pages: CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-03-01 | 3 | Councilmember Oddie that stated he is concerned that the provision of returning to the improved unit is not spelled out in the plan; there are no time limits on improvements; inquired how will a reasonable improvement and time frame be determined. The Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator would render judgments on the CIP, including the decisions regarding appropriate rent increase, whether or not a temporary or permanent relocation is required, and the length of time reasonable to make the improvements. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned there are no standards; a temporary relocation could turn into a huge loophole for mass evictions if the improvements take an excessive amount of time; he would like to see a provision allowing a tenant to move back in to the improved unit without an excessive amount of time. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated that she finished the CIP portion of the presentation. Mayor Spencer stated Council agreed to bifurcate the CIP and appropriation issues since they are two separate votes. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the termination of tenancy and relocation should be a mediated process; every case is different; a City Program Administrator be a daunting task; temporary relocation depends on the case and the relationships between the landlord and tenant; that he strongly believes in a mediated, instead of mandated, approach; there is some protection of limiting activity by presenting a real plan. The Community Development Director stated a staff person approving a CIP is more appropriate because there are technical aspects to the review and approval of a CIP; a Program Administrator has the expertise that the RRAC does not; each proposed CIP would be evaluated on its merits alone so the process would be done on a case-by- case basis. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Vice Mayor Matarrese's proposal, but that she would be reluctant to have items decided by the RRAC; suggested a mediator instead. The Community Development Director stated a staff person who would have the technical expertise has been proposed, but if Council decides a mediator could contribute to the analysis of the technical documents, staff could contract for the service. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether only the portion within the prime interest rate is subject to be recovered by rent. Continued February 16, 2016 Meeting Alameda City Council 3 March 1, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf |