{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED APRIL 4, 2017\nREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nFRIDAY--APRIL 7, 2017--5:30 - P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(17- 227 Continued) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Rent\nProgram, Direct Staff to Prepare Certain Amendments to the Rent Review, Rent\nStabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance, Consider Revisions to Ordinance\nNo. 3132 Governing the Rent Review Advisory Committee, and Authorize Staff to\nPrepare an Updated Fee Study to Pay for Implementing the Ordinance.\nFixed Term Leases\nVice Mayor Vella requested to reopen fixed-term leases; stated that she has additional\nquestions.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer inquiry, the Council agreed to reopen the issue.\nVice Mayor Vella stated temporary tenancies can be offered to a tenant one time and\ncan also be offered to a new tenant; inquired whether changing tenants under\ntemporary tenancies would be subject to the 5% cap.\nThe Community Development Director responded termination for no cause is the only\nscenario which has a 5% cap for the subsequent tenant; stated staff is not proposing\nthe cap be expanded to other scenarios.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there has been a complaint that fixed term leases are\nsomewhat of a loophole; provided an example of having a 5% increase after multiple\ntenants with three month fixed term leases, which would total above a 5% increase in\none year.\nMayor Spencer stated Council received an email suggesting having a limit of one 5%\nincrease per year, which she would support.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff could add a provision if supported by\nCouncil.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to give said direction.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 2, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney noted the provision would only be legally defensible for\nmultifamily units built before 1995; however, the provision would be a problem for\nsingle-family homes and multifamily units built after 1995 because of Costa Hawkins.\nMayor Spencer and Councilmember Oddie agreed to add the provision.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether this type of increase has been happening.\nThe Community Development Director responded there have been inquiries asking\nabout short fixed term leases with the same tenant, which would be a loophole to get\naround relocation benefits; stated a framework for temporary tenancy is being created,\nwhich would include a cap on the rent increase for the next tenant.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated staff would come back to Council with provisions on fixed term leases\nand temporary tenancies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there have been inquiries or complaints, to\nwhich the Housing Authority Housing and Community Development Director (HAHCD\nDirector) responded there have been inquiries from landlords regarding multiple fixed\nterm leases.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is trying to make the ordinance more\nunderstandable; given the inquiries, the suggestion seems reasonable.\nMayor Spencer stated there is support from five Councilmembers.\nNotices to Vacate Due to a Governmental Order\nThe Community Development Director stated the feedback on Tuesday was Council\nwants staff to come back with more standards regarding willful actions by a tenant; the\nCouncil was not interested in a carve out for anything other than willful acts by a tenant;\nstaff will return with criteria.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the need to vacate a property because of a\nnatural disaster should be addressed; the City should find a way to support tenants\ndisplaced due to a natural disaster; the real estate community has discussed a trust\nfund for assistance with relocation fees; the faith community has also expressed good\nwill; there should be a way to help tenants facing said situation.\nMayor Spencer questioned whether the trust fund was sufficiently noticed to be\ndiscussed tonight.\nThe City Attorney stated the matter is covered under the agenda as changes to the rent\nstabilization ordinance; Council can come up with suggestions; the matter would come\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 3, "text": "back to Council.\nMayor Spencer suggested the trust fund be discussed after the items on the list.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to make comments on the trust\nfund as part of the fee discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council direction is that the landlord would not\npay relocation fees; her suggestion is to not forget about the tenant.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there is not a provision in the current ordinance; the Council\ndirection is not to add anything since there has not been an issue; all funding issues\nshould be discussed together.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not think anything needs to be added; there\nis recourse if a tenant trashes an apartment; if a court decides a tenant is responsible\nfor damages, relocation fees could be waived; adding provisions does not seem\nnecessary; the process is not clear.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Council direction from Tuesday was\nnot to add language in the ordinance, but Council was willing to look at additional\ninformation regarding the willful act of a tenant; if Council does not want additional\ninformation, tenants would receive relocation benefits and have a right to return to the\nunit regardless of the circumstances that lead to the governmental order to vacate.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like information provided when the matter returns;\nCouncil can decide how to proceed at said time.\nThe Community Development Director outlined clarifying language regarding no\ntermination notice.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when relocation benefits would be paid, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in three business days.\nMayor Spencer stated when landlords give notice, they should be prepared to pay half\nof the relocation benefits; that she is concerned three business days would not give the\nlandlord sufficient time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should also be concern for the tenant who\nwould need to find new housing.\nMayor Spencer suggested the payment within three business days be one-quarter of\nthe total relocation benefit.\nThe Community Development Director stated the proposal requires the landlord pay the\nfull amount because the tenant would have to vacate immediately and would not have\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 4, "text": "an option to remain in the unit for 30 or 60 days.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern over the landlord not being able to pay the total\namount within three business days.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the various groups that provided feedback raised or\naddressed the matter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a tenant inquired when relocation benefits would\nbe received after there was governmental order to vacate; stated the ordinance did not\napply very well, so staff is proposing a specific amount of time; the provision could be\nchanged to specify half or one-third would be paid by a specific date and the remaining\namount would be paid two weeks later.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what happened with the case, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney stated staff was able to convince the landlord to pay the\nrelocation benefit within a very short time.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding discussing the issue\nwith the landlords and property managers, the Community Development Director stated\nthe broad issue was on the list that was discussed with both the landlords and tenants,\nbut without the specificity of the three business days.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like input from the renter and\nlandlord groups, with Council addressing the matter when it returns.\nMayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella concurred with said suggestion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the unit is back to being rented in the real\ncase, to which the Community Development Director responded the unit is not back on\nthe market yet.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council has resolved what the rental rate\nwould be if the tenant moves back in, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded the tenant could return to the unit similar to other types of vacations; stated if\nthe damages end up as a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the CIP formula could cause\nthe rent to be different.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested language be added to clarify the rent would remain\nthe same notwithstanding a CIP application or the landlord could file a petition to the\nRRAC for an increase above 5%; stated the provision should specify it is subject to\nother provisions of the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer stated that she recalls Council was assuming the units would go\nthrough the CIP process, which would have significant costs.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 5, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated the discussions with the stakeholder groups can\naddress landlords covering costs, such as hotel, pet and laundry rates, instead of\npaying relocation benefits.\nMayor Spencer stated a majority of Council supports said proposal.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated the tenant should\nget the same rent subject to the CIP or RRAC process.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Council direction is to have the tenant\nhave the right to return to the unit.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a tenant might want to have temporary costs covered\nrather than accepting relocation benefits; the matter needs to be flushed out.\nThe Community Development Director stated the CIP provisions address the issue.\nMayor Spencer stated a majority of Council agrees.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the last clarification about the tenant\nreceiving whichever relocation fee is higher.\nThe Council expressed support for the provision.\nNo Cause\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to make personal comments and a\nmotion on no cause evictions; apologized for and briefly discussed reading an email in\nviolation of the Sunshine Ordinance on Tuesday night; discussed the 24 eviction cases;\nrequested staff to provide additional information on the cases; discussed his\nbackground as a landlord-tenant attorney, including providing examples of specific\ncases protecting tenants; briefly discussed the election; stated it is time to review just\ncause evictions; requested an examination of other comparable, Bay Area cities'\nprovisions on just cause evictions; stated his motion would be to reconsider the\ndirection on Item B [Tenancy Terminations for No Cause] and in addition to the\ntechnical change made, direct staff to come back with what just cause eviction could\nlook like in Alameda, preferably at the May 2nd meeting; the process does not need to\nbe long; the Council should have close supervision; the City should address: 1) the\ninterplay with relocation fees, 2) closing loopholes that exist in other cities, 3)\ndisincentives to the Ellis Act on single family rentals and turning multifamily rentals into\ncondominiums, 4) Council's discussion of fixed term leases, 5) anti-harassment\nprovisions, similar to Union City, and 6) the relation of maintenance requests to\nevictions; the list is not all-inclusive; Councilmembers and the public should offer\nadditional ideas.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is requesting additional\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 6, "text": "analysis of all of the evictions or only those after the election, to which Councilmember\nOddie responded all cases should be reviewed.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees all of the cases should be included.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the information to include the\nages of the tenants.\nThe City Manager expressed concern over the timing of bringing back the analysis.\nThe Community Development Director noted staff was anticipating bringing the\nordinance revisions to Council at the May 16th meeting.\nMayor Spencer stated a majority of Council agrees with the date; a motion for\nreconsideration is not needed since direction is just being given to staff.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she supports looking into the issue; the Union City\nordinance, which was passed on Tuesday, should be reviewed; the City should analyze\nloopholes, such as the Ellis Act.\nMayor Spencer suggested the two issues be separated and Council address no cause\nfirst.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like an analysis of just cause.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he welcomes the analysis; however, he does not\nthink the Council will get meaningful information before May 16th; the issue is difficult;\nthe administrative updates should be done in a timely manner and should not be held\nup.\nVice Mayor Vella encouraged staff to return with the analysis on May 16th; stated the\nCouncil could determine if there are additional questions at said time.\nThe Community Development Director stated there are two types of analysis being\nrequested: 1) analysis of the existing 24 cases, and 2) a broader analysis of just cause\nevictions; staff will endeavor to analyze both.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports doing the review; staff can\ninform Council if the analysis cannot be completed by May 16th\nMayor Spencer stated that she disagrees with the Council majority; doing a good job on\nthe analysis will take more time; the number of no cause evictions has been the same\nbefore and after the election; she is concerned Council would be taking action to nullify\nthe election results; referenced a 1904 court case; discussed election materials\naddressing just cause evictions.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not inclined to add just cause eviction\nprovisions at this time; however, there could come a time when a case's circumstance\nshows a person has been treated unfairly and does not have protection under the law.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the Mayor's statement that the\nCouncil would be taking action to nullify the election; read Section 4 of Measure L1,\nwhich allows Council to amend the ordinance without a vote of the people if there are\nchanging conditions or concerns; stated that she has great faith in the records being\ncollected by the Housing Authority.\nMayor Spencer stated there have been comments that the Council has done nothing to\nlimit no cause evictions, which is not true; outlined the provisions on no cause evictions;\nstated that she does not believe conditions have changed; people voted two-thirds\nagainst Measure M1.\nVice Mayor Vella stated data should include any cases to date; new cases should be\nincluded.\nRelocation Fees\nThe Community Development Director made brief comments regarding the proposed\nprovisions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a standardized rent form.\nThe Community Development Director outlined information outreach efforts; stated\nriders with information are attached to leases.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a standardized rental agreement could\nbe done.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested finishing the discussion of the ordinance before\naddressing said issue.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry about what language Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft would like included, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated all of the provisions\non relocation fees.\nVice Mayor Vella suggested staff provide language that could be included in a contract.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the suggestion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he discussed a model lease from the beginning; the\nidea is worth pursuing and could minimize disputes.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the matter could be discussed after the remaining items;\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 8, "text": "however, the current request is for staff to draft language regarding the relocation\nprovisions that could be included in a model lease; further stated questions have been\nraised about not using Fair Market Rate (FMR); concerns have been raised that\nrelocation fees disproportionately disadvantage renters paying under market; 470\nCentral Avenue tenants would not have received enough to cover first and last months'\nrent in the current market.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is discussing changing the formula.\nVice Mayor Vella responded that she has heard suggestions to use a standard amount.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella agrees with changing the relocation\nfee as proposed, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the proposed provision addresses moving fees;\nsuggested staff change the wording; stated that she is also concerned about renters\npaying under market; discussed FMR; stated people should be made whole; there\nshould be discussion about changing the formula to the equivalent of first and last\nmonths' rent.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council is fine with increasing the\nmoving expenses using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).\nThe Council responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie discussed 470 Central Avenue; stated there should be a\npredictable number; a floor could be set using a percentage of FMR and a similar cap\ncould be included if the market drops.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council would like to review the\nrelocation fee formula.\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he believes addressing the matter at the May 16th\nmeeting is unrealistic; a study should be done correctly; known problems should be\nfixed and not held up; he is interested in getting information.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long staff thinks the work will take.\nThe Community Development Director stated there could be a two-step process; the\nordinance could be amended more quickly for the straightforward, administrative items;\nstaff could work on the more complex issues and the ordinance could be amended a\nsecond time.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated the majority of Council supports the recommendation; that she\nwould not support the relocation fees being set at the entire FMR; using a percentage\ncould be reviewed; basing the formula on the amount the tenant is paying is the\ncleanest and fairest method.\nThe Community Development Director stated there is a difference between FMR and\nthe payment standard in Alameda; the Housing Authority currently has the payment\nstandard as 110% of FMR.\nMayor Spencer stated the City has limited increasing rent; a number of landlords charge\nunder market; expressed concern over the amount the landlord could owe basing\nrelocation fees on FMR.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he did not suggest setting the amount at the full FMR;\nhowever, he believes there should be a floor; staff can return to Council with a\nsuggestion.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the next provision requiring the notice to\nbe in writing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council agrees.\nThe Council responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the issue is the basis of her desire to have a\nstandardized lease.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the next provision regarding the second\npayment being three business days after the tenant leaves the unit.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether everyone is agreeable, to which the Council\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision that requires the landlord\nto notify the tenant in writing about being able to remain in the unit.\nMayor Spencer outlined the specific timeline which should be included; inquired whether\nCouncil agrees with the provision.\nThe Council responded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision which requires the tenant\nto continue to pay rent if they remain in the unit.\nThe Council agreed with including the provision.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the provision seems obvious.\nOther/Housekeeping\nThe Community Development Director outlined revisions to definitions.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council agrees, to which the Council responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision clarifying units which are\nexcluded.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Council agrees, to which the Council responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether boardinghouses would be excluded, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded boardinghouses are already excluded and are\ntreated like hotels.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision clarifying a tenant could\nagree to receive an electronic document.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council unanimously concurs with said provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision allowing the Program\nAdministrator to request additional information during mediation of rent increases.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City needs to be cautious and explicit about additional\ndocuments not being subject to a record request, such as medical and financial records.\nThe HAHCD Director stated financial documents are optional for both sides; additional\ndocuments could be a copy of the lease or the first page of the deed to show ownership.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether a list of types of documents could be provided;\nwhether the ordinance could state which documents are optional and which documents\ncould not be requested; stated people should understand their rights.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the suggestion; stated additional\ndocuments is too broad.\nThe Community Development Director noted the provision is specifically about\ndocuments the landlord would provide; stated staff could come back with more\nspecificity; outlined the next provision that offers of a one year lease must be in writing.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Council expressed support.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 11, "text": "The Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring offers of a one\nyear lease be on the table for five calendar days.\nMayor Spencer stated that she was given ten days to respond when her landlord\noffered a one year lease when her rent was increased; the offer should be on the table\nuntil the first payment of the increased rent, which is usually 30 days; the tenant should\nhave more time to make a decision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from the stakeholders\non both sides.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated the one year lease is\nwaived if the tenant does not respond.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted that he was given more than five days; stated that he does\nnot know the right number, but more than five days should be given.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff would proposed the question to the\nstakeholders; outlined the provision regarding bundling services.\nThe Council expressed support for doing so.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision that unbundling applies to\nmonth-to-month leases.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council unanimously supports the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision making the CIP policy\nnotice consistent.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council unanimously supports the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring the notice of the\nRRAC hearing to be done in the same time and manner as the rent increase notice.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry if the Council is in agreement, the Council\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision changing \"text\" to\n\"content,\" changing the number of days to petition an RRAC decision to a Hearing\nOfficer from seven days to fifteen days, and adding information about translation.\nThe Council expressed support for the revisions.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring notice to be\ngiven to the Program Administrator if the landlord and tenant reach an agreement\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 12, "text": "before the RRAC hearing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the staff report indicates the landlord has the burden of\nproof regarding the increase; market rate should not be a factor in the RRAC\ndeliberations; the tenant should not have to prove they cannot afford the increase.\nMayor Spencer stated both sides share information at RRAC hearings; she would not\nwant to limit the conversation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he brought up burden of proof at the wrong time; the\nmatter is addressed in a later provision; however, market rate is not addressed; market\nrate cannot be addressed by a Hearing Officer and should not be addressed at RRAC\nhearings.\nMayor Spencer stated the RRAC should be able to look at different things in order to\nreach a settlement.\nVice Mayor Vella stated decisions which are appealable should have the same\nstandards; one side has the burden of proof.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is okay with the burden of proof, but would not want to\nstop a landlord from discussing market rate.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated when the RRAC is discussed, she is going to\nmake an argument to end the RRAC process; sophisticated concepts of burden of proof\nshould not be under the RRAC.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern over using FMR since units might not be\ncomparable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council should not tell either side what they can\ndiscuss; the RRAC has a set of rules and standards to guide decisions; the ordinance is\nclear that the burden of proof is on the property owner.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the judging standard should be the same for the Hearing\nOfficer and the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees.\nThe Community Development Director stated the majority of Council wishes to align the\ncriteria used by the Hearing Officer and the RRAC; returned to the provision requiring\nnotification to the Program Administrator.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nnot providing notice is considered a failure to appear.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the agreement reached would be null and void, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; suggested\nspecifying that the landlord be required to provide notice.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the provision seems harsh; the intent is to get the\nparties to resolution; inquired what problem is being solved.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator needs to\nbe notified so that the item is not calendared on the RRAC agenda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated if both parties do not show up at a meeting, the item\ncould be added to the next meeting; then, if they do not show again, the matter would\nbe dropped; people should not be punished for coming to an agreement.\nThe HAHCD Director stated the intent is to require something in writing, not to have a\nconsequence.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue could be that education is needed; noted\nthe Housing Authority has done an awesome job educating everyone about the\nordinance.\nThe Community Development Director suggested requiring notice in writing without\nincluding a consequence for not doing so.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would prefer no shows to be re-calendared\none more time and closed if no one shows.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance currently nullifies the agreement if the\nProgram Administrator is not notified; the language can be revised.\nMayor Spencer stated the majority of Council wants to support the settlement.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would want confirmation from both parties that a\nsettlement was reached.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an email would count as in writing, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the data collected, the Community\nDevelopment Director stated the form, which is signed by both parties, is attached to the\nstaff report.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the form is needed; however, there should only be a\ncarrot, not a stick.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated the form should include the actual rent increase rather than a\nrange.\nThe Community Development Director stated since the form is public, landlords\nrequested a range to keep flexibility when working with other tenants.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the ranges are too broad and do not help collect data; outlined\ninformation not included on the form.\nThe Community Development Director noted the rent increases would most likely be\nabove 5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated as much data as possible should be collected,\nincluding the number of tenants and lease start date.\nThe HAHCD Director stated all of the data being discussed is collected when the case\nstarts.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the form include 5% increments.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see the actual percentage.\nVice Mayor Vella stated increases over 5% have to go to the RRAC, which is public;\nhaving the information is better for both sides because not disclosing the percent\ncauses speculation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the percentage should be disclosed.\nMayor Spencer stated a majority of Council would like the specific percentage\ndisclosed; further stated the Council direction is to require notice in writing without\nincluding the penalty; suggested the language be similar to: \"Please notify the\nAdministrator so that the item is not carried over and data is collected.\"\nThe HAHCD Director stated data will not be collected if the form is not required.\nVice Mayor Vella stated written notification can be required; settlements should not be\ndiscouraged.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how many times staff has not been notified, to\nwhich the HAHCD Director stated staff has been notified; however, the form needs to be\nrequired to collect the data.\nVice Mayor Vella suggested the parties be required to provide notification that they are\nin settlement talks prior to the RRAC hearing and upon reaching a settlement, they are\nrequired to submit the form.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 15, "text": "The Community Development Director noted the only change to the form would be to\nrequire the specific percentage since the other information is collected prior to the\nRRAC hearing; outlined the provision encouraging the parties to reach a voluntary\nagreement and changing the form to read \"acknowledgement\" rather than \"agreement.\"\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the form\nalready says \"acknowledgement\" and the ordinance is being changed to reflect what is\non the form.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision regarding the City Attorney\ndetermining ownership interest.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted an attorney or property manager could have\nauthority.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the previous\nCouncil direction was to have someone with ownership interest present; if an entity\nowns the property, documentation is needed to determine who has rights to bind the\nentity, such as a President or Vice President.\nMayor Spencer stated before the ordinance was adopted, the landlord could send\nsomeone without any authority to the RRAC hearing, which was not productive; the\nhearings are more productive now.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to weaken the requirement.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the provision is not being weakened; it will state that\nthe City Attorney's office will review documentation to make a determination about who\ncan represent an entity at the RRAC hearing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the requirement to have someone with an\nownership interest could mean someone from out of state has to be present; the City\nwants someone with the legal authority to bind present; the hearing will not be\nprolonged; suggested the language read: \"legal authority to bind.\"\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not agree with said suggestion; landlords out of\nstate who do not want to come to town can keep rent increases under 5%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the language someone legally\nauthorized; gave an example of a property owner with a medical issue.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the example; however, when the ordinance\nwas adopted, she suggested requiring owners to attend because office managers were\nshowing up to RRAC hearings.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated a form could be created for owners with exigent circumstances\nand someone who has predesignated power of attorney; gave an example of an owner\nin the military not being able to attend.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the HAHCD Director stated the\nordinance already states someone with legal authority, which covers the military\nexample.\nThe Community Development Director stated the only change is that the City Attorney\nwould make the determination instead of the Program Administrator.\nVice Mayor Vella gave an example of a property manager not having authority to fix a\nwindow; stated the scenario has come up before; that she is concerned about someone\nwithout authority delaying outcomes.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance does not allow a property\nmanagement company to appear before the RRAC.\nMayor Spencer stated that she also wants to address someone with binding authority\nappearing for the tenant; that she would prefer to have the tenant present unless there\nare extenuating circumstances.\nThe HAHCD Director stated a tenant designating an advocate to be present is approved\nunder a reasonable accommodation request; the ordinance is not being changed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council wants to avoid having a battle of attorneys.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to ensure private information on reasonable\naccommodation requests would not be subject to a record request.\nThe HAHCD Director stated the reasonable accommodation is kept confidential and is\nnot included in the public record; if requested, medical information would be redacted.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she saw emails that combined a number of items; the City\nshould be very explicit about what is subject to the Public Records Act.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the next provision specifying that cases\nappealed to the City Council with under a 5% increase do not require a person with\nownership interest to be present.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision allowing any increase,\neven if under 5%, to be appealed to a Hearing Officer; noted the provision was\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 17, "text": "proposed by the RRAC; stated the ordinance does not allow increases under 5% to be\nappealed to incentivize landlords to keep increases under 5%.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees Council intended to create the incentive and\nwould like to keep the ordinance as is.\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft concurred.\nThe Community Development Director noted none of the RRAC decisions have been\nappealed; outlined the provision making the Program Administrator responsible for\nnotifying tenants about the dispute process being initiated, instead of the landlord.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Council already expressed support for\nthe next provision placing the burden of proof on the landlord.\nThe Council concurred.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision allowing the Hearing\nOfficer to proceed if only one party is present.\nMayor Spencer stated the provision only applies if there is not a good reason why the\nparty cannot be present, to which the Community Development Director responded in\nthe affirmative; stated the hearing would be rescheduled if there is a good reason.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision changing definitions to\nalign with State law.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring overcharges to\nbe repaid within ten days if the Program Administrator determines the landlord is\novercharging a new tenant.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there have been occurrences of landlords doing so, to\nwhich the HAHCD Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the City learns about the issue occurring, to which\nthe HAHCD Director responded staff checks in with new tenants.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff is proactive in each case, to which the\nHAHCD Director responded in the affirmative.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated the trust fund would be discussed later tonight; there should be\nways to dis-incentivize anyone not complying with the ordinance; landlords\novercharging or not complying with the ordinance should pay a penalty into the trust\nfund.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would want to ensure everyone has been\nsufficiently educated; suggested a warning be issued first.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff typically does education first since\nthe ordinance is new.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she wants options for someone who continues to be out of\ncompliance.\nThe HAHCD Director outlined the current process; stated if there is non-compliance, the\nProgram Administrator refers the case to the City Attorney's office; if non-compliance\ncontinues, the case moves to a citation.\nThe Community Development Director noted only two citations have been issued.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the citations include fees, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the $250 citation\nfee covers staff costs.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether Council is okay with the\nprovision, to which the Council responded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the next two provisions about the\ndefinitions of family members.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether both sides have discussed the issue.\nThe Community Development Director stated the definitions were drafted based on\nState or federal law.\nMayor Spencer stated her concern is about the number of people being added being in\na one bedroom unit.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the number of people per square foot cannot exceed\nthe Uniform Housing Code.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the definitions would reference that the City is trying\nto comply with federal and State law.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded language could be added to do so.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 19, "text": "The Council agreed with the provision with the suggested change.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the provision is not adding additional landlord\nrelatives, such as uncles and cousins, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision that specifies the Program\nAdministrator does not need to be notified about for cause evictions.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\nThe Community Development Director outlined the provision making it explicit that\nCouncil has authority to adopt policies and regulations.\nThe Council agreed with the provision.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened at 8:18 p.m.\n***\nProgram Fee\nThe Community Development Director made brief comments regarding the program\nfee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated staff should be authorized to complete another study;\nsince cases are being resolved before going to the RRAC, staff should receive\nprofessional mediation training; that he would like Council and staff to consider setting\nup a community fund, which could be funded by a portion of the property transfer tax;\nthere should be an acknowledgement that the fee will have to include costs of an\nelectronic system to track information.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese;\nthe program fee money used to staff and train the RRAC could be allotted to a mediator\nand a Hearing Officer if the RRAC process ends.\nVice Mayor Vella stated inquired what systems or databases are currently used by the\nHousing Authority and City.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Housing Authority is currently\nusing Excel for the rent program and uses Yardi, a specialized software for Housing\nAuthorities; stated the City uses HdL for its business license database and Accela for\npermit tracking.\nThe City Manager stated none of the current software is appropriate for the rent\nprogram.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 20, "text": "The Community Development Director noted the HAHCD Director has a degree in\nInformation Technology and has been doing extensive research on databases.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she asked the question because members of the public\nexpressed concern over the costs and software; she supports establishing a fee; there\nshould be a way to have the program self-sustaining; Council has discussed different\ntypes of programs; inquired whether fee studies would be presented for each of the\nscenarios being discussed.\nThe Community Development Director responded the study would be narrowed down to\nthe existing ordinance; until the program is known, staff would not complete a study for\nother scenarios, such as just cause and FMR relocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City paid for the first year of the program as kinks\nwere worked out; there might be changes; the fee should adequately cover the program\ncosts; noted Union City requires a landlord to have a valid business license and\nproperly registered rental unit; inquired about business license collection and whether\nthe City is checking for valid business licenses for RRAC cases.\nThe Community Development Director responded landlords with multi-family buildings\nare required to pay a business license of $20 per unit; stated single family units are\nexempt from paying a business license; currently, staff does not check to ensure\nlandlords have paid their business license for RRAC cases; a list of rental units staff\ncreated was provided to the Finance Department to check against business licenses;\nFinance followed up with anyone identified who had not paid a business license.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would support doing the cross check when a landlord\ngoes through the RRAC process; anyone without a business licenses should be\nrequired to get one; inquired whether the Council concurred, to which the Council\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated Council has talked about having the fee paid by only the\nlandlords and tenants; depending on the fee amount, she would like a portion paid by all\nproperty owners in order to keep the fee low; the rent ordinance brings stabilization for\nthe entire community.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted Mayor Spencer is proposing a tax.\nThe City Manager stated a user fee, which does not require voter authorization, is being\nproposed by staff.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the program benefitting the entire\ncommunity, the City Manager stated a benefit assessment district also requires voter\napproval for anyone in the district.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she would be open to using General Fund money if her\nsuggestion cannot be done.\nThe City Manager stated the policy could be discussed when staff brings back the fee.\nMayor Spencer stated Council also wanted to address the trust and the RRAC; inquired\nwhether there is anything to be discussed.\nVice Mayor Vella responded the Council should also discuss a model lease and the\nsunset provision.\nTrust\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated private realtors have discussed setting up at trust;\nshe would like to keep the discussion open.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he\nsuggested using the property transfer tax as a revenue stream to provide seed money\nfor the trust fund, safety net services or funding a mediator; he would like to lock down a\nfunding stream first.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated the suggestion could\nbe discussed as part of the budget; mediator costs would be included as a line item\nwhen the program fee returns and Council could decide whether to include the amount\nin the program fee or the budget.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed support for the City Manager's suggestion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he likes Councilmember Matarrese's idea and would\nlike to pursue it.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council supports the suggestion.\nRRAC\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the RRAC relies on volunteers with little training in\nmediation; turnover requires new members to be trained; the RRAC is tasked with\nmaking a decision regarding housing; only difficult cases end up at the RRAC since the\nHousing Authority staff or mediators settle the majority of the cases; suggested that the\nRRAC process be replaced with staff or a third-party mediator attempting to resolve the\nissue; stated if the attempts at resolution fail, cases that fit the criteria could go to a\nHearing Officer for a binding decision, which gives the parties even more incentive to\nsettle; the RRAC meetings cause discussions about personal matters, such as finances,\nto be public; tenants have even answered medical questions in the public setting; a\npublic setting is not conducive to a productive, candid discussion; tenants are\nintimidated to participate in the process; the RRAC process prolongs reaching a\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 22, "text": "resolution as matters have to be placed on the agenda; eliminating the RRAC would\nstreamline the process; money spent on staffing and training the RRAC could be\ndirected elsewhere; the situation was simpler when the RRAC was first formed; a more\nsophisticated, effective response is needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the suggestion is something to think about; he would\nlike an outside party to evaluate the system, especially because of the success of so\nmany cases being resolved by mediation; mediation cannot be done at the RRAC.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she supports Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;\nmediation only works when both parties are committed to reaching a settlement;\nmediation needs to be voluntary; she would like to review the option of having the\nmediator outside of the system and not a Housing Authority employee; having outside\nmediators and Hearing Officers would add legitimacy and would untangle the Housing\nAuthority and City Attorney staff.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like the mediators instead of\nthe RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she would like to see the costs\nand understand what the proposal would look like for increases under 5%; some of the\nmost contentious cases before the RRAC have been increases under 5%; different\noptions should be reviewed depending on costs and the recommendation of the outside\nparty conducting the evaluation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella supports having a mediator prior to\nor instead of cases going to RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she\nwould consider both; stated there could be three things to consider: 1) whether a\nmediator should be hired by the Housing Authority or contracted out, 2) whether the\nRRAC should be eliminated, or 3) whether certain cases should go to a Hearing Officer\ninstead of the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with suggestion to have an outside\nevaluation; when the ordinance was adopted, he proposed to have the RRAC as the\nappellate board for the Hearing Officer to ensure criteria for approving a rent increase\nwas met; he is open to suggestions on how to improve the process; the more mediation\nup front, the better; he is concerned about the process being so public; however,\nCouncil thought the public shaming of going to the RRAC with a large increase might be\neffective.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is not sure who would be able to conduct the evaluation\nand is concerned about the cost; she does not support the City spending money on a\nconsultant; she thinks the program is working very well; she attends most RRAC\nmeetings; having both parties present is critical; the first step should be having a\nmediator; the Housing Authority should determine whether the mediator is on staff or a\nprofessional; the Housing Authority has been very effective at training staff; the RRAC\nprocess has been part of the community since the 1970s; seeing peers from the\ncommunity on the RRAC contributes to having a genuine conversation; she would be\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 23, "text": "concerned about having someone from outside the community; the RRAC members\nhave an inherent interest in resolving the issue; paying someone might not be as\neffective; her goal has been for cases to reach a settlement.\nSunset Clause\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council has not discussed the sunset clause; that she would\nprefer to remove the sunset clause since Council can amend the ordinance at any time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think it matters; a Council will have to\naddress the matter when the sunset clause ends; the voters approved language\nallowing the Council to amend the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he supports removing the clause.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does\nnot want to remove the clause if it will take additional time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated leaving the provision in for now is okay; the City\njust completed the first year; more information is needed.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with leaving the provision in right now.\nRRAC Study\nThe Community Development Director stated that she would like to address the RRAC\nstudy which has been requested.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would consider setting a limit to the amount\nthat can be spent on the study.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to a make a decision\nwithout more information.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter has to return to Council if the amount is\nabove a certain threshold, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director noted the amount is up to $75,000.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council is authorizing staff to spend up to $75,000, to\nwhich Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the amount is under the City Manager's purview.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the information is worthwhile; that he does not want to\nmake a decision based on the tradition of having the RRAC; having the matter\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 24, "text": "objectively reviewed is worth the money.\nThe Community Development Director inquired how the Council might want to handle\nsingle family units, such as having the Hearing Officer make a non-binding decision;\nstated direction on exempt versus non-exempt units might be helpful.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would be concerned about not offering relief to tenants\nin single family homes; she wants protection for all tenants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated rather than the Council providing feedback, the\nconsultant should analyze the distinctions and weigh the pros and cons; said\ninformation is what he expects from the consultant.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated although rent control cannot apply to Costa\nHawkins units, there is value in having mediation for said cases.\nModel Lease\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff is clear on the model lease, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will look into\na model lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the process might be less expensive if there is a model\nlease.\nThe City Manager stated a number of landlords have leases particular to their property;\nstated rather than having a model lease, there could be model lease provisions since\nthe intent is education; all of the details of a lease would not need to be included.\nThe Community Development Director concurred; stated there could be a model lease\naddendum similar to what was created for the City's smoking ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City of Davis prepared a model lease, which is a good way\nof ensuring Council's intent is correctly interpreted; she would want to see model lease\nprovisions because there were interpretation issues during the past year.\nThe Community Development Director summarized staff's objectives: 1) craft a draft\nordinance dealing with administrative issues that would return to Council on May 16th; 2)\nresearch and study just cause evictions and a FMR formula for relocation benefits; 3)\ncommission a third-party study on the RRAC process; and 4) work on model lease\nprovisions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the model lease would be an addendum, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-07", "page": 25, "text": "(17-237) The City Manager outlined the numerous calls the City received related to the\nstorm last night; noted the golf course is temporarily closed; stated every week there is\na new federal list of sanctuary cities, so far the City is not on the federal list and the\ndefinition does not apply to Alameda; currently, the list focuses on cities and counties\nwith jails.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested the City Manager to repeat the announcement at\nthe next regular City Council meeting.\nThe City Manager suggested everyone sing Happy Birthday to the Community\nDevelopment Director at the end of the meeting.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-238) Vice Mayor Vella commended Recreation employees who saved a life on the\nbasketball courts at Alameda Point using one of the City's Automated External\nDefibrillators (AED).\n(17-239) Mayor Spencer stated the splash into spring egg scramble would be moved to\nnext Saturday, April 15th, due to weather conditions.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued April 4, 2017 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nApril 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf"}