28,\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 7, "text": "487\n10 and 8 years at below market rate; urged Council to give the RRAC a chance: Karin\nLucas, Alameda.\nStated that he owns a 63 unit complex in Alameda; he does not support the outrageous\nrent increases and no-fault evictions; the current rent review ordinance has the power to\nstop these types of landlords from continuing their current behavior with some tweaks;\nurged Council to do what is best to homeowners, landlords and the City: Doug Smith,\nGarden Court Apartments.\nStated the large owner members he represents agreed to a 10% cap on increases;\nurged Council to limit the moratorium to increases over 10% if passed and to 45 days;\nstated that he agrees with the comment the City cannot look for a one size fits all\nsolution; California Apartment Association (CAA) and its members are committed to\nproviding quality rental housing: Thomas Scott, President of Cambridge Management\nCompany and speaking on behalf of the California Apartment Association (CAA).\nStated tenants have identified problems as the over 10% rent increases and 60 day no-\nfault evictions; he is open to giving longer increase notices and to adding financial\nconsequences for landlords to compensate tenants who move out as a result of these\nactions: John Sullivan, CAA.\nStated that he is a mom and pop landlord; urged the Council to not implement rent\ncontrol or just cause eviction: Malcolm Lee, Millbrae.\nStated his rental property is his retirement income; placing a moratorium would impact\nhis ability to fund repairs and maintenance; the rent review ordinance has not had\na\nchance to work: Scott Brady, Alameda.\nStated it is important to hear from the tenants; urged Council to look at the small mom\nand pop owners that really want to work with the mediation: Brad Drudy, Housing\nProvider.\nStated everyone is an individual and everyone has a story to tell; she might have to sell\nwithout rent increases: Amy Chung, Alameda.\nStated that he owns two 5 unit buildings; he previously owned rental property in San\nFrancisco and Berkeley; rent control has a long term negative impact on the community\nas a whole; landlords are not incentivized to maintain the property and deters\ninvestment in the community is deterred: Rick Storrs, Property Owner.\nProposed encouraging increasing property and new development in Alameda: Tad\nPark, Alameda.\nStated the Bay Area has had an incredible surge of demand and an incredible lack of\nsupply; rent control would have a consequence on property being sold: Christopher\nHanson, Property Owner.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 8, "text": "488\nStated most mom and pop landlords are good; with rent control, they will not be able to\nafford their properties; urged going after the property owners that have raised rents too\nmuch: Kim Perata, Kennedy Trust.\nStated there are greedy landlords; urged Council to be fair to both sides, to let the rent\nordinances work and to not lump all property owners together. Irene Hanson, Property\nOwner.\nStated if building will cause prices to go up and will only serve the wealthiest in the\ncommunity; there are a lot of lower paid people in Alameda; urged approval of rent\ncontrol: Bill Smith, Alameda\nStated that she moved to Alameda from Florida; her rent is increased every year and\nshe may no longer be able to live in Alameda; expressed concern over 10% rent\nincreases: Stella Moya, Alameda.\nStated renters do not have power; renters need justice and fairness; renters want to go\nafter the corporate landlords, not the mom and pop landlords: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nStated that he has rented in Alameda for four years; urged Council to remember\nvulnerable, scared people: David O'Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated that he received a retaliatory notice to terminate; his landlord entered his unit\nwithout 24 hours written notice: Garfield Kincross, ARC.\nMayor Spencer requested Mr. Kincross provide her with his information for follow up.\nStated that she became a homeowner because she was afraid of continuing to rent:\nKristen Upson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the using redevelopment money returning to the City for housing;\nstated this is an economic expulsion; urged Council to take a stand to stop it; expressed\nsupport for the moratorium: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocacy.\nStated tonight would not have happened without the tenants advocating; the tenants will\nget rent control one way or another: Eddie Yuarte, Oakland Tenants Union.\nMayor Spencer questioned how much time staff needs to do the presentation and if it is\nlegal to have the presentation on the record without presenting it to the Council.\nThe City Attorney responded the rent study and other studies are part of the record and\navailable on the website; stated unless Council had questions, the Council could\nproceed without the presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer to take a short recess and to see how\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 9, "text": "489\nmuch data the Council would like before starting to deliberate.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like context; a concise overview should be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred.\nMayor Spencer stated that she only suggested not having the presentation because the\ninformation is in the staff report and there is no new information; Council had plenty of\ntime to review the information.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council should hold comments to the end.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred that he would like to see the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to inform the public; this is not the\nplace to cut corners.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would define brief as 10 minutes.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess 9:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like to allow staff over 10 minutes.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of staff taking as much time as need.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated this is a big deal; having had so many\nspeakers, he would like to get an informed statement from staff to be able to make such\na monumental decision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Vice Mayor and Councilmember\nOddie; stated the decision is monumental; she feels truncating the data it is cheating the\npublic.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there is a motion to give staff unlimited time for their\npresentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the motion is that staff be\nallowed sufficient time for the context of their presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred that Council should gather all possible information\nfrom staff and the consultant; stated there may be questions and Council needs to be\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 10, "text": "490\nopen to that to allow a decision to be made that residents would be proud of.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\nMs. Smith-Heimer gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated in doing the math for the boomerang funds as a rental\nsubsidy the monthly subsidy is only $100 which should be used for building.\nMayor Spencer inquired if BAE tracks a specific individual renting.\nMs. Smith-Heimer responded in the negative; stated the data is from the consensus, not\nfrom BAE.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there was a way to get the percentage for a long term tenant\nor change in tenants.\nMs. Smith-Heimer responded in the negative; she stated there is no way to get to said\ndata.\nMayor Spencer clarified her question; inquired whether there is any data for what a\nrenters increase is if they stayed in one place for one to two years.\nMs. Smith responded in the negative; she stated no one has said data.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether rent control in Alameda would still have Costa\nHawkins.\nMs. Smith responded in the affirmative; continued her presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the data is for rentals with 50 units or more.\nMs. Smith responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the data shows demographics of those whose income is\nconstrained.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the hearing officer's decision could be final if appealed to the\nCity Council.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated court would\nbe the next recourse.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 11, "text": "491\nCouncilmember Daysog requested clarification on whether rent stabilization and rent\ncontrol is the same thing as relocation assistance.\nThe Community Development Director responded rent control and rent stabilization\nhave the same meaning; staff does not believe that relocation benefits are restrained by\nCosta Hawkins; continued her presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the landlords are required to offer a lease would it be\nfor a one year lease and what happens when the tenant does not want a one year\nlease, to which the Community Development Director responded that the tenant can\ndecline the lease but the landlord has to offer it.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there is a way to require landlords to go through the RRAC\nprocess for a tenant, who is current in rent, for a no cause eviction.\nThe Community Development Director responded that she put the matter in the\npresentation as one way to strengthen the mediation process.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the matter could go to Council and be a binding decision.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded Council could adopt an ordinance with a no\ncause eviction policy.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if staff reviewed imbedding relocation assistance into a\njust cause eviction ordinance, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded the Council could decide to do so.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified relocation assistance should be available for no\ncause eviction.\nThe Community Development Director continued her presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to see relocation assistance tied to the\nRRAC process; there could be a formula for how much relocation assistance is possible\nbut the amount would be up to the RRAC; there would be mediation for relocation\nassistance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the advantage of a formula would ensure\napplication to all tenants; provided an example of two months' rent.\nThe Community Development Director continued her presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired when the ordinance would be effective if Council approves\nmediation or relocation assistance instead of a moratorium.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 12, "text": "492\nThe Community Development Director responded if Council wants to preclude people\nfrom being evicted until the relocation assistance is in place, then the moratorium would\nhave to be enacted; staff would need time to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance; the\nearliest would be December 15th for the first reading and January for the second\nreading.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there has been widespread community desire\nto address rent increases, even if on a stand-alone basis and even if temporary, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nCouncil could decide to do a moratorium as well as give staff direction to come back\nwith legislation regarding relocation assistance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council was previously told only a 45 day moratorium\ncould be done; he inquired what is the legal difference and whether the moratorium can\nbe extended.\nThe Community Development Director responded the 45 day moratorium is under State\nlaw; the 65 day moratorium is pursuant to the City Charter.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if Council adopts a moratorium, what would happen if a\ntenant's lease expires, to which the Community Development Director responded\ntenants with leases expiring would go to a month to month tenancy during the 65 day\nperiod.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the moratorium is a tenant protection measure.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to define a threshold on rent\nincreases.\nThe Community Development Director stated the draft ordinance would put a\nmoratorium on any rent increases or no cause evictions for 65 days.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue is very emotional; landlords want a reasonable\nrate of return and renters want reasonable shelter; there are supply constraints and low\nvacancy rates; the shortage pushes up prices; if the goal of rent control is to protect\ndiversity, it is not working; two issues are landlords raising rents over 10% and 30 to 60\nday no cause evictions.\n***\n(15-672) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 13, "text": "493\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he likes the idea of landlords having to offer a lease\nand allowing only one rent increase per year; 8% feels like a good starting point; he\nlikes the idea of an arbitrator, whether it be the RRAC or a City appointed person; he\nwould like the City to require landlords to file rent increases with the City to track the\ndata; proposed revisiting the ordinance in two years after reviewing the data; suggested\nexempting buildings of 4 units or less or landlords who live within 100 feet of rental\nunits; stated that he likes the idea of an ombudsman; staff should come back with more\non relocation assistance versus just cause; he feels landlords will just buy people out\nand re-rent units; he does not like the fact that landlords can buy out Alameda's middle\nclass; the City needs to be more precise about the problem it is trying to solve; it might\nbe helpful to refer to the San Jose Ordinance which includes a landlord having to sign a\nstatement that the tenant is not being evicted to raise the rent; suggested the length of\nthe notice to vacate should be extended when vacancy rates are lower; stated the City\ncould go back to the 30 to 60 day time-period when the vacancy rate is higher; the City\nshould consider privatizing some of the RRAC responsibilities; the moratorium should\nbe on increases above 8%; he would like to see a moratorium on evicting tenants in\norder to increase rent; he would like the City to consider an elected body; staff should\ninvolve both landlords and tenants going forward; funding for affordable housing can be\nfound in different ways, whether boomerang funds or other funds.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the problem he has heard about is out of town landlords\nhave started charging excessive rent increases; the typical rent increases for mom and\npop landlords is between 4 to 8%, if at all; RRAC data indicates 10% seems to be an\nexcessive rent increase; the 65-day moratorium should be targeted at landlords seeking\n15 to 25% rent increases; the increase should be cumulative within the past 12 months;\nprovided an example; discussed the 10% threshold; stated that he would like staff to\nfocus on relocation assistance tailored to a threshold, just cause eviction, and using\nboomerang funds to increase the supply of housing for moderate income and seniors;\nurged public input to establish a system of fair play with rules targeting unfair landlords.\nMayor Spencer stated that she sees the matter as a regional issue; the excessive rent\nincreases and no fault evictions have to be addressed; inquired whether the matter\ncould go to the RRAC if the landlord wants a rent increase over 8%; further inquired\nwhether RRAC decisions appealed to Council could be binding in all cases or if it would\nbe subject to Costa Hawkins.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded drafting the ordinance to include a binding\ndecision would be subject to Costa Hawkins; stated imposing rent control would require\nthe City to have a procedure to allow landlords to demonstrate a need for an increase\nabove the allowable percentage.\nMayor Spencer stated landlords should have to go to the RRAC to explain why a rent\nincrease over the allowable percentage is needed and the matter could be mediated by\nthe RRAC; that she would be agreeable with shifting the burden of bringing cases to the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 14, "text": "494\nRRAC to the landlord; expressed support for setting the increase at 8%; stated real data\nwould be gathered because landlords would have to go to the RRAC for an increase\nabove 8%; the increase could be null and void if the matter does not go through the\nRRAC process; she would like to continue to strengthen the RRAC; property owners\nshould be required to attend the RRAC meetings, not property managers; that she\nsupports a moratorium for increases above 8%; she would prefer to have the increase\nnot average above 8% for the last two years, rather than one year; questioned whether\nadditional costs via additional fees could be included in the percentage increase; stated\nno fault evictions, which are not subject to Costa Hawkins, should also go through the\nRRAC process; evictions for anyone current on rent should have to go through the\nRRAC process; the decision should be appealable to Council; the RRAC should be\nstrengthened; the burden should be shifted to landlords; an eviction without cause, such\nas selling the property or moving back into the house, should receive a percentage of\nrent for relocation assistance; the formula could be based on the number of years the\ntenant occupied the unit combined with the rent amount; she would keep the\ncomposition of the RRAC the same and continue with the same process.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated Alameda residents have been experiencing an upswing of\nexcessive rent and 30 or 60 day terminations of tenancy; that he would like to give the\nnew regulations adopted October 1, 2015 an opportunity to work and mediating rent\nincreases; there is a hole; the RRAC's role should be expanded to include 30 or 60 day\nno fault terminations; the mediation process should incorporate a buyout option; he\nwould also like to see affordable housing expanded, without over building, including\namnesty for illegal residential units which could be deed restricted for affordable units;\nhe agrees with a moratorium, which should be unconditional other than appeals to the\nCity Council; the moratorium should not allow any increase; staff should take more than\n65 days to address his amnesty suggestion; also suggested exploring tax credits for\nrent paid concurrent with the other efforts; stated rather than a sunset, there should be\nreevaluation by Council; expressed support for the current composition of the RRAC;\nsuggested training be provided for the RRAC and the $1.6 million in boomerang funds\nbe reviewed to examine the current programmed budget versus using the funds to\nalleviate the rent problem.\nMayor Spencer inquired what process Vice Mayor Matarrese supports for rent\nincreases, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he would like the October 1,\n2015 ordinance expanded to add the 30 and 60 day not for cause evictions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read a section of the urgency ordinance which captures\nwhat she feels are the overarching goals; discussed involving landlords and tenants to\nreach the best solution; stated that she has three goals: 1) for renters to be provided\nresidential security via a rent stabilization ordinance that enables landlord to receive a\nfair returns on their property while ensuring tenants have certainty that rents will not\nincrease above a specific amount each year, including only one rent increase per year,\n2) maintain quality rental housing stock and increase the quantity, especially affordable\nand multifamily, and 3) wanting to maintain the City's reputation as a fair and safe arena\nto live and do business; proposed whatever mechanism is put in place return to Council\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 15, "text": "495\nfor a review in a year after data is gathered; stated tenants expressed they are afraid to\nask landlords to make basic repairs because they fear rent increases; questioned how\nsaid tenants should be expected to go to the RRAC and face their landlords when the\nRRAC can only make a suggestion; stated the RRAC members have to be given tools\nto be able to carry out responsibilities effectively; RRAC hearings should not be in the\nChambers; mediation should be done around a table; when the RRAC has no teeth,\npeople will not risk rocking the boat [by submitting a case]; questioned whether public\nshaming would really work on landlords imposing 20 to 50% rent increases; stated more\nis needed than the RRAC; she would like to staff to work on some form of rent\nstabilization; noted San Jose is considering lowering its cap to 8%; stated that she is\nokay with an 8% cap to start because landlords who have kept the tenant burden down\nmay not be able to maintain the housing stock; remedies should be simple and\nadministrative costs should be low based on the City's staff levels and budget; she is\ninterested in landlords paying a registration fee to create funding and good records\ngoing forward; only one rent increase should be allowed per year; she would like to see\nvacancy decontrol to allow landlords to increase to market rate when tenants leave and\na just cause eviction statute, which would probably be too large of a burden for the\nRRAC; there should be a mechanism to verify no fault evictions and related penalties;\nwhen landlords justly need units vacated; however, tenants should not bear the burden\nof relocations costs, such as moving and deposits; buildings under 4 units or with onsite\nlandlords should not be excluded from rent stabilization; all renters should be protected\nfairly and equally across the board; expressed concern over requiring the property\nowner, rather than a representative, to attend the RRAC hearing.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated that he thought\nhe heard a consensus about just cause evictions.\nMayor Spencer inquired Councilmember Daysog's position on rent increases.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he would like excessive rent increases\naddressed through a relocation assistance program; stated the policy question is what\nis the triggering threshold; information he gathered indicates 10% is reasonable; 8% has\nbeen suggested; the amount can be worked out with all stakeholders when staff brings\nthe matter back to Council.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Daysog supports the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the RRAC should oversee the process and\ndetermine the final amount to award for relocation, which could be based on a formula;\nnoted Richmond and Glendale formulas could be used; stated the RRAC decision could\nbe appealed to Council.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated\nthat he is not proposing rent stabilization; he prefers relocation assistance and just\ncause eviction.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 16, "text": "496\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated direction should be given to staff to modify the RRAC\nordinance to include 30 to 60 day no cause termination of tenancy with the RRAC\nhaving authority to assign relocation assistance for displaced tenants based on a\nformula staff provides.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated one triggering event for relocation assistance could be a\ncertain threshold rent increase; provided an example.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he struggling with decision of the RRAC being\nbinding versus voluntary.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed a mass eviction case the City Council dealt with in\n2004.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would be okay with the\nRRAC's decision being binding; stated her idea is to require landlords to bring increases\nabove 8% to the RRAC and have the decision be binding for anything not exempt from\nCosta Hawkins.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he would like the RRAC decision on the\namount of the relocation assistance to be binding.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would favor giving the tenants some\nprotection from 20% rent increases; 8% seems reasonable based on her meetings with\nlandlords.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's would be subject to\nCosta Hawkins, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded different rules apply;\nstated relocation assistance is not subject to Costa Hawkins, but a cap would be subject\nto Costa Hawkins.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the two solutions are not mutually exclusive.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred; stated the burden for families subject to 15%\nincreases should be softened by relocation assistance; there is a difference in the\nmodel.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding landlords with valid repair costs going\nto the RRAC or some board, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated doing so is a\npotential mechanism; that she would favor having a staff person or someone else hear\nthe issue because it involves a lot of financial data; perhaps staffing could be funded via\na landlord registration fee; she would not have the matter go to the RRAC.\nMayor Spencer questioned Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft about the RRAC; stated that\nshe would support a mediation process instead of setting a cap.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 17, "text": "497\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded speakers indicated the RRAC process is not\nworking; stated that she is intrigued by Councilmember Daysog's suggestion to have\nrelocation assistance go to the RRAC for cases over a certain percentage for properties\nnot subject to Costa Hawkins.\nIn response to Mayor's Spencer's further inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated\nthat she would like the RRAC composition changed; she supports two landlords and two\ntenants, but the fifth seat could be changed; three out of five are property owners;\nadditional training is needed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is advocating for the San Jose model; the RRAC\nprocess could still be used for increases under 8% and single family units [not subject to\nCosta Hawkins]; requested staff to explain San Francisco's relocation assistance hike\nbeing recently overturned.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the amount was set so high that the Courts found it\nto be confiscatory and punitive.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue Council is trying to solve is helping tenants feel\nsecure in their homes and stay in Alameda; placing a value on tenancy and allowing\ntenants to be bought out will not solve the problem and will instead exacerbate the issue\nbecause people will be kicked out of Alameda, which is social cleansing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he sees relocation assistance as a mechanism to\nassist families through a painful process and as sending a message to property owners\ncharging excessive rent increases; outlined how the problem is being defined differently;\nstated relocation assistance is one way to cool the market and make landlords think\nagain.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated instead, steps could be taken to prevent reaching the step\nof relocating; that he does not see how kicking people out and being able to charge\nmarket rent would cool the market.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated landlords would think twice about doing so because\nthere is an additional cost.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the two different segments need different remedies.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there is an assumption that mediation happening at RRAC\nis worthless, but there have been a number of RRAC successes at bringing rent down;\nthere needs to be protections for people afraid to go to RRAC because they think they\nwill be evicted; there should be an RRAC mediation process for termination not for\ncause; inquired whether protection can be provided that will be strong enough so people\nwill not be afraid to go to RRAC.\nMayor Spencer responded that she wants to address said fear by requiring landlords to\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 18, "text": "498\nfile instead of tenants; stated the burden would be shifted for no fault evictions; the\nRRAC has been successful, but has not dealt with no fault evictions.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry about tenants being afraid of being\nevicted after taking a case to the RRAC, Mayor Spencer stated that she proposes\nrequiring the landlord to have to go to RRAC for increases above 8%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the decision would not be binding.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would propose the decision be binding; the RRAC\nshould be strengthened and could be more successful than rent control; she has heard\nthe RRAC lacks teeth and her suggestion would provide teeth; she would support the\ndecision being binding at the Council level; she understands the decision would not be\nbinding in all cases; Councilmember Daysog's suggestion to use a relocation assistance\nformula could be used for the cases that cannot be binding under Costa Hawkins.\nThe Assistant City Attorney outlined binding decisions requiring an evidentiary hearing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the potential for an assertion of a taking could\nlead to a liability which should be addressed at the Council level.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is proposing the case could be appealed to Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney outlined a typical administrative hearing process, which is\nmore formal.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the RRAC could be used for the first hearing, to which\nthe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated requiring cases above a certain increase to go to RRAC\nautomatically would provide data.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted data could be gathered by creating a landlord\nregistration instead.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the cost to implement a registration\nprogram, the Community Development Director outlined the process to adopt a new fee;\nstated the fee would have to be based on the cost of administering the program.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern that landlords would pass the cost of the fee onto\ntenants.\nThe Community Development Director stated most cities place a cap on the amount\nthat can be passed onto tenants.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether other Councilmembers support having\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 19, "text": "499\na registration fee, Councilmember Oddie expressed support.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft reviewed fees charged by other cities.\nIn response to Mayor's Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog expressed that he is\nnot supportive; stated that he is open to receiving information.\nVice Mayor Matarrese expressed that he is not supportive of creating a registration fee.\nMayor Spencer stated she is not supportive; noted a majority of Council is not\nsupportive.\nThe Interim City Manager noted a $25 fee could capture $40,000 per year, which could\nbe used to cover costs; not adopting the fee would require funding to come from\nsomewhere else.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated a fee can be established to cover whatever is\nimplemented; creating a registration system for the purpose of gathering data is not\nfitted to the decided upon ordinance; the matter should be addressed when the\nordinance comes to Council; staff should look into funding options once Council adopts\nthe ordinance; inquired how many times landlords walked away from the RRAC process\nand implemented the original increase.\nThe Community Development Director responded said scenario is very unusual and has\nonly occurred a handful of times; stated the RRAC success rate is well above 85%.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the success rate challenges the assumption that the\nRRAC fails because it does not have teeth; the greater problem is tenants are afraid to\ntake cases to the RRAC; that he would like staff to look into protections that could\nprevent tenants from being evicted for bringing a case to the RRAC.\nThe Community Development Director stated Council could adopt a layering of options\nto provide the level of protection being sought; the mediation process could be\nenhanced to require an appearance before the RRAC for an increase above a certain\npercentage; brining the case forward would be an obligation of the landlord; enhanced\nmediation could be layered with a just cause eviction ordinance to prevent tenants from\nfearing eviction; the package could work together to provide assurances; then,\nrelocation benefits could be layered on top to create a comprehensive package.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated assumptions are being made for something that was just\nput in place October 1, 2015; inquired whether staff can review whether there is a\ndifference post October 1, 2015.\nThe Community Development Director responded there has not been an uptick in the\nnumber of RRAC cases in the last four months; stated staff does not anticipate a large\nuptick since tenants are expressing a fear to bring cases forward; the recent\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 20, "text": "500\nstrengthening could be built upon or Council could choose to proceed with the layered\nupon approach.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed his support for the Community Development\nDirector's layered approach; suggested providing two layering options: both with and\nwithout rent control.\nThe Community Development Director stated based on the discussion tonight, staff\nwould review ways to strengthen the mediation process, just cause and relocation\nbenefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he likes the Community Development Director's\nsuggestion; the Mayor's suggestion to make mediation binding is arbitration; three\nCouncilmembers seem to support some type of binding protection for units that can be\nsubject to said protection; the high level concept is there.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the Community Development\nDirector's layering suggestion; stated that she is concerned about people being afraid to\nask for basic repairs, which would be addressed by requiring a landlord to appear, a just\ncause eviction ordinance, and relocation assistance.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like relocation assistance embedded in\nthe just cause ordinance similar to Richmond and Glendale.\nIn response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated just cause and no cause are synonymous in this case; the idea is relocation\nbenefits would be provided if tenants are being evicted not for cause.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined the instances allowed in the Glendale ordinance;\nstated that he is also interested in relocation assistance as he outlined earlier.\nThe Community Development Director stated the purpose of the no cause eviction\nordinance would be to not have eviction used as a work around to avoid going to the\nRRAC.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated having specific conditions is the typical way to structure a no cause\neviction ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the RRAC could mediate evictions; provided an example\nof additional time being mediated to allow a family to stay through the end of the school\nyear; stated that he would like the RRAC to be able to hear any type of eviction case.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to require the RRAC to hear all evictions for\ntenants current on rent.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 21, "text": "501\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned the legality of doing so; discussed the State process;\nprovided an example of a nuisance eviction.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is proposing an ordinance for cases not covered\nunder State law.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned whether the RRAC has the skill set to act as judges;\nstated there is a procedure in law to evict tenants for cause evictions, which is the\npurview of judges.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated no fault cases are when the eviction is done at no\nfault of the tenant; one problem is tenants are receiving 30 and 60 day notices so that\nlandlords can increase rent, which is allowed in Alameda; Alameda does not require\nlandlords to have a reason to vacate someone, which she would like to see.\nThe Assistant City Attorney noted the eviction for cause could be reported to the\nHousing Authority for tracking but questioned the RRAC hearing eviction for cause\ncases; stated just cause can be set up with a formula and criteria.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether notices to terminate would not go\nthrough the RRAC, the Community Development Director stated staff is proposing\nkeeping rent increases under the purview of the RRAC and layering on a just cause\neviction and relocation processes separate from the RRAC to reduce the fear factor and\nallow people to feel comfortable pursuing the RRAC mediation process; staff has\nsufficient direction to craft the ordinances; the last question to address tonight is the\nproposed moratorium.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated\nthat he thought the City could keep the RRAC to mediate cases under 8%.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated\nCouncil can allow the RRAC to mediate any rent increase case and also require the\nlandlord to bring the matter to the RRAC if the increase is above a specific percent.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry, the Assistance City Attorney\nstated requiring a landlord to prove a need to go above a cap is rent stabilization.\nFollowing a discussion of examples and what qualifies as rent stabilization, the\nCommunity Development Director stated staff has a suggestion regarding the\nmoratorium; the moratorium could address no cause evictions and rent increases above\n8% and include a look back.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would rather not include an amount in the\nmoratorium because he fears there will be many 8% increases; he would rather have an\nappeal process; property owners with hardships could ask the City Council for relief.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 22, "text": "502\nMayor Spencer inquired whether new fees being charged to tenants could be included,\nto which the City Attorney responded additional fees passed onto the tenant would be\nconsidered part of rent.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there should be a moratorium on fees; discussed the\ncap amount.\nThe City Attorney stated the definition of rent would include extra fees.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a consensus for the moratorium to have an\n8% cap.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted tenants could still use the RRAC process during the\nmoratorium; stated that he would support a 0% or 8% cap.\nMayor Spencer and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the 8% cap.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the cap would be cumulative for the past 12 months,\nthe majority of the Council concurred.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding what would return to\nCouncil for consideration, the Community Development Director stated staff would\nexpand the RRAC ordinance to include a mandatory appearance at the RRAC for rent\nincreases over 8% and a separate ordinance to address just cause eviction and\nrelocation assistance.\nCouncilmember Daysog clarified staff would present two scenarios: one with rent\nstabilization and one without.\nThe Community Development Director agreed that staff would provide an alternative\nthat is binding.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff supports expanding the role of RRAC to mediate\nno cause evictions, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\nnegative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nstaff would return with two scenarios to address rising rents: enhanced, landlord-\ninitiated mediation at the RRAC for increases 8% or higher and the alternative would be\narbitration.\nA majority of the Council expressed support.\nThe City Attorney noted non-binding enhanced mediation would not be rent control.\nThe Community Development Director stated arbitration would kick in only if mediation\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 23, "text": "503\ndid not work.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a mixture would be needed since single family units would\nnot be eligible for arbitration.\nThe Community Development Director stated the next layer is staff would draft a just\ncause eviction ordinance that would include relocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there should be a review period.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated relocation assistance and just cause eviction provisions would apply to all units.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated an extended notice period should be considered if only\nrelocation assistance is considered.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter should return to the Council in a year.\nMayor Spencer stated \"not to exceed 8%\" should be added to Section 2 of the urgency\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read the language: \"...no housing provider shall notice\nan increase in rent or increase rent above 8% per year.\"\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the language should include \"cumulatively looking back\ntwelve months; the sum of which surpasses 8%.\"\nMayor Spencer inquired whether rent could not be increased above 8% even if the\ntenant already received notice, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated rent cannot be increased during the period.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney questioned whether the\nlandlord could not evict a tenant during the period even if the notice has been served.\nIn response Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the\nlanguage could be clarified to: \"in accordance with State law\" and staff would review the\nmatter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he does not believe the City could trump an\neviction if already noticed; stated the language will have to be tweaked to comply with\nState law.\nConsensus was reached to add the language: \"in accordance with State law.\"\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a definition of rent could be added to make it clear that\nfees are included.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 24, "text": "504\nThe City Attorney responded staff can do so.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding a referendum, the Assistant\nCity Attorney outlined the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would want to extend the moratorium if a\nreferendum is filed.\nThe City Attorney stated the moratorium could be extended until the new ordinance is in\neffect.\nThe City Clerk read the definition of base rent to add to the ordinance: \"Base rent'\nmeans the rental amount, including any amount paid directly to the Housing Provider for\nparking, storage or any other fee or charge associated with the tenancy (other than fees\nor charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider), that the Tenant is required\nto pay to the Housing Provider in the month immediately preceding the effective date of\nthe rent increase.\"\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated since the moratorium is being conditioned with 8%, so he\ndoes not believe there should be an appeal process for hardships.\nThe Assistant City Attorney noted a procedure should be provided if the moratorium is\nextended.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the language should remain unchanged.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested the wording be read back.\nThe City Clerk read the language added to Section 2 (a) and (b).\nThe City Attorney clarified the language added to evictions would be: \"as authorized by\nState law.\"\nThe City Clerk noted the definition of rent would also be added.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the urgency ordinance as amended.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:36 a.m.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-11-04", "page": 25, "text": "505\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf"}