{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JANUARY 5, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-003) Presentation by the Oakland International Airport on Anticipated Air Traffic\nRelated to Super Bowl 50.\nAllen Tai Planning Services Manager gave a presentation.\nMatt Davis, Assistant Aviation Director at Oakland Airport gave a presentation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*16-004) Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings Held on December 1, 2015 and\nthe Special Meeting Held on December 4, and 5, 2015. Approved.\n(*16-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,714,460.08.\n(*16-006) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $547,000, and\nAuthorize the City Manager to Approve Contract Changes, if necessary, up to a Ten\nPercent Contingency in the Amount of $54,700 for a Total Amount of $601,700,\nto\nAsbestos Management Group of California, Inc. for the Demolition, Clean-up and\nDisposal of Sixteen Vacant Residential Structures Located at Orion Street, West Tower\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "Avenue and Stardust Place and Pearl Harbor Road at Alameda Point and Appropriate\n$601,700 from the Base Reuse Fund Balance. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-007) Resolution No. 15112, \"Appointing John Roderick as a Housing Provider\nMember of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(16-008) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Four Year\nLease with Five Three-Year Extension Options and Right of First Negotiation to\nPurchase with Google Inc. for Building 400A Located at 1190 West Tower Avenue at\nAlameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),\nthis project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (c) -\nExisting Facilities.] Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many new jobs would be added with the\nadditional space.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded that Google Inc. has\nproprietary information which they will not make public; staff estimates the amount of\nnew jobs in the space would range from 80 to 150.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the City's charge to create jobs as opposed to housing.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded that the City's focus is to\nreturn the former Base to a working area and to create jobs; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that when the City Council conducted the former\nBase entitlement process, zoning areas were included for houses; there will be a\nbalance to assure that people can live and work in the same area.\nStated the technology jobs being created exacerbates the trend of increasing rent:\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.\nStated the real problem is creating more housing; one type of tenant should not be\npitted against another type: Brian McGuire, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Council is not trying to create a technology zone; there\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "are a variety of jobs; Matson and Power Engineering are trade and waterfront jobs; part\nof the solution is providing people with jobs; he supports the Google lease.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Site A is large enough to accommodate Google; there\nneeds to be a balance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he welcomes the diversity to Alameda's economy.\nMayor Spencer clarified whether staff is asking Council to approve an issue included in\na prior lease.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded each building needs to come\nto Council for approval.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the lease includes rights to the first offer, to which the\nEconomic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated people need higher paying jobs to be able to afford housing; she\nsupports the lease.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the lease to Google Inc. and\nauthorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms\nof a four year lease with five three-year extension options and right of first negotiation to\npurchase with Google Inc. for Building 400A Located at 1190 West Tower Avenue at\nAlameda Point.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(16-009) Summary title: Consider: 1) Ordinances Concerning Rent Review or Rent\nStabilization and Other Tenant Protections, 2) an Urgency Ordinance Extending the\nMoratorium Concerning Rent Increases and Certain Evictions and 3) Appropriation of\nFunds.\nConduct Public Hearing and\n1) Consider Introduction or Modification of One of the Following Ordinances:\na) Ordinance Amending Article XIV of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code\nConcerning the Review of Rent Increases, Limiting the Grounds for Evictions and\nRequiring Relocation Assistance for Certain Evictions; or\nb) Ordinance Adding Article XV to Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code\nConcerning (A) Rent Stabilization for Certain Rental Units (B) Limitations on Evictions\nand the Payment of Relocation Assistance for all Rental Units and (C) Amendments to\nSections of Article XIV of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code; or\nc) Ordinance Adding Article XV to Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code\nConcerning (A) Rent Stabilization for Certain Rental Units (B) Limitations on Evictions\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 4, "text": "and the Payment of Relocation Assistance for all Rental Units and (C) Amendments to\nSections of Article XIV of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code; and\n(16-009A) Urgency Ordinance No. 3144, \"Extending within the City of Alameda a\nTemporary (An Additional 60 Day) Moratorium on Rent Increases for Certain\nResidential Rental Properties and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Properties\nExcept for Just Cause.\" [Requires Four Votes]. Adopted; and\n(16-009B) Recommendation to Appropriate $300,000 From the General Fund to Fund a\nRent Program Fee Study and to Cover the Cost of City and Housing Authority Staff to\nAdminister the Rent Program Through June 30, 2016.\nPrior to the item being called, Mayor Spencer gave an overview of how the meeting\nwould be conducted; the speakers were allowed two minutes to speak.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired, on behalf of renters, whether 8% takes into account\nthe cumulative percent; whether staff has considered alternatives to prevent the\ncumulative effect if rents are raised 8% every year; whether relocation assistance only\ncomes into play with no cause or no fault evictions; and whether a tenant not able to\npay a rent increase and having to relocate would not receive relocation assistance.\nThe Community Development Director responded Councilmember Daysog is correct;\nstated a landlord could raise the rent by 8% every year; a number of jurisdictions with\nrent stabilization have caps; if a tenant cannot afford to pay a rent increase agreed upon\nby the Rental Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), the tenant would not receive\nrelocation assistance.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated small landlords have expressed how disadvantaged\nthey are when it comes to absorbing costs; large landlords can absorb costs.\nThe Community Development Director stated landlords operating within the guidelines\nof the ordinance could continue to run their business without any penalty.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what option the tenant would have if they do not\nwant a full year lease.\nThe Community Development Director responded the tenant is not compelled to agree\nto the offer.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the relocation assistance benefits\ninclude the security deposit, to which the Community Development Director responded\nthe security deposit is required to be refunded under State law and is not included in the\nrelocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the program fee being passed to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 5, "text": "tenants would be counted towards base rent.\nThe Community Development Director responded the pass through is not a part of the\nmaximum allowable rent increase.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the alternative rent review process with binding\narbitration fits into the three options listed in the staff report.\nThe Community Development Director responded the option is not reflected in any of\nthe ordinances; if Council supports the option, staff would draft an ordinance and return\nto Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the public had been informed of the option prior\nto January 5th, to which the Community Development Director responded the staff report\nand attachments were available online 12 days prior to the meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether anything would stop a landlord from imposing a\n25% increase under Option 1, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the limitations regarding terminating tenancy\nremains at 50%, therefore, a landlord could evict everyone in their building at the end of\ntwo years.\nThe Community Development Director responded that a landlord could do so.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated at lease renewal, the landlord should give a one year\nrenewal option to act as eviction control.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff concurs.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess 8:29 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m.\nOn behalf of the landlords, Don Lindsey and Greg McConnell, Alamedan's for Fair Rent,\ngave a presentation; stated the issues are: curbing excessive or double digit rent\nincreases, displacement of tenants for financial gain, and reimbursement fees in some\ninstances; stated the City will suffer if owners are penalized by excessive rent\nstabilization; Alamedan's for Fair Rents oppose just cause evictions because an owner\nwould be prevented from being able to evict tenants who are destroying the quality of\nlife for other tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. McConnell's made a comment that\nevicted tenants should be paid relocation benefits, to which Mr. McConnell responded\nin\nthe affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. McConnell indicated the EMC survey\nresults were that 71% support the RRAC process with binding arbitration.\nMr. McConnell responded his interpretation of the question was do the citizens support\na RRAC that caps at 8% with allowing for more for specific costs; stated the results\nwere 72% yes and 28% no.\nOn behalf of the renters, Duane Moles provided a handout and gave a presentation;\nstated Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) would like to see tenant protections such as:\nstrict just cause control for evictions, no fault evictions for owner move in, and notice to\nvacate for health and safety reasons or for Ellis Act, not for rehabilitation; tenants should\nbe temporarily relocated, not evicted; rent stabilization should be an annual increase not\nmore than 65% of the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed 4% in any\nyear; relocation payments should be required for no fault evictions; written notice of their\nrights should be provided to all new tenants upon move in; all rent increases and\neviction notices should be filed with the housing board; and security deposits should be\nplaced in a separate interest bearing account and returned with interest.\nLandlords:\nBarbara Rasmussen, Alameda, expressed concern over demonization of landlords;\nstated rent control will decrease property values; that she would like to look at other\nalternatives.\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda, inquired why there is no\nenvironmental review report; stated anyone on Council who owns property or is a renter\nshould not vote due to a conflict of interest.\nMike Pucci, Alameda, stated tenants need landlords and landlords need tenants; urged\nkeeping families in their homes; that he does not believe the ordinances are fair.\nIrene Hanson stated property owners are being undermined and property values are\nbeing reduced; rent control diminishes property values; entitlement and relocation fees\nare not a part of rental agreements or lease.\nLori Moe stated the ordinances proposed do not addresses her concerns; there are\ncosts involved with renovating older homes.\nLisa Patakas, Alameda, stated that she is a landlord and works very hard to be able to\nafford to live in Alameda; do not punish all landlords for the despicable actions of a few.\nFormer Councilmember Karin Lucas, Alameda, stated her properties are on the City's\nHistorical Building Study List; requested the City prepare an Environmental Impact\nReport to see the impact of rent control; stated many dollars are spent to restore historic\nhomes and buildings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 7, "text": "Christopher Hanson stated rent cannot be raised 50% unless the property is below\nmarket rate; questioned how landlords can recover market rate under the cap of rent\ncontrol; stated an alternative to rent control would be passing a utility tax.\nMayor Spencer requested that the City Attorney comment about the comment that\nCouncilmembers who are renters or landlords should recuse themselves from voting\nbecause of a conflict of interest.\nThe City Attorney stated all Councilmembers either rent or own in the City of Alameda\nor they could not be members of the City Council; there are exceptions to the conflict of\ninterest rules; all Councilmembers are legitimately able to weigh in on the decision.\nNeutral:\nGeoffrey Burnaford, Alameda, urged the Council to review the 8% amount, which is a\nlarge increase over time; stated that he would like the ordinances to include language\nthat forces the process to be changed or reviewed annually.\nLester Cabral, Alameda, stated that he is against the ordinances; stated the RRAC is all\nthat is needed; rent control does not work in other cities and will not work in Alameda.\nRenter:\nLynette Lee, Renewed Hope/Buena Vista United Methodist Church, stated that she\nsupports the moratorium; requested higher relocation fees.\nNeutral:\nJed Smith, Alameda, stated that he was evicted from his home for a 66% rent increase;\ntenants and landlords need to work together to address the situation and the bad\nlandlords; urged intervention by the Council.\nErick Wonzen, Alameda, urged homeowners to rent out extra rooms, garages, and in-\nlaw units as a solution to stop the increasing rent.\nJohn Messina, San Jose, stated if landlords are getting less than fair market value, it is\nFederal law that they be reimbursed.\nDebra Arbuckle, Alameda, stated many people have moved out of the County because\nof large rent increases; urged Council to help the tenants that pay half of their salaries\non rent; stated that she agrees with a 5% maximum on rent increases and just cause\nevictions.\nJohn Scellato, Alameda, stated that he would like tenants and landlords to work\ntogether to come to a fair solution for everyone.\nRenters:\nBunny Duncan, Alameda, stated that she would like tenants and landlords to fight\ntogether for the same goals; she feels landlords are trying to get the best of people.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 8, "text": "Steven Clifford, Alameda, stated that he pays 40% of his income on rent; at the time of\nhis retirement, he will not be able to afford to live in Alameda with 8% rent increases.\nCarol Kleinmaier, Alameda, stated her rent was raised 28%; moving is very expensive;\nshe was forced to stay and pay the rent increase.\nMonty Heying, Alameda, read stories about different tenants in Alameda and how they\nhave been affected by rent increases.\nApril Squires, Alameda, stated seniors and the disabled on a fixed income cannot afford\nrent increases.\nJennifer Orsolini, Alameda, stated that she moved to Alameda because she wanted to\nlive in a small town where one does not need to be entitled to live here; Alameda is\nmoving to an entitlement city; urged Council to review the RRAC to determine if it is\nworking.\nNikki Poosch, Alameda, stated that she is a retired renter; her rent increased 8%; she\ncannot afford 8% every year on social security; she will have to move; increases should\nbe based on CPI.\nKareem and Dylan Williams Alameda, Kareem stated he is raising his family here and\nwould like the City of Alameda to work together; Dylan read a poem entitled Justice.\nEric Strimling, Alameda, stated property management companies have a major stake in\nrental increases because they get more money; a fair rate of return is rent increasing by\nthe inflation rate.\n***\n(16-010) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining Public\nHearing to consider an Ordinance on Commercial Cultivation of Medical Marijuana\n[paragraph no. 16-012].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval [of considering the remaining item].\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\nRenters:\nErin Sudido, Bayanihan Youth Group (BYG), stated at school during lunch, students\nand teachers at Encinal High School signed a banner to show how many people are\naffected by rent increases; the high rent increases drive away diversity in Alameda.\nCrystal Kristal Osorio, BYG, stated just because someone has more money or capital\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 9, "text": "does not mean they can kick people out of their homes.\nJay Feria, Filipino Advocates for Justice and BYG, stated that he will not have a home\nto return to if the rent continues to grow.\nSammy Gutierrez, Filipino Advocates for Justice, stated students cannot succeed in\nschool if their basic needs are not being met; students cannot study if they are worried\nabout housing; 8% increases put tenants back in the same situation.\nLandlords:\nEdward Hirshberg, Oakland, stated insurance and taxes have increased over the years;\n8% rent increases are less than the total increases that landlords incur.\nJohn Sullivan, Alameda, stated that he agrees with Councilmember Daysog's proposal\nregarding rent increases over 10% or no cause evictions; landlords should give tenants\noptions and displaced tenants should be reimbursed.\nLori Moe (on behalf of Karin Miller, Alameda,) inquired whether Council is doing\nanything about the housing supply and affordable housing; stated the Council has to\ncontrol expenses; property taxes for landlords have increased.\nRenter:\nKen Harris, Alameda, stated 8% increases over 9 years will cause rent to double; there\nshould be a way to handle nuisance tenants and not allow no cause evictions at the\nsame time.\nLandlord:\nMalcolm Lee stated that he purchased his rental property when the economy was not\ndoing well; he did not raise rents for many years; landlords penalized during the\neconomic downturn should be rewarded during the upturn; insurance and property\ntaxes have increased; landlords cannot recoup big ticket items; that he is against rent\ncontrol and just cause eviction.\nTony Charvet urged Council to consider that landlords have to pay property taxes, water\nbills, electric bills, and basic upkeep; stated landlords have a heavy burden.\nDaniel Lee stated rent control law is anti-business, anti-small business and anti-small\nproperty owner; landlords do not evict rent paying tenants; urged Council to visit the\ncourthouse during an eviction hearing to see the process.\nChunchi Ma, Bay Area Homeowners Network (BAHN), stated a regular eviction for\nfailure to pay rent is difficult, but a just cause eviction is ten times harder.\n***\n(16-011) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nLandlord:\nRobert Schrader urged Council to take their time and think things through; stated\nBerkeley and Oakland have rent control and rents are 25 to 27% higher than Alameda;\nCouncil must provide a method for people to apply for relief from the moratorium.\nRosalinda Fortuna, Alameda, stated small mom and pop landlords should not be treated\nthe same as 20 or more unit buildings; mom and pop landlords do not have large capital\nreserves.\nKatie Braun, Alameda, urged Council to consider the burden to landlords, to exempt\nowner occupied mom and pops units, and to reconsider Ordinance 3, which does not\nallow a relative to move into a rental unit; stated her disabled sister needs to move into\nher rental unit.\nMaria Love, Alameda, stated that she owns a historic property in Alameda, which is very\nexpensive to maintain; the ordinance should be based on property size.\nRenters:\nHelen Gilliland, Alameda, stated as a renter, she does not get tax deductions property\nowners receive; 8% is too high; rent increases need to be tied to the CPI; urged Council\nto review just cause evictions.\nJoanna Davis, Alameda, stated her rent increased today from $1,530 to $1,878; she is\nfortunate that her landlord is ignorant of Alameda politics and sent notice at the wrong\ntime; teachers are being priced out of the region; an 8% annual increase is much higher\nthan peoples' annual salary increase.\nEvan Angus, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC), stated there needs to be a platform in\nplace to protect tenants; landlords can write off a lot of their expenses; there needs to\nbe a middle ground for landlords and tenants.\nLeah Simon-Weisberg, Tenants Together, stated tenants who live in rent control\njurisdictions with just cause are not afraid to ask landlords to make repairs; the first two\nordinances do not address ways to protect tenants; third ordinance allows protection for\ntenants; when families cannot afford rents, there is stress on the children; request there\nnot be a sunset; stated if the ordinance is not working, it can be changed.\nCatherine Pauling, ARC, stated 8% rent increases quickly escalate rent from $2,000 to\n$2,900 in only five years; there is a financial impact to schools if the children go to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 11, "text": "another district; urged Council to create good paying jobs, gather needed data and\nprovide regulations fair to both sides; stated residents have the right to due process.\nLandlords:\nKen Guteleben, Alameda, stated historic homes and buildings require major financial\ninvestment to maintain; rent control will impact a landlord's ability to preserve the\narchitectural heritage; the major housing shortage in the Bay Area is the primary cause\nof the rent increases; Council should give the restructured RRAC a chance to meet the\nneeds of both tenants and property owners.\nPhoebe Yu stated mom and pop landlords put their savings into rental properties for\nretirement income and do the minor repairs and cleaning; rent control should not be one\nsize fits all; urged Council to work on a fair solution for everyone.\nRoss Li, BAHN, stated rent control because will not address the housing problem in\nAlameda; there is a housing shortage; Council should work on increasing the housing\nsupply, not rent control.\nSusan Gao, BAHN, stated rental price is set by the market, not by the landlord; after her\nfull time job, she spends time to maintain her property herself.\nJimmy Feng stated market control is the key point; control housing prices and rents will\nbe low; Bay Area housing is in high demand.\nEric Anders, Alameda, stated rent control will suppress the value of the properties and\nAlameda will not be able to staff police and fire.\nJoshua Howard, California Apartment Association, stated the Bay Area has more jobs\nthan homes; urged Council to provide better education and awareness for renters and\nproperty owners on their roles, rights and responsibilities and ensure there is a safe\nneutral outlet for property owners and residents to discuss their concerns; tenants\nshould be safe from multiple rent increases in a twelve month period; that he supports\nOrdinance 1.\nRenters:\nMaria Dominguiz, ARC, stated the West End is full of a lot of immigrants and low\nincome; urged Council to reject the three ordinances; stated rent increases should be\ntied to a relevant measure of inflation; urged Council to put an end to no cause\nevictions, create an elected rent board, provide relocation payments for no fault\nevictions, and to extend the moratorium and continue working with the ARC to look at\nreal models.\nKerry Abukhalaf, Alameda, stated that she is tired of having to say good bye to her\nfriends and her son's playmates because they cannot afford the rent.\nTom Bendure, Alameda, stated that he received a rent increase notice of 142%; his new\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 12, "text": "landlord is remodeling the fourplex and will charge 142% over what current rent; he will\nbe homeless in 14 days.\nTroy Silva, Alameda, stated renters need to have stability; urged Council to continue the\nmoratorium and just cause evictions; stated the ordinance does work.\nJohn Klein, ARC, submitted information; stated ARC met with staff twice and submitted\nprovisions that would make a good ordinance; none of ARC's proposal is in any of the\nordinances; staff should not remove community input; mom and pop landlords needs to\nbe defined.\nLandlords:\nNancy Hird, Alameda, stated that she owns four historic homes; the cost to maintain the\nproperties is very expensive; that she is against rent control and would like Council to\nenforce the RRAC process.\nTad stated demand is high in the Bay Area and finding housing is difficult; rent control\nwould not allow people who leave Alameda the opportunity to come back.\nRenters:\nMalia Vella, Alameda, stated Alameda needs a holistic solution that will address the\nhousing shortage and protect families; rent control without just cause eviction is\nmeaningless; urged Council to tie rent increases to the CPI.\nBrian McGuire, Alameda, stated rent increases should be kept at the CPI; the sunset\nclause is unacceptable; the community will have to go through this again in four years.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated the power balance is unjust and not fair to renters; some\nlandlords raise rents 20 to 35% or 140% without reasonable cause; renters pay their fair\nshare of the property taxes on the buildings that they rent.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 12:31 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:41 a.m.\nThe City Attorney stated Council could decide to continue the deliberation at the next\nscheduled meeting or at a special meeting due to the lateness of the hour.\nMayor Spencer stated she would rather proceed tonight.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the moratorium expires on January 9th so the Council\nneeds to vote on the extension tonight.\nMayor Spencer inquired how landlords would receive relief from the moratorium.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 13, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded the Council could adopt a procedure that would\nallow property owners the ability to recover potential losses or inability to receive a fair\nreturn; the procedure does not need to be included the extension voted on tonight.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a property\nowner that would like a family member to move in can do so under the moratorium.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of extending the moratorium [adoption of the\nurgency ordinance] with [legal] counsel answering questions regarding testimony\nprovided tonight.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired about the amount of time for the extension,\nto which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the time is 60 days as recommended by\nstaff.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there is an overarching theme on both sides for fairness;\nthat he would like the mediation process expanded to include eviction issues and a\ncomponent that monitors the process; every case is different and Option 1 provides a\ncase-by-case approach; filings, results, and reasons for any withdrawals are very\nvaluable information; the RRAC has a track record for working; he would like there to be\na balance such that the burden of proof is on the landlord; there should be a process\nwhere each side talks to each other face-to-face; there would be a good success rate if\nthe face-to-face approach is the basis of the process; a monitoring and reporting system\nis needed; a penalty should be imposed for those who break the law; he believes in\nmediation; the RRAC expansion would be good balance; that he supports Option 1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the non-binding nature of RRAC does not offer\nprotection to tenants; the RRAC scope includes evictions, but at the end of the day, the\ndecision is still non-binding; unless the RRAC is restructured or there is professional\narbitration, the process falls short of the protection that should be given to tenants; there\nare sharply divided views, but everyone wants to find a fair solution; Council will not be\nable to fashion an ordinance that pleases everyone; she believes a cap is necessary,\nbut 8% is too high; she would be willing to support a 5% cap similar to the City of Los\nGatos; Alameda has older housing stock and providing decent housing is important;\nlandlords need to be able to maintain their buildings; landlords can still petition to\nincrease above the maximum allowable percentage for capital improvements; she\nfavors relocation assistance for no fault evictions; tenants need assistance to find a new\nplace to live; she favors annual review as this will be the first test for Alameda; that she\nis okay with a sunset provision at the end of 2019.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is time for Council to act to restore fairness; the\nproblem is excessive rents; Council has listened to various sides and hopes to come to\na consensus solution; the Renewed Hope survey suggested a 5.7% rate increase,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 14, "text": "which is one way of confirming the range of 4-8%; the CPI is an important number\nwhich speaks to the 8% threshold; all data points confirm Alameda is on the right track\nwith the 8% range; Alameda is dealing with lasting effects of income inequality; he does\nnot think it is fair to increase rents 8% every year; a cumulative rent increase of not\nmore than 12% over 2 years is a better approach; certain policy remedies could be\ntriggered with the cumulative method; mom and pop landlords play by the rules and\ntheir needs should be addressed; there is a role for government to regulate when\nexcesses occur in the free market; the Council's role is to fit solutions to problems; that\nhe favors Ordinance 1 modified, including: 1) there should be just cause for landlords\nwho play by the rules, 2) small mom and pop landlords should be exempt from\nOrdinance 1, 3) relocation assistance should be offered for tenants who cannot afford\nthe rent increase; 4) he would like to combine proposed Ordinance 1 with Alternative\nOption 1 to include binding arbitration, and 5) rent increases should be dealt on a\ncumulative basis.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter is serious and will impact many people no\nmatter what Council chooses to do; Option 1 does not provide tenants with additional\nprotectio, it just shifts the burden onto the landlord to file a request for a rent increase; if\nthe landlord is intent on raising the rent, Option 1 is non-binding; Option 3 has the most\ntenant protection and limits evictions based on certain causes, which is a protection that\ndoes not exist today; Option 2 is the most fair to everyone; Option 2 provides a binding\nmechanism if an increase is over a certain number; he does not believe every single\nrent increase will be 8% every year; there needs to be a provision to collect data;\nreturning in a year to compare and fix problems would be helpful; he would like Option 2\nchanged; the 50% exception for non-just cause evictions should be lowered to 25% as\nclever landlords will use the loophole; disincentives could be built into Option 2; a capital\nimprovement program to address landlord improvements will come back at subsequent\nmeeting and does not include enough information to be discussed tonight; nothing that\nthe Council decides tonight should prevent a landlord from being able to make\nimprovements; there has to be clear guidelines on the person making the decision in\narbitration; the provision for reduction of services is missing from Option 2 and should\nbe included.\nMayor Spencer stated the creation of an ordinance which gives the RRAC more teeth\nwas not included in the report; she would like the process to start with RRAC for all\ntenants, whether or not they fall under Costa Hawkins; she likes the current composition\nof the RRAC; cases that do not settle through RRAC should then go through binding\narbitration; the goal is to find balance; 30 to 60-days notice is too short for tenants;\nallowing the landlord to give a six months notice of eviction, whether for no cause or no\nfault, is reasonable; a landlord giving more notice will not cost them; the landlord could\nnegotiate or go through the RRAC process if less than six months time is needed for an\neviction; some tenants may not need six months and would prefer the payment, which\nshould be based on the rent; the additional $1,500 relocation is offset by six-months\nnotice; the capital improvement plan has to be required in advance if an eviction is due\nto substantial rehabilitation; establishing a capital improvement plan process is\nimportant; she would not support Options 2 or 3 as she considers the options traditional\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 15, "text": "rent control; Alameda's older housing stock costs more to maintain; she appreciates\nlandlords who have maintained properties under market rents; the CPI should be based\non the Bay Area CPI and not on the United States CPI; Alameda should review the City\nof Gardena's arbitration process for guidance; data is not good because tenants are\nafraid to go to RRAC in fear of retaliation; changing the burden to landlord for an\nincrease of 8% or more is appropriate; she is not married to 8% because it is not a cap;\nshe does not support registration to get data; if the trigger is reduced to 5% or CPI plus\n2%, the data could be compiled when a landlord comes to RRAC to request a rent\nincrease more than 5% or whatever number is agreed upon.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated RRAC decisions are non-binding and there is\nnothing to prevent landlords from still raising rents.\nMayor Spencer stated if the parties do not agree, the next step is binding arbitration with\na hearing officer; Alameda could look at what the City of Gardena does for arbitration.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated an ordinance would be drafted in such a way that if\nhousing provider did not agree with RRAC, the owner must file a petition to have the\nmatter heard by a hearing officer; a rent increase would be null and void if the landlord\ndoes not file the petition.\nMayor Spencer inquired what if the tenant does not agree, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded the tenant would be required to file a petition to have the matter\nheard by a hearing officer, otherwise the RRAC's decision would be upheld and binding.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she favors registering landlords; registration is\none way to collect data and the program fee will help with arbitration costs.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not want to charge landlords an extra $200 a year\nfor a program that could be done for free; data could be collected if landlords are\nrequired to request a rent increase beyond the trigger amount agreed upon; the concern\nis excessive rent increases; binding arbitration gives the RRAC teeth, along with built-in\npenalties which ensures cooperation from outlying landlords; she supports doing annual\nreviews; and the sunset provision in 2019 is not an issue.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Council could\nmodify the ordinance at any time; the sunset provision in 2019 is just a trigger.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a registration process and a fee is necessary to\ncollect data; the program will cost money to administer; cumulative rents are more\ncomplex to administer; she does not favor exemptions based on property owner size or\nage of units; there should not be two classes: those who are protected and those who\nare not.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the differences between\nOption 2 and Mayor Spencer's proposal, the Assistant City Attorney stated units exempt\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 16, "text": "under Costa Hawkins would still have the ability to appeal to Council; the Mayor's\nproposal has a trigger with respect to when the landlord has to file with the RRAC; there\nis no threshold or number that anyone is bound by or compels arbitration.\nMayor Spencer stated she is looking for something that would eventually be binding.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is okay with including a RRAC mediation step;\nstaff makes a decision which an elected body reviews; his process would include the\nhearing officer making the decision, then, the RRAC could serve as a citizen's check;\nthe process would exclude the Council; the current process is backwards; the citizens\ncommittee has the first crack in the process and comes up with a recommendation;\nthen, the power is shifted to a staff person, making the arbitration with judicial review\ninstead of RRAC review.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated power would not be shifted to a staff person, if the\nhousing provider was not happy with the RRAC recommendation, the remedy would be\nto file a petition to set up a hearing, or lose the opportunity for the rent increase.\nMayor Spencer clarified the issue would go to an arbitrator, not a staff member; the City\nof Gardena has a list of arbitrators to choose from or staff could recommend someone.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the arbitrator would be a neutral hearing officer.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired who will pay for the arbitration process.\nMayor Spencer responded whichever party does not agree with the RRAC decision\nwould pay.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has a problem with the non-agreeable\nparty paying for arbitration.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated arbitration could cost $5,000 at a minimum; he does not\nsee how a tenant could afford the bill.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff recommends a program fee for\nwhichever program is adopted so that costs could be spread across the rental units and\nanyone can avail themselves of the process; costs could be subsidized depending on\nthe Council's desires; there are a range of costs involved with administering any\nprogram.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has an big issue with someone arbitrating a 1%\nincrease, which is permitted under Berkeley's rent control; he would like further\ndiscussion on the just cause eviction issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 17, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated there seems to be Council support for the no cause\nevictions subject to a limitation percentage, providing relocation assistance, and the\nnew tenant would not pay more than a certain percent above the current tenant.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney means \"no\nfault\" instead of \"no cause\".\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated under the proposed\nOrdinances 1 and 2, no cause evictions trigger relocation assistance.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated doing everything possible with regard to just cause\nevictions for tenants and doing everything possible for mom and pop landlords is\nimportant; he likes the idea of movement on the landlord side toward binding arbitration;\nthe administrative costs collected should be focused on a higher threshold than one to\ntwo percent increases; the key point is that there is some consensus on binding\narbitration; the way relocation assistance is currently identified in Ordinances 1 and 2 is\na welcome and important policy step.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated his preference is to build on the RRAC process, adding as\nlittle to the process as possible, but take advantage of its effectiveness; of the 61 total\ncases mediated by RRAC, five of them made it to Council, indicating there is some\nsuccess with the current process; the first modification he would like to see is to\nbroaden the scope of the committee to include eviction issues without including a\nthreshold for cause or no cause; either party should have the opportunity to go through\na mediation process regarding an eviction; the second is to include professional\nmediation before the issue is handed over to a community committee for a final\ndecision, which should be included as part of the formal process; there have been a\nnumber of cases withdrawn because of informal mediation, which is valuable; he would\nlike to see a robust appeal process incorporated before resorting to a hearing process;\nthe RRAC track record looks good.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff determined sending the evictions to\nthe RRAC does not serve a purpose since the ordinance enumerates the basis for\nevictions; staff believes enumerating the basis on which evictions could happen and\nproviding specific reasons in the ordinance that constitute \"for cause\", \"no cause\", and\n\"no fault\" is more efficient; staff is also concerned with the RRAC interfering with the\nlegal process of serving an unlawful detainer.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like the RRAC to mediate cases covered by\nState law to address the issue of the amount of time needed and relocation within the\nconfines of a mediation, not embedded in an ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director stated there would be nothing left to interpret or\ndecide if relocation benefits are clearly spelled out in the ordinance, which would be\nmore streamlined; the RRAC process has been historically focused on mediating\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 18, "text": "excessive rent increases and has not addressed other issues such as maintenance,\ncode enforcement, and relocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's approach on not\nbringing eviction issues to the RRAC; she likes what is included in Ordinance 2 and 3\nregarding payment provisions which give more protection and certainty to tenants; she\nis hesitant in putting too much weight into statistics; measuring the negative is tough;\nadding a layer of binding arbitration eliminates fear and uncertainty and would be a\ngood solution to create a level playing field; Council needs to depart from the 8%\ntrigger; she favors the issue of the fee being paid by landlords to help underwrite the\ncost of arbitration; larger property owners will be bearing the majority of the expense\nsince the fee would be charged per unit.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the fee could be passed to the tenant, to which\nCouncilmember Oddie responded the proposal allows the landlord to pass half of the\nannual fee onto the tenant.\nMayor Spencer stated there are a lot of landlords that do not always charge the\nmaximum and costs are passed to the tenant; inquired whether the fee issue should be\nkept separate.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded various cities that were reviewed have pass-\nthrough provisions; at the end of the day, the tenants benefit.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council should have further discussion on the best way to\npay for the arbitration.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council agrees with Vice Mayor Matarrese's\nrecommendation that eviction issues should go to RRAC.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he concurs with staff recommendation of not\nhaving eviction issues go to the RRAC and coming up with clear relocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese's proposal was in lieu of\na standard relocation fee.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded 60 days is too short; there should be an extended\nperiod of time; details can be resolved by mediation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated capital improvements will be addressed separately; a\nfixed schedule has predictability; landlords could build the amount into their budget if\nthey know the number; the concept of having to go to the RRAC is interesting, but he is\nnot sure what it accomplishes.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer to have a straight six month schedule, not\ntied to how long the tenant has been in the unit; time versus money could be negotiated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 19, "text": "between the landlord and the tenant; she does not think associating the length of the\nnotice to the length of the tenancy is sufficient; people need more time than 60 days to\nfind housing; it is very disruptive to have only 30 or 60 days notice; the landlord should\nhave the option of giving more notice and not having to pay; there are a lot of expenses\ninvolved with moving.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with Mayor Spencer's concept; however,\nSan Jose was told advanced notice is not legal.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated a\n30 or 60 day notice of termination is required under State law, depending on the\nwhether or not the tenant lived in the unit for a year or less; relocation benefits are being\nproposed, which could be taken as time or money; the ordinance proposes the tenant\nwould get up to four months beyond the 30 or 60-day notice required by law, and for\nevery month opted to take beyond the 30 or 60 days, the relocation cash benefit would\nbe reduced by a month; one month rent equivalency cash benefit for each year; there\nhas been discussion about acknowledging or recognizing long term tenancy; the\nproposal reflects people's tenure in their units.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated having more time to find a place is beneficial, but\nthere will still be moving expenses.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not think a landlord should give a tenant six\nmonths notice and pay thousands of dollars; she would prefer the tenant having the\noption to choose either more notice or the cash, or some combination thereof.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the relocation expense occurs whether or not the\nmonthly reimbursement occurs.\nThe Community Development Director stated the moving expense is a separate\ncategory from the relocation benefits.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not think both moving expenses and relocation\nbenefits are needed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think six months notice is\nnecessary; landlords often do not know six months in advance that they want to evict;\nthe option to stay in the unit for up to four months is sufficient.\nMayor Spencer said the time frame is four months in addition to the original 30 to 60\nday notice.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated tenants would be foregoing the monthly relocation\ncompensation for each month they stay.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 20, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated the tenant would have to indicate what they choose to do once they are served\nwith a 30 or 60 day notice.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the vacancy rate is critical on whether or not someone\nfinds a new apartment or not.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer to allow the tenant to choose and work it\nout with the landlord\nCouncilmember Daysog stated practical scenarios need to be considered; mom and\npop landlords would have difficulty paying relocation expenses.\nThe Community Development Director stated relocation benefits and eviction\nprotections would cover all rental properties in the City; Costa Hawkins does not have a\nrole or limitations for eviction protection or relocation benefits, it is strictly on setting\nmaximum allowable rent increases.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated thinking through the issue with regard to small mom and\npop landlords is important; small mom and pop landlords could be defined as people\nwith single family homes, duplexes, or triplexes.\nThe Community Development Director stated relocation benefits are triggered by no\ncause/no fault evictions; there is no difference in the building size.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nsingle family tenant who gets a no cause eviction would get relocation benefits, as\ncurrently drafted in the ordinance; under Councilmember Daysog's proposal, the single\nfamily tenants would not get relocation benefits.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated\nhe proposes small mom and pops would be exempt from having to provide relocation\nassistance because it would be difficult for them to absorb the cost without having the\nability to spread it across several units.\nThe Community Development Director stated single family homes would not have the\ndisincentive of the binding arbitration because they are exempt from rent control; they\nwould still have the RRAC process, mediation and appeal to Council, but the protections\nare limited because single family homes are exempt from rent control.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether evictions for single family homes should be\nsent to the RRAC.\nThe Community Development Director responded there are the same concerns about\nthe RRAC interfering with the legal process; staff could review the process if Council\ndesires, but it is likely staff will come back with the same concerns.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a 20% rent increase for a single family is\nconsidered a constructive eviction, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative; stated the issue could be mediated by the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to see exceptions made\nfor paying relocation assistance; which places some tenants at a disadvantage.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated having more time\nis more important than cash for a lot of tenants; having the option is important.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated the proposal is\nbased on years of tenancy; she prefers straight time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated giving consideration to longer term tenants is\nreasonable.\nMayor Spencer stated she would treat all tenants the same because tenants with leases\nexpect to be there longer than a year.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a tenant on a month-to-month lease terminated in 30 days\ncould get a windfall.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the binding arbitration\nprocess, the Community Development Director stated the RRAC would vigorously\ndisagree with the assertion that there were formal or informal guidelines about the 10%\nrent increases; the RRAC does the mediation case by case.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether anything indicates having a binding arbitration\nprocess would constrain excessive rent increases.\nThe Community Development Director stated there are two points behind the logic of\nbinding arbitration: 1) having an option for a binding arbitration process may be an\nincentive; the option would increase the likelihood to agree to a mediation process and\nthe outcome of the mediation; 2) binding arbitration would be an evidentiary proceeding\nwhere documents would be submitted; expertise would be required to understand the\nbusiness model, creating a level of rigor; the two parts could make the arbitration\nprocess successful.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog, the Community Development Director stated\nGardena is a small suburb in Los Angeles County which staff has not reviewed; stated\nthe Mayor might have been referencing Glendale.\nMayor Spencer stated that she was referencing the City of Gardena; Gardena has been\ndoing binding arbitration since 1987; clarified at last night's RRAC meeting, the RRAC\nstated they do not have a threshold number of 10%.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 22, "text": "The Community Development Director stated having a threshold is contrary to the idea\nof mediation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether an arbitrator needs to have criteria and\nstandard guidelines, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there would be similar guidelines for the RRAC as\nwell; evidentiary support at the arbitration would be much more detailed than the\ninformal RRAC mediation process.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council is closer to some type of consensus.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he believes Council is closer to consensus,\nespecially regarding arbitration; noted that he confirmed Mr. McConnell was indicating\nbinding arbitration.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff could run through the list of items\nwhich seem to have consensus.\nThe Council expressed support for doing so.\nThe Community Development Director stated for dealing with excessive rent increases,\nCouncil would like to work with a modified version of Ordinance 1; a mediation process\nwould be first; then, a binding arbitration piece would follow for eligible units, which are\nmulti-family units built before February 1, 1995.\nThe Interim City Manager suggested there be a vote on the recommendation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether mediation means the RRAC process, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the next step would be the matter could go to binding arbitration.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Ordinance 1 or Ordinance 2 would be\nenhanced or modified regarding rent, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is not consensus on the percentage, whether it\nwould be 8%, 5% or CPI.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff heard there is a willingness to have a\n5% increase be the trigger point.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the trigger point would be an increases more\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 23, "text": "than 5%.\nMayor Spencer suggested the number be discussed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the correct number is 6%; provided his justification.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the trigger point to be anything\nabove 5%.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is not sure a trigger point is needed; he is more\ninterested in addressing the fear of eviction when there is no cause eviction; that he is\nfine with the current process for rent review with professional mediation and binding\narbitration over a certain threshold.\nMayor Spencer stated the Vice Mayor's proposal is different.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would not use a threshold\nnumber and just wants to use the current RRAC process of allowing the tenant to file a\ncomplaint with RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated 5%, 6% and 8% have all been mentioned.\nMayor Spencer stated 8% was included in the proposed ordinance, Councilmember\nEzzy Ashcraft suggested anything more than 5%, and Councilmember Daysog stated\n6%.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated tenants are concerned about getting 8% increases every\nyear; that he believes a lower threshold will result in more increases at the threshold;\nthere would probably be more 5% increases if the threshold is set at 5%, than 8%\nincreases if the threshold is set at 8%; he could go with any of the numbers.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would agree to anything above 5%.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter would be reviewed in a year, so he would\nagree to above 5%.\nMayor Spencer stated the majority agrees that the landlord would have to go to the\nRRAC for any increase above 5%.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed that he could agree with setting the threshold as\nanything above 5%.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated data should be collected on all rent increases; the matter\nwould need to be reviewed if every increase comes in at 5%.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 24, "text": "The City Attorney noted the threshold pertains to a RRAC hearing and is not a rent cap.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he thought the threshold is the trigger for binding\narbitration.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated landlords\nwould be required to notify the Housing Authority and RRAC that they intend to raise the\nrents above 5%, which is a landlord driven way to go to the RRAC for mediation; then, if\nthe RRAC makes a recommendation that a party does not like, the matter would go to\nbinding arbitration.\nMayor Spencer stated that she raised the suggestion because tenants have indicated\nthat they are afraid to go to the RRAC; she is suggesting shifting the burden to the\nlandlord, which addresses retaliation; there would not be a cap; instead, landlords would\nbe required to attend the RRAC meeting to explain why they want an increase above\n5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the further protection would be that the matter can\ngo onto binding arbitration; there would be an incentive to resolve the matter at the\nRRAC knowing there is an extra step which is binding.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a possibility that every increase above\n5% sent to the RRAC could end up with none of the cases being mediated and all could\nend up being arbitrated, to which the Community Development Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a database should track every increase to determine if\neveryone is receiving a 4.99% increase.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to resolve whether everyone agrees 5%\nshould be the trigger point; everything above 5% would require the landlord to take the\nmatter to the RRAC.\nThe City Attorney clarified all increases over 5% would require the landlord to take the\ncase to the RRAC; however, the only cases which could move up to binding arbitration\nare units subject to Costa Hawkins.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff has heard consensus on the\napproach to rent increases; inquired whether landlords should be required to initially\noffer a one year lease, which is included in Ordinance 1.\nMayor Spencer responded that she agrees; inquired whether everyone is on board.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether one year leases would be offered\nsubsequently.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 25, "text": "The Community Development Director responded Ordinance 1 is drafted to include the\noffer for new tenants; in place tenants would be offered a one year lease upon\nnotification of a rent increase.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would not agree based on concerns from\nhousing providers.\nThe Community Development Director stated the California Apartment Association\nrepresentative endorsed the requirement and cited Mountain View's ordinance, which\ngoes into effect in a few days.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a tenant could decline the offer and agree to\nsomething else, such as a 6 month or month-to-month lease.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated there would\nbe no penalty for the tenant declining the offer.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer, the Community Development Director stated Ordinance\n1 has a provision that requires a landlord to offer tenants a one year lease one time; the\noffer would be when new tenants come in or when existing tenants receive a rent\nincrease notice.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nthe offers are different for new tenants versus in place tenants.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff is referring to current tenants who do not have a\nlease, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not believe the requirement is necessary for\ncurrent tenants, who have other protections; the requirement is only needed for new\ntenants.\nThe Community Development Director stated existing tenants on a month-to-month\nterm might like the opportunity to be offered a one year lease.\nMayor Spencer stated existing tenants would not anticipate getting a one year lease\nafter being month-to-month.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the California Apartment Association\nrepresentative indicated 12 month leases provide stability; questioned why the City\nwould not avail the opportunity for a one year lease, which is reasonable.\nMayor Spencer requested the two be considered separately; inquired whether there is\nconsensus on offering a new tenant a one year lease.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie agreed.\nMayor Spencer stated that she also agrees.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he also agrees.\nThe Community Development Director stated one time only, existing tenants would be\noffered a one year lease the next time their rent is increased.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated tenants do not have to accept.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is reasonable.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested staff to explain the value.\nThe Community Development Director stated the playing field would be level for new\ntenants and existing tenants; since the ordinance is just going into place, existing\ntenants would miss the one time opportunity to be offered a one year lease, which new\ntenants would receive.\nMayor Spencer noted creating a lease has costs.\nFollowing a brief discussion of evictions, the Community Development Director clarified\nfor in place tenants, the one-time offer of a lease would be done at the time of the first\nrent increase; noted landlords have indicated that they do not raise all tenants rent at\nthe same time and do not like to have all leases expire at the same time.\nMayor Spencer stated making the one year lease offer to new tenants is part of a new\nrelationship; existing tenants on month-to-month leases being offered the option would\ntie up the property for a year; inquired why said action would not be a taking.\nThe Community Development Director responded a landlord doing a rent increase\nindicates they are interested retaining the tenant; stated offering a one year lease would\nprovide stability and the opportunity for a no cause eviction would be prevented for a\nyear.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether landlords would not do a rent increase if they did not\nplan on retaining the tenant for another year, to which the Community Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether rent increases would only be allowed one time\nper year.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated only allowing\none increase per year is the next consensus item.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 27, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's comment regarding rents already being limited\nto once per year, the Assistant City Attorney noted the lease that is offered one time\nmight include other provisions.\nCouncilmember Oddie outlined the lease renewal options he receives from his landlord\nwith a one year lease being the lowest increase; a 6 month lease being slightly higher\nand month-to-month being the highest increase due to the uncertainty.\nThe Community Development Director stated a number of properties have the same\nstructure in Alameda, especially larger ones.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he likes the direction Council is moving; the\npossibilities are being narrowed down; however, there seems to be fuzziness; the\ndirection should be treated as a framework for further refinement.\nThe Community Development Director concurred; stated the exercise is very helpful to\nstaff because more precision will allow things to advance.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff should take notes and continue to think about the\nissues more with public input.\nMayor Spencer requested Council to weigh in about whether an existing tenant should\nbe offered a year lease one time at a rent increase.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated the requirement is strictly to deal with the ordinance going into effect to have\nexisting tenants be offered the same thing as new tenants; staff could review Mountain\nView's ordinance and see how in place tenants are being treated.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated said review would be helpful.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council will not decide tonight and the issue will come back.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred; stated that he is sure Council can come to an\nagreement on the matter at the next meeting.\nThe Community Development Director stated the next item staff heard consensus on\nwould prevent landlords from raising rents more than one time in a year.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support.\nMayor Spencer stated there is consensus on said issue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the vote is five in favor, to which Mayor\nSpencer responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 28, "text": "The Community Development Director stated that she is going off the list regarding\nadditional requirements and is going to skip the grounds for eviction and relocation\nassistance because maybe the monetary penalties and enforcement can be solved;\ninquired whether there is Council consensus to support monetary penalties and\nenforcement of the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer and Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated said matter will be figured out when the ordinance comes back.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether or not there is support for a\nsunset provision.\nMayor Spencer responded that she wants annual review.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated annual review is fine; that he is not sure there is a need for\nthe ordinance to include a sunset clause.\nMayor Spencer stated a sunset clause is not needed if there is annual review.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated an annual review is fine, but he likes the idea of a sunset\nin case there are unintended consequences.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie's suggestion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft also concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated new\nterritory is being charted.\nMayor Spencer stated three members are in support of annual review and a sunset\nclause.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance will include an annual\nreview and sunset clause; staff is setting aside the recommendations regarding the fee,\nfee study and appropriation of funds; that she would move on to tackling eviction\nprotections; Ordinance 1 allows for no cause evictions, but is structured to dis-\nincentivize doing so solely to increase rents because the maximum rent increase is\ncapped for the new tenant and landlords are required to pay relocation benefits.\nMayor Spencer stated Council has not included a cap and is requiring going to the\nRRAC instead.\nThe Community Development Director stated Council could create a cap on the\nincrease for the next tenant as a separate item.\nMayor Spencer stated the landlord representative indicated there is already a Code\nsection regarding the matter; Council could adopt said provision.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 29, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated Costa Hawkins is silent about whether or not a cap\ncan be done on the amount a landlord can increase the rent for a new tenant.\nMayor Spencer stated the landlord representative indicated Civil Code Section 1946\nprevents a new tenant from being charged more than the previous tenant.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there seems to be disagreement about the Civil Code\nsection.\nMayor Spencer stated the landlords made the offer; questioned why the City would not\ndo so.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the representative's application of the section is\nbroader than what he feels comfortable with.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter should be further researched; the City's legal\nexpert needs to feel comfortable.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there are no cases on the issue; since the matter will\nbe coming back, there can be further discussion about whether or not there needs to be\na cap for new tenants.\nMayor Spencer stated that she wants something.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there has to be something.\nMayor Spencer stated preventing an increase is a deterrent; no cause evictions cannot\nbe used to double rent for the new tenant.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the matter is the root of the problem.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether Council wants to allow no\ncause evictions but require the rent for the new tenant to be exactly the equivalent of\nthe existing tenant.\nMayor Spencer responded the landlord representative stated rent would not be more\nthan the prior tenant's rent.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry whether the amount would be\nthe rent paid by the prior tenant plus the allowable maximum, the City Attorney stated\nthe City does not have an allowable maximum at this point.\nMayor Spencer questioned why the City would not leave the amount the same as the\nprior tenant.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 30, "text": "The City Attorney suggested staff could bring the matter back.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a tenant would receive relocation assistance\nif they are required to move out for no cause reasons and later finds out the new tenant\nis paying more.\nThe Community Development Director responded said proposal was raised by\nAlamedans for Fair Rents; stated the staff recommendation is to have tenants evicted\nfor no cause receive relocation assistance regardless of what happens to the next\ntenant.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog might have been thinking\nabout the new tenant receiving some money back for overpaying; staff should refine the\nmatter a little more; that she likes the direction; inquired whether staff could enumerate\nwhat the fee would pay when the fee study returns.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a tenant given a 10% rent increase would go through\nthe RRAC process; inquired whether the tenant would not qualify for relocation\nassistance if they go through the arbitration process and the outcome is still 10%, but\nthe tenant has to move out because they cannot afford the increase.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Vice Mayor Matarrese hit the issue on the head; evicting\ntenants to raise rents to market rate is the problem the City is trying to fix; staff has to\ncome back with something that fixes the problem; new tenants should get something\nspecific, such as the same rent as the previous tenant or a 5% rent increase above the\nprevious tenant.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff understands and will be as precise\nas possible.\nMayor Spencer stated staff is doing a great job and should proceed.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff heard consensus to allow no cause\nevictions with a huge disincentive; staff will review whether there should be no rent\nincrease or an increase of no more than 5%; everyone supports approving a capital\nimprovement plan for the substantial rehabilitation eviction category; the plan will come\nback within 45 days with the program components.\nMayor Spencer stated that is correct.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the concept.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 31, "text": "The Community Development Director stated Council will have an opportunity to review\nthe components of the plan.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there has to be some evidence that substantial work is\ngoing to occur; inquired whether staff does not mean every capital plan would be\napproved by Council.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council\nwould approve the program requirements; provided examples; stated the number of no\ncause evictions allowed in one year could have a cap to prevent mass evictions; the\nordinance includes a sliding scale; concern has been raised about staff's proposed 50%\ncap; inquired whether the cap should be changed to 25%.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded definitely.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired in the case of mass evictions, would landlords\nbe able to raise rents not at all or by the allowable cap, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is trying to prevent clearing out buildings\nunless something such as soft story work has to be done.\nThe Community Development Director stated tenants could be temporarily relocated\nwhile work is completed.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether or not allowing a rent increase after major capital\nimprovements allows for a fair return on investment.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the capital plan would allow the housing provider\nto recover costs over a period of time.\nThe City Attorney clarified there could be a rent increase.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there could be an increase in the case of capital\nimprovements, which would be an exception.\nThe Community Development Director clarified no fault evictions are being addressed,\nnot just cause evictions, which include capital improvements; stated the concern is\nlandlords might find mass evictions more streamlined or cheaper than going through a\ncapital improvement plan.\nMayor Spencer noted tenants will have difficulty relocating while vacancy rates are very\nlow; inquired whether Councilmember Oddie's proposal is to limit mass evictions to 25%\nper year.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n31\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 32, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether everyone agrees.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he is fine with 25%; stated staff should really\nscrub the figure to ensure it is correct.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted buildings with one to four units would only be able to evict\none unit per year.\nThe Community Development Director stated relocation benefits are the last\ncomponent; staff has not heard whether there is support for the proposed ordinance or\nthe Mayor's suggestion that there not be a sliding scale based on the length of tenure.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to account for smaller landlords;\nfiguring out the correct relocation assistance should take smaller landlords into account.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he supports extending the time period; any other\nbenefit should be a matter of mediation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would not tie the benefit to\nlength of tenancy, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated when the matter returns, the staff report should address\nhow staff proposes to deal with the issue of small mom and pop landlords paying the\nrelocation benefit; a conclusion might be that not much could be done, but he wants to\nsee that staff thought about the issue.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is against any special exceptions.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie wants the benefit tied to length\nof tenancy.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded if there are not three votes in favor of the staff\nproposal, but there are three votes of the Mayor's proposal, he would support it; that he\ndoes not want any exceptions.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is fine with having no exceptions; she does not want to\ntie the benefit to length of tenancy and Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in favor of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he could go either way.\nMayor Spencer stated tying the benefit to length of tenancy discourages long term\ntenants because it creates a disincentive to keep long term tenants; landlords would\nhave to pay more if tenants are kept longer; that she wants to treat everyone the same.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n32\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 33, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated that he could support doing so if there are not three votes\nin favor of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the fair thing is to start off the process by tying the\nbenefit to length of tenancy; however, in several years, there should be a set amount;\nexpressed concern over a tenant being eligible to receive four months' rent after not\nbeing there very long.\nMayor Spencer stated the tenant would receive four months' notice so they have more\ntime to find alternative housing or receive money; the issue is really providing longer\nnotice beyond the required 30 and 60 day notices.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance requires tenants to receive one\nmonth rent for each year; expressed concern over landlords paying four months' rent for\na tenant who has only lived there one year; stated that she would like to see longer term\ntenancy encouraged; landlords like good tenants to stay because there is a cost to\nprepare the unit and find new tenants.\nMayor Spencer requested staff to clarify the matter.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance includes that the relocation\nbenefit is equal to the value of the tenant's month rent up to a maximum of four months'\nrent; tenants can exchange the monetary compensation for staying in the unit longer; for\nexample, a 10 year tenant would qualify for a cash equivalent of four months' rent; the\ntenant could opt to stay two additional months and receive payment for two months,\nplus $1,500 for moving expenses; time can be traded for money up to a maximum of\nfour months; staff tied the benefit to the length of tenancy.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the landlord could offer additional time instead of\nmoney.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the decision is\nthe tenant's choice.\nMayor Spencer suggested that mom and pop landlords be able to choose whether to\noffer time or money in response to Councilmember Daysog's concern; stated the tenant\ncould choose if under corporate ownership; the relocation assistance could be treated\ndifferently based upon ownership.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted doing so would treat tenants differently; stated that\nshe would not support doing so.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated defining mom and pop landlords would be difficult; noted\nsome larger complexes are not owned by corporations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n33\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 34, "text": "the landlord about whether to provide time versus money or a combination.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his suggestion is an exemption.\nMayor Spencer inquired where the Council is on length of tenancy.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she likes what the ordinance says.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is afraid that tying the benefit to length of tenancy\nwill encourage landlords to get rid of tenants sooner.\nMayor Spencer concurred.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the suggestion is to have a flat amount for\neverybody, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the amount of time would be four months, to\nwhich Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n34\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 35, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the flat amount in order to break the tie\nvote.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether tenants would have to be in the unit for\none year to qualify for relocation assistance.\nMayor Spencer responded in the negative; questioned why a landlord would bring in a\ntenant just to do a no cause or no fault eviction within the first year.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated within the first year is usually when a landlord finds out if\nthere are issues with the tenant.\nMayor Spencer stated the benefit applies to no cause and no fault evictions.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated regardless of a tenant living there 6 months or 10 years,\nfinding a new place to live is a hardship; uprooting a family is hard; giving time would\nnot be a hardship; providing money could be a hardship; that he likes the idea of giving\nfour months' notice on top of 60 days; less time can be taken; a payment for a shorter\ntimeframe should be mediated between the tenant and landlord; a byzantine ordinance\nis being created; it is convoluted and complex; he would prefer a simpler more direct\napproach of using the current process expanded to include certain eviction deliberations\nand some teeth or recourse if someone is being abused by the system.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there should be clear relocation benefits; any jurisdiction\nwhich does relocation benefits provides clarity; expectations should be clear.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council needs to pick an option.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated\npredictability is important; requiring relocation benefits would also dis-incentivize\nevictions.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated that he can live\nwith four months, but would prefer less; he has seen two months plus $1,500 for moving\nexpenses in other jurisdictions; that he would prefer two or three months; the saving\ngrace is allowing the exchange for time, but the problem is making the decision at the\ndiscretion of the renter; the landlord should be involved somehow.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the renter is the one who would need the time or the\nmoney since they have to find a new place to live.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated small landlords might not be able to pay four months'\nrent.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the landlord could decide not to evict or find a cause.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n35\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated a landlord might need to have a family member move in\nfor medical reasons.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there is an exception; extension of time does not\napply to a family member moving in.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council needs to decide whether or not to do a sliding\nscale.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the table attached to the staff report shows\nrelocation benefits in other jurisdictions are substantially more and can contain\nadditional charges.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to go with the staff\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he could go either way.\nMayor Spencer stated two Councilmember support the staff recommendation and two\ndo not.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would support the staff recommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated the relocation benefit would be tied to length of tenancy.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the reduced services petition is outstanding, but could\ncome back.\nThe Community Development Director stated there is a request to analyze the\ncomponents of the fee; staff would continue to recommend that there be a fee to\nadminister whatever program is adopted; a more in depth analysis can now be\ncompleted since staff understands what the program would be.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants could petition for reduced services.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not inclined to support Ordinance 3\nbecause she thought the provision would be more complicated to administer, especially\nin the first year; stated the matter could be considered after a year.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter should be reviewed after the capital\nimprovement plan is addressed; landlords have indicated that they will not spend money\nto invest in their properties if rent increases are limited; properties will end up with\nbroken heaters, etc.; that he would like the matter to return before one year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n36\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 37, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have liked to see something regarding\nmom and pop landlords and just cause eviction; however, we live in a world of\ncompromise; focusing on Ordinance 1, Council began to flush out elements of how to\nmove forward; he is concerned that the economics are not being dealt with seriously\nenough; more can be figured out over the coming weeks; at least Council is focusing on\nOrdinance 1.\nMayor Spencer stated at least one email was received regarding changes being made\nto no longer allow pets.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the issue has been addressed because pets are\nincluded in the definition of rent; increasing a pet fee would apply to reaching the\nthreshold.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the issue of changes being made to no longer\nallow pets to return to Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated perhaps the matter could be considered a reduction\nin service.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the ordinance would return, to which the\nCity Attorney responded staff could draft the new ordinance and bring back the first\nreading on February 2nd.\nThe Assistant City Attorney suggested the ordinance return at the same time as the\ncapital improvement plan to provide the whole picture.\nThe City Attorney inquired when the plan would be ready, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded the second meeting in February.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the moratorium would have to be extended\nagain.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the moratorium has been extended until March.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council could extend the moratorium again at said time to\nallow for a first and second reading and 30 days for the ordinance to become effective.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is fine with doing so; stated staff should take the time\nneeded; inquired whether Council agrees.\nAfter Council expressed consensus, Mayor Spencer stated a majority agrees.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff will draft the ordinance based on the\nconsensus direction.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n37\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 38, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated staff is going to review Mountain View's ordinance and come back with a\nrecommendation regarding whether or not to offer one year leases for existing tenants\nwhen there is a rent increase.\n(16-012) Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending\nAlameda Municipal Code Section 30-5.15 regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to\nDefine and Prohibit the Commercial Cultivation of Medical Marijuana in the City of\nAlameda to Protect the City's Jurisdiction Regarding Cultivation, While Preserving the\nOpportunity to Have a Robust Discussion About Medical Marijuana Cultivation at a\nLater Date. [The Proposed Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor\nAlternations to Land Use Limitations.] Introduced.\nThe Planning Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the ordinance prohibits cultivation; the community has not\nhad a discussion; Assembly Bill 21 is on track to pass and be signed by the Governor;\nthat he would prefer the ordinance not take effect if the March 1st deadline vanishes; the\nCity could emulate Placer County, which has declared a local preemption, rather than\ncreating a ban.\nThe City Planner stated agriculture and horticulture are permitted by right in Alameda's\nresidential districts, as well as industrial and commercial; the City would be in a bind if\nsomeone made a request tomorrow; Placer County is requiring use permits and has not\nmade a decision about which districts will allow the use; noted the ordinance can be\nopened back up; stated that he believes the City will start receiving requests.\nVice Mayor moved introduction of the ordinance; stated the matter could be opened\nback up when the State law is clear; now not the time for a robust discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer -\n4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n38\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 39, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 3:59 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n39\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 40, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 5, 2016--5:33 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:37 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:58 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-001) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City\nNegotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional\nAssociation of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA),\nAlameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association; (MCEA) Under Negotiation:\nSalaries and terms of employment.\n(16-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;\nNumber of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action). Not heard.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}