pages: CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 17 | The Assistant City Attorney stated there seems to be Council support for the no cause evictions subject to a limitation percentage, providing relocation assistance, and the new tenant would not pay more than a certain percent above the current tenant. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney means "no fault" instead of "no cause". The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated under the proposed Ordinances 1 and 2, no cause evictions trigger relocation assistance. Councilmember Daysog stated doing everything possible with regard to just cause evictions for tenants and doing everything possible for mom and pop landlords is important; he likes the idea of movement on the landlord side toward binding arbitration; the administrative costs collected should be focused on a higher threshold than one to two percent increases; the key point is that there is some consensus on binding arbitration; the way relocation assistance is currently identified in Ordinances 1 and 2 is a welcome and important policy step. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated his preference is to build on the RRAC process, adding as little to the process as possible, but take advantage of its effectiveness; of the 61 total cases mediated by RRAC, five of them made it to Council, indicating there is some success with the current process; the first modification he would like to see is to broaden the scope of the committee to include eviction issues without including a threshold for cause or no cause; either party should have the opportunity to go through a mediation process regarding an eviction; the second is to include professional mediation before the issue is handed over to a community committee for a final decision, which should be included as part of the formal process; there have been a number of cases withdrawn because of informal mediation, which is valuable; he would like to see a robust appeal process incorporated before resorting to a hearing process; the RRAC track record looks good. The Community Development Director stated staff determined sending the evictions to the RRAC does not serve a purpose since the ordinance enumerates the basis for evictions; staff believes enumerating the basis on which evictions could happen and providing specific reasons in the ordinance that constitute "for cause", "no cause", and "no fault" is more efficient; staff is also concerned with the RRAC interfering with the legal process of serving an unlawful detainer. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like the RRAC to mediate cases covered by State law to address the issue of the amount of time needed and relocation within the confines of a mediation, not embedded in an ordinance. The Community Development Director stated there would be nothing left to interpret or decide if relocation benefits are clearly spelled out in the ordinance, which would be more streamlined; the RRAC process has been historically focused on mediating Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 January 5, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |