pages: CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf, 34
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 34 | The Community Development Director listed the factors that have been called out to be considered by the RRAC. Councilmember Daysog stated a question has been raised by small mom and pop landlords about the inability to distribute costs in similar ways to larger apartments. The Community Development Director stated economies of scale would be an appropriate factor for the RRAC to consider; the property owner could state they have a limited number of units across which they could spread their costs. Councilmember Daysog inquired how costs are treated, in particular, whether the treatment of relocation costs is fixed or scalable; inquired whether Section 6-58.150 Required Payment of Relocation Fee has a scalability to it in which the RRAC can adjust accordingly. The Community Development Director responded the RRAC only deals with rent increases; stated the RRAC does not deal with the amount of relocation benefits to be paid which is a separate issue; the formula is tied to the tenants' length of tenure. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the person who provides the arbitrator would decide how much relocation benefits the tenant receives. The Community Development Director responded that the hearing officer and RRAC only deal with rent increases, not evictions and relocation benefits; stated the recommendation sets the relocation benefits which will not need to be interpreted by anyone; the amount is tied to the tenure of the tenant and spelled out in the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether no one who would scale the relocation benefits separate from the formula that is in place in Section 6-58.150; stated what brought the City to this point has been the egregious acts of larger apartments; in the last two years, of the 40 cases that have come before the RRAC, 33 are large apartments. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of exempting rental units of 5 units or less from the relocation benefits requirements; having a relocation benefits assistance formula for 6 to 10 units, and lowering relocation assistance to 2 months plus $1,500 in moving expenses. Mayor Spencer inquired if there could be a motion contrary to the first reading. The Assistant City Attorney responded if the motion were seconded and accepted, staff would have to revise the ordinance and bring back a first reading at a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification from Councilmember Daysog on the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 February 16, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |