pages: CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 10 | the time to move the matter forward; at some point, the City will have to modify the CIP; expressed support for the City working with smaller mom and pop landlords when the time comes to modify the CIP; stated the Council can consider the matter in 18 months. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated based on public comment, neither side seem supportive; requested staff to clarify the reasons the matter is appropriate; questioned whether staff understood the opposition prior to the comments. Special Counsel stated staff understood concern from both sides; Council previously directed staff to return; staff had an obligation to bring the matter for consideration; the current policy is too onerous for both landlords and tenants; if a CIP is approved under the current policy, the result is not a pass-through, but a rent increase and is added to tenants' base-rent and can have a cumulative effect; staff desired to move away from the current process and provide a more traditional pass-through; provisions limiting pass-through amounts prevent landlords from placing increases annually or bi-annually; staff understood the proposal would not be embraced by either the landlord or tenant groups; however, there was an obligation to bring the matter back for consideration; staff vetted the matter with both groups and attempted to address concerns from both sides; the policy decision is up to Council. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she thinks staff will need to return again with another proposal; expressed support for multiple options being provided for consideration in the future. Councilmember Knox White stated some people are concerned that the proposed matter has pass-throughs similar to San Francisco which allows a pass-through for many different types of fees and taxes; requested clarification about the pass-throughs. Special Counsel stated the landlord would be limited to 5% of the rent regardless of the amount of CIP improvements; the amortization period may extend to longer than 15 years; however, the proposed ordinance requires the cap of 5%; the improvements must be substantial such as foundation work, Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, pet damage, water conservation systems and updating units to provide accessibility; the program is limited and is not a pass-through for taxes or other fees and charges and is limited to the CIP improvements identified in the ordinance. Councilmember Knox White stated Council previously made amendments to the ordinance to set the time to initiate pass-throughs as one-year after the local emergency; the matter can come back without any delay in actual implementation; the recommendation is the second part of a two-part decision made in September 2019 when Alameda had moved from rent stabilization to a rent control regime with a significant Annual General Adjustment (AGA); Council gave direction to come back to ensure there was a CIP process allowing people to maintain some level of return for large projects; expressed concern about someone with less units having a harder time qualifying for the larger expenses; stated should Council send the matter back for additional thought and consideration, he would like to understand the options to ensure a balance in access for both large and small landlords; the Culver City program is tighter and stricter; however, a couple points could be good for consideration; expressed support for the total cost of the project amount being the total; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |