pages: CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 11 | stated the amount should not include any loan fees or interest; as-written, it is not clear that the interest is not part of the pass-through; the Culver City program includes language which precludes any maintenance projects due to wear and tear or due to landlord neglect; there have been comments alluding to landlords purposefully neglecting buildings in order to pass-through repair cost; expressed support for not penalizing good landlords; stated staff brought back what Council previously requested; the matter is complicated; there is time; inquired who oversees appeals. Special Counsel responded appeals and handled by the Hearing Officer; stated the City has a panel of 3 to 4 Hearing Officers that hear complaints from tenants or fair return petitions from landlords; Hearing Officers are well versed in rent control law; the ordinance provides that the Program Administrator is not to give any consideration to any additional costs a landlord incurs for property damage or deterioration due to an unreasonable delay in the undertaking or completion of any improvement or repair; the ordinance language is intended to deal with situations where a landlord puts off reasonable improvements; staff can look at the Culver City language and create more specific language. Vice Mayor Vella stated Council is discussing sending the matter back with potential changes and alternatives; expressed support for discussing the timeline and when the matter will return to Council, and for removing the fees and interest from the total calculation; stated there have been questions relative to the definitions used in the proposed policy and other policies relative to relocation; expressed support for staff reviewing the questions raised and using the same definitions in the ordinances; stated there have been questioned raised about the language relative to defining Capital Improvement; the comments related to the Culver City language are helpful in defining what constitutes a Capital Improvement; there is interest in clarifying what a CIP is; there are concerns about making the ordinance too subjective and the definitions narrow; the ordinance is 33 pages long and is not simple or easy to follow; expressed concern about creating a complicated and difficult to follow process; expressed support for staff addressing all issues; stated Council should discuss how to boil the matter down; expressed support for a one-page document accompanying the final document, which refers to sections of the ordinance; questioned what will constitute a reasonable delay or greater damage to property and what the 5% amount applies to; stated that she understands the 5% is of the rent not the CIP, which should be defined more clearly; stated unreasonable delay and who decides an unreasonable delay must be defined clearly; she understands the Hearing Officer will define unreasonable delay; questioned the documentation needed for unreasonable delay. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the matter returning with further clarification and substantiation as to the threshold to be used; stated whatever number is used will need to be further substantiated with a range of data with respect to examples of upgrade costs; some upgrades are noted as not being able to reach the threshold; smaller mom and pop landlords may have a difficult time reaching thresholds; however, larger landlords with 50 or more units may not; expressed support for modeling how the different thresholds apply to different size landlords. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated if the City is trying to encourage maintenance of rental properties, she would like to see analysis that demonstrates the proposed formula will Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |