{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 16, 2016--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:08 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-060) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss: Public Employee\nAppointment / Hiring Title / position to be filled: City Manager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced by a vote of 5 to 0, the City Council decided to release the following\nadditional information concerning the selection of the community group members who\nparticipated in the selection process of the City Manager, Jill Keimach; as part of the\nCity Manager recruitment, it was decided that the finalists should be interviewed by\nthree groups: a community panel, representatives from the bargaining units and City\nDepartment Heads; the group interviews took place on December 4, 2015; the City\nCouncilmembers each provided the names of two individuals they felt should participate\nin the selection process; three additional names were provided by the Interim City\nManager to provide wider representation; the community members were selected as\nfollows: Lisa Gabato Morse and Gerald Bryant were selected by Mayor Spencer; Debra\nTurnage and Jesus Vargus were selected by Vice Mayor Matarrese; Dan Tuason and\nRueben Tilos were selected by Councilmember Daysog; Alison Greene and Reverend\nMichael Yoshii were selected by Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; Phong La and Dania\nAlvarez were selected by Councilmember Oddie; Mark Sorenson from the Chamber of\nCommerce, Doug Biggs from the Social Service Human Relations Board and Alameda\nPoint Collaborative and Gia Sneider from the Alameda Point business Natel were\nselected by the Interim City Manager.\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\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--FEBRUARY - 16,2016--6:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:38 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and\nMayor Spencer - 4.\nAbsent:\nVice Mayor Matarrese - 1.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(16-061) Resolution No. 15118, \"Authorizing the Issuance of City of Alameda\nCommunity Facilities District (CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements)\n2016 Special Tax Bonds in an Amount not to Exceed $18,000,000; Approve Certain\nDocuments in Connection with the Sale and Issuance of the Bonds; and, Authorize the\nInterim City Manager or Her Designee to Execute the Documents and Take All Related\nActions in Connection With the Sale and Issuance of the Bonds.\" Adopted.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 16, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.\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(16-062) Proclamation Declaring February 2016 as Teen Dating Violence and\nPrevention Awareness Month.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Jessica Rogers, Building\nFutures with Women and Children.\nMs. Rogers and members of Youth Educating and Advocating for Health (YEAH): Julie\nGarner, Liz, and Ryan spoke on teen violence and thanked the City of Alameda for\nsupporting healthy relationships for teens.\n(16-063) Mayor Spencer did a reading regarding \"Respect\" as part of the Season for\nNon-Violence.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-064) Brian McGuire, Alameda, expressed concerns over the speed limit and the\nnumber of pedestrians being hurt or injured.\n(16-065) Harold Demmon, Alameda, stated there is a need for a traffic signal at\nMcCartney Road and Island Drive; he would like to circulate a petition on the matter.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested that the resolution regarding Island City Landscaping\nand Lighting District 84-2 [paragraph no. 16-069 be removed from the\nConsent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 4, "text": "vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*16-066) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January\n19, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-067) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,902,761.91.\n(*16-068) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $118,320, Including\nContingency, to Ray's Electric for the Alameda Ferry Terminal Access Improvement\nProject. Accepted.\n(16-069) Resolution No. 15119, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the\ndais.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 3. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog and Vice Mayor Matarrese - 2.]\n(*16-070) Resolution No. 15120, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). Adopted.\n(*16-071) Ordinance No.3147, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 5-Year Lease with\nDreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 29\nLocated at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.\" Finally Passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-072) Summary title: Consider: 1) An Ordinance regarding Rent Review, Rent\nStabilization and Limitations on Evictions, Amending the Duties of the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee (RRAC), and Deleting the Current Article XIV to Chapter VI\nregarding Rent Review, 2) A Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital\nImprovement Plans (CIP), and 3) An Appropriation of Funds.\nIntroduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article\nXV to Chapter VI Concerning (A) Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental\nUnits and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and (B) Limitations on\nEvictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units; (C)\nAmending Section 2-23.4 Concerning the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee; (D) Deleting Article XIV to Chapter VI in Its Entirety; and (E) Determining\nthat Introduction of the Ordinance is not a Project under the California Environmental\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 5, "text": "Quality Act (CEQA) or, if It is a Project, It is Exempt under CEQA. Introduced;\n(16-072A) Adoption of Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital Improvement\nPlans; Not heard; and\n(16-072B) Appropriation of $300,000 from the General Fund to Fund a Rent Program\nFee Study and to Cover the Cost to Administer the Rent-Related Programs through\nJune 30, 2016. Not heard\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City is addressing properties with\nless units, not only buildings with 50 or more units.\nThe Community Development Director stated the database used was created by Real\nFacts, which collects data on properties with 50 or more units.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has no information on\nproperties with less than 50 units, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative; stated properties with over 50 units make up\napproximately 17% of the City's rental stock; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether room rentals in single family homes are exempt.\nThe Community Development Director responded according to State law, a person\nrenting a room in a house is considered a lodger, not a tenant.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the RRAC process would apply to a room rental if a\ntenant receives a significant rent increase or if the City preempted by State law from\nproviding relief for that tenant.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City is exempting room rentals\nand the RRAC process would not be available to lodgers under the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could be brought back if there is a need to\nprovide relief for room rental tenants, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many days the parties have to appeal the RRAC decision,\nto which the Community Development Director responded 15 days.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there will be a provision in the ordinance\nwhere, if the landlord and tenant agree to a rent increase over the 5%, they do not have\nto go through the hearing process.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated if the tenant\ndoes not agree with the increase over 5%, then a hearing would be set.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether it would be a binding hearing with a hearing officer as\nopposed to binding arbitration.\nThe Community Development Director responded when two parties agree to binding\narbitration, they forgo the opportunity to access judicial review; stated the ordinance is\nset up to allow judicial review.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the binding haring is an actual proceeding\nwhere the parties give testimony.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it is an administrative\nhearing in front of a hearing officer; a party dissatisfied with the outcome could file a writ\nof mandate; a Superior Court Judge would review the administrative record; there is a\nlevel of review the trial court judge would review to determine if the decision of the\nhearing officer should stand, be reversed or modified.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the offer of a one year lease to in-place tenants would\nbe only if the landlord increases the rent.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; for tenants on\nmonth-to-month, stated tenants with a lease would be offered a new lease 60 days prior\nto the expiration of the current lease.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the ordinance is for two scenarios only: brand new\ntenants or an in-place tenant when rent is increased.\nThe Community Development Director responded a lease would be offered to in-place\ntenant 60 days prior to the date of the expiration of the lease or when the rent is\nincreased.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern over the provision contradicting Council's direction.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if tenants would still have to pay rent if they choose 4\nmonths' time over cash assistance.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative and continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there was a way to enforce having the tenant leave on the\ndate of the agreement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 7, "text": "The Community Development Director responded the tenant would be paid 50% of the\nrelocation benefits and sign a form agreeing to leave on a certain date; the balance\nwould be paid on the date the tenant moved out.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it would be enforceable as a stipulated judgement.\nThe Community Development Director stated the form would encourage each party to\nseek their own legal counsel; the form would be strongly worded to indicate the tenant is\nobligated to leave the unit.\nMayor Spencer inquired what avenue the landlord would have to enforce having the\ntenant leave on the date certain.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the landlord would be able to utilize the form to\nfile an unlawful detainer or small claim to recover money.\nMayor Spencer inquired how long the unlawful detainer process would take.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the process is quick; stated it would depend on\nthe type of action.\nMayor Spencer stated that she thought there could be a stipulated judgement if a\nproblem arises; inquired whether legal counsel's opinion is that a stipulated judgement\nis not possible.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City would have to figure out how to frame it\nto make it enforceable as Mayor Spencer described.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if someone has a stand-alone granny flat at their\nresidence and they want to move in their family member, are they required to pay up to\n4 months of relocation assistance.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated for an owner\nmove in or government orders to vacate there is no option to extend time in lieu of\nmoney.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the types of leases the parties entered\nin to would trigger a relocation fee.\nThe Community Development Director responded if a clause in the lease allows the\nlease to go to month-to-month it would trigger; if there is a fixed term lease, the tenant\nwould not be entitled to relocation benefits.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether an irrevocable notice of termination with a date certain\nwould address having tenants comply with moving out in a more expeditious manner.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 8, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded there still needs to be some sort of legal action\nfor the person to leave.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether other cities pay 50% upfront.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in some cities an escrow account is set up.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the purpose of the escrow account is to make sure the money\nis paid out when the tenant leaves the premises.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that an escrow account is a safeguard that\nconditions are satisfied.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there are safeguards.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded paying 50% up front is to allow the tenant to find\nanother location and provide first and last month's rent.\nMayor Spencer stated an escrow account provides a safeguard; inquired what is the\nCity's safeguard.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that the tenant should abide by what they are\nsupposed to do.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the money could be paid all at once when the tenant\nvacates.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance could be set up that way.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether other jurisdictions pay all at once as a safeguard.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he is not aware of any jurisdiction paying it\nall at once, but he has not researched all jurisdictions across the State.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are expenses for a tenant when moving;\nhopefully, both sides come to the table in good faith.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the CIP amount, the Community\nDevelopment Director stated substantial rehabilitation is improvements to a building\nintended to prolong the life of the building; if tenants are going to be evicted, the repairs\nshould be substantial.\nMayor Spencer inquired where the 8 times comes from.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 9, "text": "The Community Development Director responded the CIP is modeled after the City of\nLos Angeles; the Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is an option where the tenant can come\nback after being temporarily relocated if the tenant wants to stay and pay the rent\nincrease.\nThe Community Development Director responded temporary relocation is only available\nif there is an available unit on site; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is an estimate of the cost of the program fee\nanalysis.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City is recommending $300,000\nof General Fund money to run the program until June 30th and to fund the fee study.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the cost of the fee study is $50,000, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a fee is not assessed would the fee study be required, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the program would be funded out of the\nGeneral Fund, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $300,000 is being appropriated to\ncover the program until a source of funding is in place.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City\nwould be adopting a new program and funding it out of the General Fund for 3 to 4\nmonths the program fee could be effective at the start of the new fiscal year tied to\nbusiness licenses.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the General Fund would be refunded, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in the negative; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the difference in the program fee between Alameda and\nother cities.\nThe Community Development Director responded Oakland is looking to increase their\nfee to $100 to $110 per unit because they are overwhelmed by cases and understaffed.\nMayor Spencer inquired why Hayward is $100 a unit.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 10, "text": "The Community Development Director responded Los Gatos and Hayward do not deal\nwith eviction protection or relocation; stated Hayward sets its fee on the number of\ncomplaints received.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Los Gatos and Hayward do not offer relocation\nassistance, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated neither city puts limitations on evictions; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired when the City would be involved in legal action.\nThe Community Development Director responded if the City took action to enforce the\nordinance or if the City were sued.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see the City consider hiring\noutside counsel because the City does not pay benefits.\nThe Community Development Director responded there are still a lot of unknowns; she\nconcluded the presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has amendments; inquired when he could raise\nthem.\nMayor Spencer responded the speakers should be allowed to go first.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has concerns regarding the Sunshine\nOrdinance because the Council was just handed the document today.\nMayor Spencer stated making substantial changes to the document would not be\nconsidered a first reading and the ordinance would need to come back at the next\nmeeting for a first reading.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Mayor Spencer is correct; only clarifying changes\ncould be made and voted on tonight.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has substantive changes; he does not see the\ndifference in making his substantive changes now versus having prepared them ahead\nof time.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the provisions have already been approved by the Council\nby consensus; unless in the majority, a member cannot move to reconsider items.\nRenters:\nRead a story about a tenant facing a rent increase; stated Alamedan's for Fair Rents\nconducted a sham survey; expressed that he disagrees with Councilmember Daysog's\namendments:\nMonty Heying.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 11, "text": "Stated a burden is being placed on tenants due to rising rents; tenants are being forced\nto move out of town: Sammy Gutierrez, Filipino Advocates for Justice (FAJ) and\nBayanihan Youth Group (BYG).\nRequested equal protection for renters; urged Council to fight for the rights of the\nmembers in the community: Erin Subido, FAJ and BYG.\nStated that she wants to see Alameda remain diverse; rising costs of rent will force\nmany low income families out of Alameda: Cynthia Bonta, Alameda.\nStated seniors and families with children will need more time and more money to find\nhomes; realtors benefit from high turnover, but the City will not; stated 5% is 3 times the\nBay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) for housing: Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters\nCoalition (ARC).\nExpressed concerns regarding what the RRAC considers a fair rent increases; stated\nproperty owners of Victorian homes should not pass the cost of maintenance onto\ntenants; the RRAC should be allowed to recommend rent increases less than 5%;\nrequested 90 day notice to the public be required before sun-setting of the ordinance:\nJohn Klein, ARC.\nStated that she is on social security and rent increases have made her rent more than\nher income; urged Council to protect seniors and the disabled whose income does not\nincrease every year; stated rent increases should be tied to the CPI: Toni Grimm,\nAlameda.\nHousing Providers:\nStated that she has not raised rents in three years; she cannot afford to upgrade her\nproperty; urged Council to exempt mom and pop landlords: Margaret Tong.\nStated property owners deserve equality; rental limitation laws will not benefit anyone:\nSusan Gao.\nStated the landlords propose establishing a trust fund committee with input from tenants\nand landlords; urged Council to give the landlords a chance to come up with another\nalternative; requested small mom and pop landlords be exempt: Bill Kwok.\nUrged creating a trust fund program instead of a rent ordinance; stated tenants could\napply for assistance in the case of hardships; the City can do an annual review of the\nprogram; the trust fund would protect tenants against bad landlords and cost less than\nthe rent limitation program: Jackie Huynh.\nStated tenants and housing providers do not like the ordinance; it should be handled\ncase by case and not penalize all housing providers; the ordinance makes owning rental\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 12, "text": "property in Alameda difficult and everybody would be unable to make necessary\nrenovations: Phoebe Yu.\nStated the ordinance will make tensions worse between tenants and landlords;\nenforcement is extremely complicated; with rent control, housing providers will be forced\nout of Alameda: Malcolm Lee.\nStated that she opposes the rent ordinance; suggested establishing a trust fund for\nrelocation purposes; urged exempting all duplexes and small mom and pop landlords:\nFannie Mak.\nStated the CIP will not work for historic homes because of renovation costs; the CIP\ndoes not take into account all costs: Daniel Lee.\nStated her tenants are paying below HUD rates; the rights of a housing provider\ncompared to a tenant are very limited: Patricia Bird.\nNeutral:\nStated the City is facing a major housing crisis with limited supply; landlords and tenants\nshould have a strong partnership because they cannot exist without each other: Carl\nChan.\nHarold Demmon, Alameda, addressed the Council, but intended to speak under Oral\nCommunications; refer to Oral Communications for his comments.\nStated this issue is very confrontational; he would like tenants and landlords to get\ntogether to come up with a solution: Robert Schrader, Alameda.\nStated more data is needed: Carl Chan on behalf of Dennis Wong.\nStated the relocation costs that landlords have to pay are too high; the age of the home\nand the situation of the housing provider should be taken into account: Don Scellato,\nAlameda.\nStated a lot of her friends have had to relocate out of Alameda because of rising rents;\nurged Council to develop a program to keep everyone in check: Debra Arbuckle,\nAlameda.\nRenters:\nStated that he is very disappointed with Councilmember Daysog's amendments; the\nreason everyone is here is because landlords have created a crisis by raising rents and\nevicting tenants: Eric Strimling, Alameda.\nUrged Council to pass the ordinance without Councilmember Daysog's amendments\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 13, "text": "because at least it is something: Jason Buckley, Alameda.\nStated her rent has increased every year by $100; she is a senior on a fixed income:\nEugenie Thompson, Alameda.\nUrged Council to set a cap on rent increases tied to the CPI: Maria Dominguez,\nAlameda.\nStated the rent threshold should be tied to the CPI; the CIP should not create a\ntemporary loophole for paying relocation fees; businesses do not have a right to profit:\nMalia Vella, Alameda.\nStated tenant protections and no cause evictions are popular with voters; the annual\nrent increase should be 65% of the CPI: Dan Horper, Tenants Together.\nStated the ordinance does not stabilize rent or the community; that he is disappointed\nwith Councilmember Daysog's amendments; cap should be based on the CPI: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nStated only a few landlords have taken advantage; people should work together;\ntenants are requesting fairness to allow them to stay in the community: Jen Strongin,\nAlameda.\nStated the job of the City Council is to protect citizens; the Council must find that\nbalance to protect everyone involved: Unknown.\nHousing Provider:\nStated that she agrees with Councilmember Daysog's proposal of a cumulative cap; all\nmom and pop units should be exempt; tenants should have to qualify for relocation\nassistance; trust fund proposal would be cheaper to implement: Rosalina Fortuna.\nStated the rent control ordinance is not a good idea; housing providers cannot afford to\nkeep up their properties; expressed support for the trust fund proposal: Eunice\nEdwards, Alameda.\nStated the trust fund proposal and having the tenants and landlords work together is a\ngood idea; what is proposed is too black and white: Richard Santini, Alameda.\nStated there are only a handful of landlords that have caused this problem: Jim\nSmallman, Alameda.\nStated the ordinance does not address CEQA; rising costs for landlords cannot be\ncovered by a 5% cap; stated more data is needed to figure out a solution: Former\nCouncilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 14, "text": "Stated notices should have been sent out to inform the public about rent control;\neveryone should not be put in the same box; all landlords should not have to suffer for a\nselect few: Lawrence Quintero.\nThanked Council for their work: Ken Gutelaben, Alameda.\nRenters:\nStated if there are problems with the ordinance, nothing prevents the Council from\nmaking modifications; urged Council to give the ordinance a chance to work: Brian\nMcGuire, Alameda.\nStated he loves Alameda and would like to stay here but is being evicted by a mom and\npop landlord: Ed Dickson, Alameda.\nNeutral:\nStated there has been a failure to act on the part of the Council; tenants have been\nexperiencing displacement since 2004; there needs to be a comprehensive housing\nstrategy instead of responding to crisis: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nHousing Providers:\nStated almost all of the rental stock is over 60 years old with buildings that need major\nrepairs; owners need to be able to pay for renovations for the tenant's safety, comfort\nand quality of life; expressed evicting people for no cause evictions is difficult: Darlene\nShaffer, Alameda.\nStated both tenants and landlords are suffering; landlords are being punished: Uland\nWong.\nStated the data used by the City was for apartments with over 50 units; there is a\ndifference between mom and pop and corporate landlords; legislation is one size fits all;\nthe ordinance would limit landlord's income yet increase their expenses: Margaret\nDuggan, Alameda.\nStated he is a mom and pop landlord; the rent ordinance fails to protect the people it\nwas set up to protect; he is confused about the statements from landlords regarding the\nimpact the ordinance will have on their lifestyle, when the same landlords are saying\nthey never raise their rents or evict tenants; some Councilmembers are trying to reduce\nthe housing supply and limit the free market: John Knox White, Alameda.\nStated the ordinance needs substantial changes; landlords also struggle to make ends\nmeet; urged the City to build more senior and affordable housing to solve the housing\ncrisis; stated the CIP should be reconsidered; landlords would have to pay for the\nordinance: Jane Wei, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 15, "text": "Stated having a RRAC case on every rent increase above 5% is going to cause a\nproblem; good relations between landlords and tenants is vital to all parties; urged\nanother solution be found: John Sullivan.\nStated the rents all over the Bay Area are high; the supply is not enough for the\ndemand; she opposes rent control: Sen Lon Chow.\nStated with rent control Alameda will no longer be a nice city: Xiao Lan Li.\nStated real estate is one type of investment; rent control is robbing owners who are\nalready taking an enormous risk: Meina Young.\nStated the ordinance will create animosity between tenants and landlords; urged letting\nRRAC work; stated a study needs to be done on where rents should be: Lester Cabral.\nStated the eviction process takes 1 to 7 months; the rent ordinance is not fair; attorneys\nare expensive; there is a penalty for landlords but no penalty for tenants; expressed\nsupport for the trust fund proposal to help low income tenants: Zong Li.\nStated the worst thing to do is to do nothing; urged Council to not allow a CPI rent\nincrease or a 20% rent increase, but to find something in the middle: Greg McConnell.\n***\n(16- ) Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like to hear the rest of the speakers,\nthen continue the deliberation to a date certain.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the meeting is continued after the speakers\nhave finished, it would be only for Council deliberation; she agrees with Vice Mayor\nMatarrese.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many speakers are left; stated that he would rather\nkeep going with the meeting since there are not many more speakers.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated with 17 speakers, he feels there is enough time for the\nspeakers and Council deliberation.\nMayor Spencer stated her position is to just get the work done.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing to hear the speakers and set the\ndeliberation at a date certain.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the motion be modified to go until midnight,\nthen continue to a date certain.\nThe motion FAILED for lack of a second.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Oddie, Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Ezzy Ashcraft\nand Vice Mayor Matarrese - 2.\n***\nStated that he strongly supports the moratorium, but does not support the ordinance:\nSteve Sorenson, Alameda Association of Realtors.\nStated the ordinance would force him to sell his rental property; urged Council to think\nof property owners: Emery La Pine.\nStated tenants have cost her a lot of money; expressed support for the trust fund\nproposal: Nancy Gordon, Alameda.\nStated property values will go down with the ordinance; some of her tenants make more\nmoney than she does; the government should fund Section 8 and build more housing:\nAnne Harris, Alameda.\nStated all parties are not happy with the ordinance; urged Council to keep working on\nthe ordinance; stated her rental property is her retirement: Lori Moe.\nStated there is a lot of work that still needs to be done; the rent he receives is his\nretirement and the ordinance will not allow him to have enough to survive: Jose\nJazmine.\nStated the relocation assistance program should be means tested; the ordinance will\nput a lot of mom and pop landlords out of business: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated the proposed ordinance is an overreaction to abuses by a few large landlords;\nthe small mom and pop landlords should be exempt; expressed support for the trust\nfund proposal: Tom Galt, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the trust fund proposal; stated the City is expropriating the assets\nof small business owners; there should be a means test to see which tenants need the\nassistance: Keith Weitzen.\nStated Oakland and Berkeley have exemptions for owner occupied buildings with 2 to 4\nunits; his property is renting for below market rate; if the ordinance is passed, landlords\nwill be forced to keep raising rents until they sell their properties: Kurt Braun.\nStated landlords believe in affordable housing for those who need it; there should be a\nmeans test to determine who needs the assistance; owner occupied units should be\nexempt from eviction control: Adrienne Lakadat.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 17, "text": "Stated her tenants make more than her combined family income; urged Council to\nexempt small mom and pop landlords: Gail Paul.\nStated the ordinance is putting regulations on the free market: Jew Lon Mien.\nStated both sides do not agree with the ordinance; urged Council to come back with\nsomething better: Catherine Behringer.\nStated there is consensus between tenants and property owners; no one agrees with\nthe ordinance; the City is trying to tell landlords how to handle their retirement; urged\ncoming up with a larger solution to affordable housing: Joshua Howard, California\nApartment Association.\nStated that she supports rent control; the protections should apply to all residence in\nAlameda: Cynthia Atases, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:49 p.m.\n***\nMayor Spencer stated there are many good landlords and good tenants; she feels the\nsolution will bring people to the table and RRAC can resolve it; 85% of the RRAC cases\nare resolved; preference would be to have a unanimous vote; every Councilmember\nhas an opportunity to express concerns; something needs to be done; tonight is a first\nreading; inquired if there is any reason to focus on the Whereas sections of the\nordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated all ordinance language is important.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether CEQA is required for the historical homes.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated historic homes may cost more to maintain, Council\ncan take into consideration; however, there is no impact to the environment.\nMayor Spencer requested the word to \"landlord\" be substituted for \"housing provider.\"\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has no objection.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has no objection.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he has no objection.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the offer of a one year lease is available in two\nscenarios: new tenants and existing tenants upon a rent increase; questioned the\nwording in Subsection 6-58.35.B.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 18, "text": "The Community Development Director responded in-place tenants could have a lease\nor be month-to-month; the first time the tenant gets a rent increase would be the point\nwhere a lease would be offered; if on a lease, a new lease would be offered at the\ntermination of the existing lease.\nMayor Spencer inquired where it says there is going to be a rent increase; if there is not\ngoing to be a rent increase, another year lease should not be offered.\nThe Community Development Director responded it is the timing of the offer of the\nlease.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the rent is not being increased, why should the landlord have\nto offer another year.\nThe Community Development Director clarified that staff's understanding of the\ndirection from Council was a one-time offer of a lease was to be offered to in-place and\nperspective tenants.\nMayor Spencer stated that she disagrees; she understood any perspective tenant would\nbe offered a one year lease and in-place tenants would be offered a lease upon an\nincrease in rent.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she also believes it was at the time of a rent\nincrease being served.\nMayor Spencer stated if there is a rent increase, the landlord needs to offer a one year\nlease.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested clarification be added about whether there is a month-\nto-month or year lease when there is a lease offered.\nMayor Spencer inquired if it then becomes month-to-month.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded if there is no rent increase and the tenant does not\naccept a lease, it then becomes month-to-month.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the wording needs to be fixed in Subsection B to state: \"when\nthere is a rent increase.\"\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded language that the offer for a new lease would be\nin conjunction with the notice of rent increase could be added to Subsection B.\nMayor Spencer stated Subsection C regarding month-to-month leases includes the\nlanguage.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 19, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated similar language would be added to Subsection B.\nMayor Spencer stated said direction was given at the February 2nd meeting; Subsection\nB should include a provision regarding an increase in rent.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would be forcing the landlord to\nraise the rent.\nMayor Spencer stated a landlord would be required to give an existing tenant an\nadditional year, but would not get an increase in rent; Subsection B conflicts with\nSubsection C.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a landlord offering a tenant another one\nyear lease would incur relocation fees.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded if there is a fixed term, the landlord will not be\nrequired to pay relocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a one year lease is a fixed term, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded it can be.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if a landlord wants to terminate a lease without cause,\nrelocation benefits would be triggered.\nMayor Spencer stated if both sides agree to a one year term, as opposed to month-to-\nmonth, the landlord does not have to buy out the tenant.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the one year lease could be offered but the tenant\ncould say they prefer month-to-month; inquired if Mayor Spencer's question is whether\nthe landlord is required to offer a one year lease at the end of a lease without a rent\nincrease.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a lease that has an expiration date as outlined in\nSubsection B is a fixed term lease, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether someone entering into a fixed lease and\ndecides to part ways at the end of the lease, does not trigger relocation assistance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that is not the direction Council gave.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he previously indicated said provisions is how the\nGlendale model works; he does not want relocation assistance to trigger.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated there are differences between fixed term leases versus month-to-\nmonth; inquired whether staff is saying landlords have to offer a second year without\nany rent increase; stated that she feels it substantially changes the relationship and is\nlegally challengeable; the landlord is not getting any different consideration.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the landlord has to offer a lease whether or not\nthere is a rent increase.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the consideration is for the other side; stated one side\ncannot be asked to give something without the other getting something.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance is rent review, rent stabilization\nand limitations on evictions; stated the Council has authority to enact the provision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is an added tenant protection.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if a fixed term lease ending is not an eviction because\nthe term is done and the contract is over, so relocation fees are not paid.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated a fixed term\nlease means there is a 12 month lease; the evergreen clause in residential rental leases\nin California make leases automatically go month-to-month at the end of the lease with\nthe absence of a new lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Council direction was to try to limit landlords from\nterminating tenancy at the end of a one year lease by requiring relocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Daysog clarified that he does not think relocation benefits should be\noffered at the end of a lease.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not agree with there being a fixed term lease and\nthe landlord having to offer a new lease at the end of that lease unless there is an\nincrease in rent.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether language: \"at which time a rent\nincrease is served\" would be added to Subsection B.\nMayor Spencer stated landlords can offer another year without a rent increase, but the\nCity should not require landlords to offer another year for nothing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the same language should be used as in\nSubsection C.\nThe Community Development Director stated Subsection B could be deleted and\nSubsection C could be changed to read any current tenant on a month-to-month or a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 21, "text": "lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Subsection B was specifically added because if the\ntenancy is terminated and relocation is triggered, there is no requirement to offer a\nlease.\nThe Community Development Director stated if notice is given that the landlord will\nterminate at the end of the lease period, relocation assistance does not need to be\noffered.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the wording is not in Subsection B and is missing an\nexpiration; the policy is not ongoing; it is a one year cooling off period.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie is referring to within a year of today's\ndate.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be a clause to offer a one year lease\nin the first year following adoption of the ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated placing said clause in the ordinance might be a\nconflict; if the offer of the first lease is tied with a rent increase, the notice may not\nhappen in the first year.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Subsection B and C are going to be merged.\nThe Community Development Director stated Subsection B is going to be left as is and\nthe phrase that the offer would be in conjunction with a rent increase would be added to\nSubsection C.\nMayor Spencer stated the landlord has to get something; only upon a rent increase,\nshould landlords have to offer a one year lease.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated tracking will be difficult.\nMayor Spencer stated a trust fund does not address the problem and does not help\ntenants; the ordinance is allowing no cause evictions but the tenant would get\nsomething in return.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Housing Authority has proposed doing\nworkshops and the first year will be a learning curve.\nMayor Spencer stated the housing provider must provide the program administrator, at\nthe start of the new tenancy, the name and contact information, a copy of the lease, and\nthe amount of the rent the new tenant will be charged; she is concerned with the name\nand address being public information; inquired how the City can protect the privacy\nof\nthe new tenant.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 22, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated the form that is going to be developed will state that\nthe information is confidential according to Evidence Code Section 1040 and\nGovernment Code Section 6255 on the grounds that the privacy interest outweighing\nthe public right to disclosure.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a challenge could be lost, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated if a challenge is lost, the information will be made public; she\nwould rather not have the information because she does not want to disclose it.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the requirement is a protection for the tenant and\nis a way to verify requirements put in place.\nMayor Spencer stated the new tenant can find out the prior rent since it is public\ninformation and can file a complaint if they are being charged over the 5% increase;\nhaving information on a vacating tenant would be okay, but not on an incoming tenant.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney suggested\nthe amount of the rent for the new tenant be required.\nMayor Spencer stated the new tenant would know the cost of the new rent; they would\nneed the amount of the prior rent to compare if their rent increase is exorbitant.\nThe Community Development Director stated the City needs to request the landlord to\ncertify the amount of the new rent to know that they are not charging more than a 5%\nincrease; the City could just request information on the amount of the rent increase at\nthe time of the notice and the rent they propose to charge the new tenant.\nMayor Spencer stated the new tenant could always check the information and file a\ncomplaint if the increase exceeds 5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why is there more expectation of privacy for a\ntenant than a homeowner or property owner.\nMayor Spencer stated a property owner can put their property in a trust or take steps to\nprotect themselves; there should be a way to protect tenants with privacy issues.\nThe Community Development Director stated there were several emails from the public\nraising concerns about stalkers or domestic violence survivors.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed said reason is a good.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about protecting the old tenant,\nthe Community Development Director stated only a copy of the notice of termination is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 23, "text": "being requested.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a redacted copy with the name blocked\nout could be submitted.\nThe Community Development Director responded the information could be collected\nand then the names be redacted when information is being made public.\nMayor Spencer stated she is fine with Subsection 6-58.140A2.\nThe Community Development Director stated the issue of redacting the name will be in\nthe program guidelines; Subsection 6-58140A2 could be expanded to read: \"the\nhousing provider must provide to the program administrator a copy of the notice to\nvacate served on the tenant and the amount of the rent in effect at the time the notice to\nvacate was served and the amount of the rent that the new tenant will be charged:' 6-\n58.140A3 would be deleted in its entirety.\nMayor Spencer agreed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the names and relevant information need to be\ncollected; it is up to staff to protect the information.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the landlord could redact the information before it is\nsubmitted.\nThe Community Development Director responded the underlying point is that the\nprospective tenant would not have a rent 5% higher than the in-place tenant; stated\ndata must have the landlord state what the rent would be for the new tenant; the law\nsays it cannot be more than 5% higher; the paperwork should be completed at the time\nof notice of termination.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only the unit and rent amount are needed,\nnames and phone numbers are not needed, to which the Community Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if all are in agreement; all Councilmembers agreed.\nMayor Spencer stated the requirement for owner move in is a natural person who has at\nleast a 50% interest as opposed to 10% or 33%; inquired where 50% came from.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the idea is that a human would be asking for the\nowner move in or owner's family move in; theoretically, a human being could own 25%\ninterest and a corporation could own 75% interest.\nMayor Spencer stated she agrees with staff's proposal; inquired if everyone agrees with\nstaff's proposal.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 50% ownership would be verified.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the housing provider needs to provide\ndocumentation that the person qualifies as a housing provider; a copy of the vesting\ndeed could be used for the program administrator to verify it is a human being.\nMayor Spencer inquired if everyone is in agreement.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if in the case of a landlord wanting to move a relative\ninto a granny flat or a cottage in the back of the house, who would be responsible for\nshowing proof of being the owner, the landlord or the person moving in.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in said case, they would be just the\nenumerated relative and not need to show proof.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is going to skip over the relocation part and come back\nto it because it seems complicated.\nCouncilmember Oddie disagreed; stated what is stated is clear; if the housing provider\nhas taken an action to terminate tenancy on the grounds set forth in Subsection 6-\n58.150A, of no cause with the limitations.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired if the concern is Subsection A does not cover the\nsituation of a fixed term lease ending.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned why impose limits on no cause evictions if every\nperson on a one year lease will be terminated; stated landlords wanted no cause\nevictions to let a bad tenant go without having to pay an attorney.\nThe Community Development Director stated the language is drafted to cover one year\nleases that convert to month-to-month; then it becomes a no cause eviction which\nwould be entitled to relocation benefits if it is a no cause eviction; a tenant would not be\nentitled to relocation benefits at the end of a fixed term lease because the term is\nagreed upon by the landlord and tenant.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated anyone that has a year or six month lease can be evicted\nwithout cause without paying relocation fees and the City requiring everyone to have a\none year lease, which is basically saying everyone is at risk of eviction.\nThe Community Development Director stated if the lease has an evergreen provision, a\nfixed term lease cannot be offered unless the tenant requests it.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned who would want a one year lease.\nMayor Spencer responded that some people want a set term.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 25, "text": "The Community Development Director noted in the State of California, the fixed term\nconcept is highly unusual.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he feels staff got the direction wrong.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the staff recommendation; two parties\nshould be able to enter into an arms-length agreement for a set term.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what if a tenant wants an evergreen lease.\nMayor Spencer responded most tenants want a long term lease, which becomes month-\nto-month then all the benefits kick in.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Councilmember Oddie's concern is that all\nleases might become fixed term.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that all leases are going to be one year leases that could\nbe terminated without cause and would not be subject to relocation benefits, which\ndefeats the purpose of the whole exercise.\nMayor Spencer stated the issue can be reviewed at some point.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated landlords prefer not to turn over units every year\nbecause there is a cost to do so; data will be collected on evictions; inquired whether\nthe City will be able to capture the data on leases that are not renewed, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not want to take away a landlord's right to offer a\nfixed term lease; people want said type of lease.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Council could provide direction to require relocation\nbenefits even if there is a fixed term lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the ordinance should be clarified to indicate the provision\nis for an evergreen clause.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if there is an evergreen clause, the tenant is entitled\nto relocation benefits with a no cause eviction.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a way to ask tenants to report\nexperiencing a one year lease or fixed term lease not being renewed.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City could ask tenants to do so on\na voluntary basis.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how information could be reviewed.\nMayor Spencer stated people could send emails or correspondence; she is concerned\nwith how many staff members will have to be hired to run the program.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data will be more useful and reliable if it is\nsystematically collected.\nMayor Spencer stated her relocation fee concern is how would the City enforce the\ntenant moving out if the half paid up front: a stipulated judgement or an irrevocable\nnotice of termination; something enforceable is needed; a landlord cannot be expected\nto pay money then not have the tenant leave on a date certain.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are repercussions for a tenant not leaving\non a date certain, such as an unlawful detainer.\nMayor Spencer stated an unlawful detainer takes a lot of money and time in court;\nstated maybe a requirement should be a part of the administrative regulation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first year of the program should be in good\nfaith.\nMayor Spencer stated a landlord paying relocation benefits should not also have to do\nan unlawful detainer to evict the tenant; inquired whether there is a solution; stated the\nlandlord should pay the relocation fees as the tenant leaves, concurrently.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are costs to securing a new residence.\nMayor Spencer stated there needs to be something in place to make sure the tenant\nleaves on the date certain.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the RRAC should mediate eviction issues and the City\nshould not codify a formula that says how much is paid whether it is time or money;\nworking with the RRAC model is cleaner than trying to fit every case into a set of\nordinance sections.\nCouncilmember Daysog urged Council to continue the meeting to address the issues\nbecause the changes are too substantial.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated paying 50% up front is fair; inquired if there is data of\ntenants that have defaulted after receiving 50% first.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is no concrete data; he is not aware there\nis a problem; stated the matter can be revisited in one year; tenant can also be weary of\nthe landlord giving them the other 50%.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether it could happen concurrently.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance is not set up that way; stated 50%\nis to be paid when the tenant gives notice and the other 50% when the tenant moves\nout; staff feels 50% is reasonable.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated other cities follow the same process; tenants will have the\nhardship of relocating; there is always a risk that one or both parties will violate the\nagreement and will have to go to litigation; suggested a stipulated judgement be drawn\nup with a writ of execution.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a court action needs to be filed for a stipulated\njudgement; he is not clear how to enforce a stipulated judgement without an underlying\ncourt action.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has experience with a stipulation pay; if rent is\npaid the case is dropped; when they go into default, the action would be filed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether there was already an underlying action, to\nwhich Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the underlying action is missing from the suggestion.\nMayor Spencer inquired what about an irrevocable notice of termination on a date\ncertain.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the City can create something, but it would not be\nself-executing and there is no guarantee that the parties will follow it.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's proposal of 50% up\nfront and 50% once the unit is vacated; urged Council to allow the provision for one year\nand revisit the matter to see if stricter provisions are needed.\nMayor Spencer stated that the entire document is because of outliers; she feels even\nthough the issues would impact a small percentage, the problem is significant.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated outlier landlords, not tenants, brought the City to\nthis position.\nMayor Spencer stated there needs to be an administrative regulation or something clear\nthat there is an agreement; the tenant is choosing time or money and the legal\narrangement carries weight.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff is aware of the issue and will draft a\ndocument with the strongest language possible that is permissible; documentation that\npeople have paid their relocation benefits is required so there will be a way to track the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 28, "text": "data to know if it becomes an issue.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the language will state that tenants have to leave on a certain\ndate, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's proposal as long as the end result is\nsomething that is enforceable.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the document will have the\nstrongest possible language that is legally permissible.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether on the language regarding the housing provider's\nfailure to provide, which is Section 6-58.180, shall render the housing provider liable to\nactual and punitive damages.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the first year of the program, the City needs\nto exercise discretion over enforcement and how quick penalties are to assessed;\ninquired about Section 6-58.17.C.\nMayor Spencer responded the whole section is being stricken because a program fee\nhas not been discussed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded allowing a grace period the first year that the\nprogram goes into effect seems reasonable; read from the ordinance and listed several\nof the fine amounts.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Section 6-58.180 should read may, not shall.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded it should remain shall; stated the wording is\nstandard; the first fine could be suspended in the first year if there are no other\nviolations.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff could do so.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council could direct staff to apply some\ndiscretion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether doing so could be done without changing the\nordinance; stated the word \"therefor\" in Section 6-58.185 for should read just \"for\"; she\nagrees with staff's recommendation with striking the word therefor and using discretion\nin the first year.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested enforcement take effect in six months.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the reality is there will be a learning curve and staff is\nnot out to cite people the first time there is a slight mishap.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 29, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether decisions could be appealed to Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is a separate hearing officer process; the\ncitation procedure will go to a hearing officer who will determine if the violation occurred\nand the hearing officer can use discretion when imposing a fine.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's proposal.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with staff's proposal.\nMayor Spencer inquired what \"garden cottage\" refers to, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded that it implies a smaller or second unit in someone's\nbackyard.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation; a means test would\nbe a substantial change.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a means test would add further complications with\nadministering the program; the amount of rent someone is paying for the unit they are\nliving in is like a means test; the condition of the units is relative to what they pay.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting to the next regular\nscheduled Council meeting.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to address everyone's needs; she\nfeels the ordinance addresses the needs of both groups; an annual review will be done\nthat will provide valuable data and modifications can be made as needed; the City is not\ndoing rent control; complaints about Victorian properties being expensive to maintain\ncan be brought to the RRAC and the RRAC can review costs and possibly grant the\nrequest, so landlords should go to the RRAC to increase over 5%; landlords have been\ngiven no cause evictions with a provision to also protect tenants with the relocation\nbenefits; sunset provision is fair; in 3 years, the City Council could come back and\nrevisit the issue; read Section 6-58.85 regarding committee hearing and decision; stated\nthat she would like a checklist so that everyone has the same experience at the RRAC\nand to ensure the same data is collected.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there could be a form, to which the Community Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the RRAC meeting is contested the paperwork\ncould be used.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 30, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired if there are any objections from Council, to which Council\nresponded there are no objections.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the form would not change the ordinance, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested Committee hearings and decisions be\nclarified; stated if a tenant has requested the Committee to review a rent increase, the\nCommittee's decision will be non-binding on the parties; there needs to be a sentence\nthat explains it more clearly; a tenant could initiate the RRAC proceeding but the\nlandlord still has the right to increase rent above 5%.\nThe Community Development Director responded for rent increases of 5% or less, the\ncase has to be initiated by the tenant; the RRAC decision is non-binding and there is no\nrecourse to a hearing officer, but there is recourse to the City Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council only gave the right to go to binding\narbitration for increases above 5%.\nThe Community Development Director stated language could be inserted that for\nincreases of 5% or less the Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties.\nMayor Spencer stated it could say for rent increases of less than 5% arbitration is not\navailable.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff work out the wording for clarification.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is nothing would prevent a tenant and\nlandlord from arriving at a rent increase less than the maximum rent increase; nothing\nprecludes reaching an agreement before the Committee hearing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the tenant can request Committee review of a rent\nincrease pursuant to Section 6-58.70, which says the tenant may request the\nCommittee review rent increase under 5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the decision is non-binding.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated language could be inserted into Section 6-58.70.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is agreeable to said suggestion.\nThe Community Development Director responded the section would read: if the tenant\nhas requested the Committee to review the rent increase pursuant to Section 6-58.70,\nthe Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 31, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is nothing preventing the parties from\nworking out an agreement between themselves.\nMayor Spencer stated the language is just clarification and is not a substantive change.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft Section 6.58-90D on parties failure to appear for the\nhearing; should allow an agent or a designee to attend the hearing; many of the smaller\nlandlords are elderly or live out of town; someone with authority should attend the\nRRAC meeting to bind the owner to what the RRAC recommends.\nMayor Spencer stated that she wants someone with ownership interest.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council agreed to change the requirement; the\npenalty would be if someone attends with no authority to make a decision, then the rent\nincrease is null and void.\nMayor Spencer stated the decision was to have someone with ownership interest; if\nthere is a hardship, then someone else could attend; the default is that it be someone\nwith ownership interest.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated if something prevents the person with ownership interest\nfrom attending, they must send someone who has the authority to act.\nMayor Spencer agreed; stated the default is someone with ownership interest.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a property owner could attend who has no\nknowledge of the day to day operations of the property; questioned what is gained by\nrequiring the owner attend.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the intent is to have larger corporation landlords, who\nwant the 20% rent increases attend the hearing.\nMayor Spencer agreed; stated she is fine with leaving ownership interest.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated to be fair and balanced for both sides, making\nsomeone get on a plane for a 6% rent increase is not justified.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the corporate landlords who want to increase the rent\nshould come justify it; an elderly mom and pop landlord wanting to send their child to\nrepresent them is understandable.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees; if the landlords are elderly or have an issue, it is\nokay to send someone; the default would be to have as many owners show up as\npossible.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft recommended including the disabled as well.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 32, "text": "Councilmember Oddie clarified the point is to not have attorney's coming in arguing for\nthe large corporations.\nThe Community Development Director stated the owner would need to request a\nreasonable accommodation, which would need to be approved by staff.\nMayor Spencer stated ideally, it would have to be someone with ownership interest; in\nher experience with RRAC hearings the property managers say no to everything, she\nwould like someone who is not being paid to show up and be a placeholder; she would\nlike a meaningful mediation.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff could leave the language as is and\ndeal with the idea of a reasonable accommodation as part of the administrative\nregulations.\nMayor Spencer stated all five Councilmembers are in agreeance with doing so.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report indicates the RRAC mediation\nprocess allows consideration of numerous factors; she would like stronger language,\nsuch as must instead of may; she would like to specify the type of documentation that\nwould be acceptable in the bullet points.\nThe Community Development Director stated that the proposed changes would be in\nthe RRAC checklist.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is very important to have specific information\ngathered by the RRAC and specific materials considered; inquired why the RRAC would\nnot be required to consider the same factors that the arbitrator would consider.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff tried to outline the form the RRAC would\nuse; stated the extra items are listed for the arbitrator because it is more complex and\nwould be used by a hearing officer, not the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the extra documentation\nbeing given to a hearing officer; they will have the ability to analyze documents.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated staff did not want to turn the RRAC into a hearing\nprocess; the form requires a certain amount of information that should be ample for the\nCommittee to render a reasonable decision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired regarding the cost related to the hearing officer\nprocess, how staff arrived at the estimate of 20 hearings per year.\nThe Community Development Director responded 20 is a best guess based on other\ncities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 33, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated what is proposed has a number of good protections for\nrenters; there are provisions in the ordinance that he cannot support; he is concerned\nthe cost will make rent rise even more.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue is not being rushed; the process has been 18\nmonths; the ordinance has some very strong tenant protections; he would like to have a\nmodel lease used in the future; he would also like to have more discussion on two\nissues: semi-private mediation and eviction mediation; there should be translation\nservices; people should be educated about the ordinance to prevent landlords from\nmaking mistakes and so tenants understand their rights; there is a housing shortage in\nthe Bay Area; a bill was introduced today to be able to use Boomerang funds for\naffordable housing; his goal is to bring peace, calmness and stability to the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the data in the preemptory clause trends rent of 50 units\nor more apartments; inquired whether there is data for different classes; inquired why\nthere is an absence of data for less than 5 or 6-10 units.\nThe Community Development Director responded the data was taken from the BAE\nUrban Economics Study; stated there is a lack of available data from reliable sources;\ndata is not available for smaller units like it is for larger units.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is data that combines Alameda renter's\nincome trends and rent to income ratio.\nThe Community Development Director responded the income data comes from BAE\nUrban Economics community survey from 2013; stated there no way to correlate the\ndata from the census about income with the census about rising rents.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data from ACS that has the standard\nmonthly rent payment to income.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated there is data\non renter income and data on the rate at which rent is rising, but they are not correlated.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about the mom and pop landlords,\nwhich he defines as 5 or less; under Section 6-58.15 definition of rental units, he wants\nto make sure there is leeway for the RRAC to take into account the small mom and pop\nlandlords; inquired whether language is in the ordinance in the definition of rental units.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated there is not a\ncurrent definition of a mom and pop landlord; the direction received from Council on\nFebruary 2nd was not to address mom and pops in any other way in the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the RRAC considers a landlord's financial position.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n31\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 34, "text": "The Community Development Director listed the factors that have been called out to be\nconsidered by the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a question has been raised by small mom and pop\nlandlords about the inability to distribute costs in similar ways to larger apartments.\nThe Community Development Director stated economies of scale would be an\nappropriate factor for the RRAC to consider; the property owner could state they have a\nlimited number of units across which they could spread their costs.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how costs are treated, in particular, whether the\ntreatment of relocation costs is fixed or scalable; inquired whether Section 6-58.150\nRequired Payment of Relocation Fee has a scalability to it in which the RRAC can\nadjust accordingly.\nThe Community Development Director responded the RRAC only deals with rent\nincreases; stated the RRAC does not deal with the amount of relocation benefits to be\npaid which is a separate issue; the formula is tied to the tenants' length of tenure.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the person who provides the arbitrator would\ndecide how much relocation benefits the tenant receives.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the hearing officer and RRAC\nonly deal with rent increases, not evictions and relocation benefits; stated the\nrecommendation sets the relocation benefits which will not need to be interpreted by\nanyone; the amount is tied to the tenure of the tenant and spelled out in the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether no one who would scale the relocation\nbenefits separate from the formula that is in place in Section 6-58.150; stated what\nbrought the City to this point has been the egregious acts of larger apartments; in the\nlast two years, of the 40 cases that have come before the RRAC, 33 are large\napartments.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of exempting rental units of 5 units or less\nfrom the relocation benefits requirements; having a relocation benefits assistance\nformula for 6 to 10 units, and lowering relocation assistance to 2 months plus $1,500 in\nmoving expenses.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there could be a motion contrary to the first reading.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded if the motion were seconded and accepted, staff\nwould have to revise the ordinance and bring back a first reading at a subsequent\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification from Councilmember Daysog on\nthe motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n32\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 35, "text": "Councilmember Daysog clarified the motion is to exempt parcels with rental units\nconsisting of 5 units or less from the relocation benefits requirement, have a relocation\nbenefits assistance formula for parcels with rentals of 6 to 10 units start with ordinance\nadoption, and lower relocation assistance to 2 months plus $1,500 versus the 4 months\nplus $1,500.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the formula for 6 to 10 units.\nCouncilmember Daysog clarified if the ordinance is adopted, a tenant who has lived in\nthe unit for 5 years is eligible for 4 years' worth of relocation assistance which is fine for\nthe larger apartments to absorb the costs but not for small mom and pop landlords.\nCouncilmember Daysog's motion FAILED for lack of second.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the legislation before the Council is an ordinance that\nprovides protection for only the tenants, not the mom and pop landlords; Council should\nmove forward with the renter protection ordinance; stated in the future he would like to\nsee a renter and small mom and pop landlord protection ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff has two items to clarify: on page 10\nthe intent of Section 6-58.50C is that if the property owner does not properly notice the\nrent increase, that they have the ability to cure and re-notice to have the rent increase\ngo into effect if they re-notice correctly; staff did not pick up that parallel change on page\n14 under Section 6-58-75C, which would read that there would be an opportunity to\ncure an incorrectly noticed rent increase by allowing the landlord to re-notice; on page\n12, Section 6-58.65, units exempt from Costa Hawkins and requesting a rent increase\nover 5%, must have increases go into effect at the effective date of the notice, after the\nRRAC process; language needs to be relocated to make it clear.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the proposed language is moving the underlined\nSection 6-58.65 that says: \"Unless you and your housing provider agree, the rent\nincrease will not go into effect until the committee reviews the rent increase.\"\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the change is State law.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on whether Council would\nintroduce the ordinance and take a separate vote to adopt the resolution adopting policy\nconcerning CIP.\nMayor Spencer stated the CIP is not being discussed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n33\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 36, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.\nThe Community Development Director stated the matter will be back March 1, 2016 for\na second reading of the ordinance and to extend the moratorium for 22 more days until\nthe ordinance can go into effect; staff can expand the item to include the resolution on\nthe CIP, which does not need to be effective until the ordinance is effective.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the CIP resolution only requires one reading.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nappropriation of funds also has to be discussed.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting on the CIP.\nThe motion FAILED for lack of a second.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that if the meeting is continued, it would not be subject\nto public comment.\nMayor Spencer stated the second reading cannot be continued; inquired if the meeting\ncould be continued to 6:00 p.m. on March 1st to address the CIP and the appropriation.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the resolution and the\nappropriation are not required to be done at a regularly scheduled meeting so Council\ncould start early.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there was no public comment on the CIP or the fee.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether public comment could be allowed at the continuation\nmeeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified if the Council wants to continue the item to a date\ncertain or the next meeting, public comment would not be required because the matter\nhas already come before the public at a public hearing.\nMayor Spencer stated there will need to be public comment on the ordinance second\nreading; she would like to continue this part of the item to an hour before the March 1st\nregular meeting; then, have the second reading and public comment on the second\nreading at the regular meeting.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a time has to be picked; she inquired on how much\ntime would be needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nwas needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThe City Clerk stated there is no closed session on March 1st\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n34\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 37, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired how much time is anticipated to finish the CIP and the\nappropriation of funds.\nThe Community Development Director responded the discussion would also include the\nprogram fee; she estimates one hour to one and a half hours.\nMayor Spencer suggested continuing the meeting until 5:30 p.m. on March 1st, then\nhold the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThe Community Development Director stated extension of the urgency ordinance\nextending the moratorium would be discussed at the regular meeting.\nAt 2:38 a.m., Mayor Spencer continued the meeting to March 1, 2016 at 5:30 p.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\n35\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}