Title
Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 16, 2026. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday- -June 16, 2026- -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.
Absent: Councilmember Jensen - 1.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(26- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a); Case Name: Sean Gillion v. City of Alameda; Court: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB); Case No: ADJ20098155.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the Acting City Clerk announced that regarding Existing Litigation, this case involves a worker’s compensation claim for cancer filed by Sean Gillion, a former employee of the Fire Department who served approximately 26 years with the City; Mr. Gillion passed away shortly after filing his claim; the Council has authorized the City Attorney to settle Mr. Gillion’s claim in an amount not to exceed $200,000 by unanimous voice vote - 4.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ashley Zieba
Acting City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday- -June 16, 2026- -7:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, Pryor, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
Agenda Changes
The Acting City Clerk announced the Presentation of Domestic Violence Prevention [paragraph no. 26- ] would not be heard.
Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
(26- ) Presentation of Domestic Violence Prevention Video by Alameda Family Services Youth Advisory Board. Not heard.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
(26- ) Ralph Walker, Alameda, expressed concerns over the track program at Encinal High School and his experience at a recent Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Board Meeting.
(26- ) Joe Zimmerman, Alameda, expressed concern over the City’s use of the Pride Flag.
Consent Calendar
The Acting City Clerk announced the five public hearings [paragraph nos. 26- , 26- , 26- , 26- , and 26- ].
Did not address the Consent Calendar: Karin Kirschbaum, Alameda.
To avoid any appearance of conflict, Councilmember Boller recused himself from the Memorandum of Understanding with the District Attorney [paragraph no. 26- ] since that is his employer.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*26- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 19, 2026. Approved.
(*26- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,327,355.19.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Bike East Bay for Bicycle Safety Education Classes and Workshops and Bike to Wherever Day Coordination for a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $39,000. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter to Increase Fiscal Year 2025-26 Expenditures by $175,000, for a Total of $1,390,165 in Fiscal Year 2025-26 and a Total 10-Year Agreement Not-to-Exceed $12,203,331. Accepted.
(26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Execute a Three-Year Memorandum of Understanding with Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for Access to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Case Management System, (RD3) Intake and Charging Module For $72,000 a Year and Not-to-Exceed $216,000 for Three Years. Accepted.
Since Councilmember Boller recused himself, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Boller - 1.]
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with LWP Claims Solutions, Inc. for Professional Services as the Third-Party Administrator of the City of Alameda’s Self-Insured Workers’ Compensation Program in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,306,453 for Five Years, Plus Related Medical Containment Costs and Program Charges. Accepted.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16411, “Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda’s Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution No. 16176.” Adopted.
(*26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Collecting the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fees on the Property Tax Bills; and
(*26- A) Resolution No. 16412, “[No] Majority Protest and Approving the Continuation and Collection of the Existing 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee for Fiscal Year 2026-27.” Adopted.
(*26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 16413, “Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).” Adopted.
(*26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 16414, “Dissolving Zone 7 of the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District, 84-2.” Adopted.
(26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 16415, “Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zones 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8.” Adopted.
Since Councilmembers Boller and Daysog recused themselves, the item carried by unanimous vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Boller and Daysog - 2.]
(*26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Any Written or Oral Comments on the Summary Report Associated with the Economic Development Subsidy to be Provided to the Oakland Roots & Soul in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $150,000 in Support of a World Cup Team at an Alameda Facility during the World Cup Tournament in Summer 2026.
Continued Agenda Items
None.
Regular Agenda Items
(26- ) Resolution No. 16416, “Reappointing John Lipp as a Member of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.” Adopted; and
(26- A) Resolution No. 16417, “Reappointing Jane Schmitz as a Member of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.” Adopted; and
(26- B) Resolution No. 16418, “Reappointing Yatin Shastri as a Member of the Golf Commission.” Adopted; and
(26- C) Resolution No. 16419, “Reappointing Elise Hunter as a Member of the Public Utilities Board.” Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of resolutions.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The Acting City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
Mr. Lipp and Ms. Hunter made brief comments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the City’s receipt of the Citywide Equitable Decarbonization Program award.
(26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Marina Master Plan to Modify the Affordable Housing Requirement for Phase III of Alameda Marina Master Plan to Decrease the Required Number of Affordable Housing Units.
The Planner II gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry regarding very low-income requirements for the proposed project, the Planner II stated the inclusionary requirement approved by Council earlier in the month modified the percentage requirements; the initial two phases of the project were entitled and constructed under the previous 15% requirement threshold; the final portion is being considered independently to comply with the new 8% requirement threshold.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how the 8% threshold will be established in the future or whether the amount can be amended to further reduce the inclusionary housing requirements.
The Planner II responded the expectation is that no further amendments will be made to the Master Plan; stated other projects going forward will have the option to comply with one of the three pathways available for inclusionary housing.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the 8% inclusionary housing requirement would be for very low-income, to which the Planner II responded in the affirmative.
Discussed the Planning Board approval; stated the project is in its fourth round of review for the plan check phase; the project utilizes Option 3 requiring 8% very low-income units; the project will include 21-very low units that are desperately needed; expressed support for the City’s partnership: Sean Murphy, Alameda Pacific Development.
Did not address the matter: Karin Kirchbaum, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the developer and the work being done; stated the project is more than just housing; the project also includes commercial and maritime space, shoreline open space and a 530-slip marina; noted much of the work being done is to protect against sea-level rise in the project area as well as surrounding areas; discussed the League of California Cities Housing Community and Economic Development Policy Committee; stated Council unanimously approved the change to the inclusionary housing ordinance; Council’s goal must be to get housing built; expressed concern over putting forth expectations that cannot be met by developers; stated the actions would not serve anyone’s best interests; ordinances are passed at a point in time, yet nothing is fixed when economic circumstances change; the moderate income rate is being served by other market rate units which are affordable by-design; there is a need for very-low income units which are being proposed; the proposal is very reasonable and she is prepared to support.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is excited for Alameda to reclaim the location on the shoreline; discussed a recent Grand Street event; expressed support for the project location bringing more people to the area and making the section of Alameda more exciting; stated the phase of the project is important and he supports the project moving forward.
Councilmember Boller concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Daysog; stated the project has been on a long road; the project has multiple recreational uses, and environmental infrastructure coupled with important housing needs, and has a lot of work to still accomplish; the matter is an important step, especially with many economic constraints present; expressed support for the plan.
Vice Mayor Pryor concurred; stated that she is very excited about the project; she has viewed the project and is heartened by knowing that people will qualify for units under very-low income; expressed support for sharing the space and sending a vital message to families that they are important and matter; stated the amenities are amazing and she supports the approach Alameda has towards housing without the stigma of segregation or clusters of previous decades; expressed support for the project.
Councilmember Jensen expressed support for the project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the 30-day statute for the ordinance and the overlap in effective dates.
The Planner II stated Council finally passed the inclusionary housing ordinance at the June 2, 2026 meeting; the ordinance will take effect on July 2, 2026; this ordinance will be finally passed at the July 7, 2026 Council meeting and take effect 30-days after, which is past the effective date of the inclusionary housing ordinance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated any request of the Council to approve the developer’s requested decrease is dependent on the inclusionary housing ordinance amendment becoming effective after completion of the 30-day statute of limitations; inquired whether the effective date is July 2, 2026, to which the Planner II responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction of related ordinance].
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(26- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Prohibit the Use of Ratio Utility Billing Systems for Utility Charges and Providing a Process for Landlords to Receive a One-Time Utility Adjustment for Rent.
Councilmember Boller recused himself since he is a residential landlord and left the dais.
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted staff needs 15 minutes for the presentation.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved approval of allowing 15 minutes for staff to present.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Boller -1.]
***
The Rent Program Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry related to filing a fair rate of return petition, the Rent Program Director stated a form is available on the Rent Program website and in the City Hall West lobby; the form is extensive and its purpose is to document a rental property’s total net income, cost, and expenses in both a base year and current year; the costs are compared with inflation; noted Hearing Officers do have discretion in a fair return petition hearing, but the general assumption is that the landlord will use the concept of maintenance of net operating income; landlords should look at the calculation of net operating income compared to changes with inflation to see whether the landlord is still getting the same income as before rent control regulations took place.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether a landlords’ income is not allowed to increase each year and must have a base income that remains the same as Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated in order to be approved for an upward rent adjustment, landlords must show that their net operating income is increasing at a rate that is less than inflation over-time.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry regarding a landlord’s process for utility cost increases and the fair return petition process, the Rent Program Director stated an upward rent adjustment after the utility costs have been rolled into rent, would require a full fair return petition process to document the complete net income and expenses; the approach is meant to demonstrate that the utility costs have affected the calculation and therefore the landlord is entitled to an additional upward rent adjustment.
The City Attorney stated should the ordinance be passed, the landlord will have two choices: 1) to perform a roll-in or 2) implement separate metering; a landlord could choose to implement separate metering and pass-through the related costs as capital improvements; should a landlord take the separate meter approach, all utility increases will be absorbed by the tenant(s) in the future; the option is another way for the landlord to protect themselves from future utility increases.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether capital improvement costs can be passed through by any landlord in Alameda or are there other restrictions in place.
The Rent Program Director responded Council approved changes to the capital improvement policy in 2023; stated a policy decision was made to limit the option to rental properties with fewer than 25 rental units; staff is making an exception to the cap only in the case of separate sub-meter installation, which is available to properties of all sizes.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether landlords are only allowed to increase base rent by Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in the following year after rolling in utilities to the base rent once the Ratio Utility Billing Systems (RUBS) is eliminated, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the landlord would have no option to increase rent over the year or in the following year further than the AGI unless a fair return petition is filed, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there have been 64 RUBS-related inquiries by tenants over four years.
The Rent Program Director responded the 64 inquiries included other utility inquiries which were not necessarily related to RUBS and more regarding the validity of utility charges.
Councilmember Daysog stated the amount averages 16 inquiries per year; inquired whether the number of rental units employing the RUBS approach, as the staff report estimates roughly 14% of rental units in Alameda.
The Rent Program Director responded that he does not have high confidence in the accuracy of the percentage amount; stated the percent is based on a survey conducted for staff to gauge general sentiment; the amount is a small sample size compared to the total number of rental units in the City.
Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report does not include an estimate of the costs associated with metering; inquired the average cost to purchase the equipment and labor to install.
The Rent Program Director responded staff’s understanding is that the cost can be expensive and run roughly several tens of thousands of dollars depending on the size of the property, and electric versus water meters; staff’s assumption is that the cost will be a large expense which makes the project a good candidate for capital improvement.
Urged Council reject the ban on RUBS; stated RUBS is one of the few practical tools available to allocate shared utility costs and provides a connection between consumption and cost; RUBS encourages residents to conserve water and energy, report leaks, and use resources more responsibly; the policy change is significant, but no analysis has been conducted; urged transparency be provided; discussed the City of San Jose changing its RUBS ban: Jennifer Rizzo, California Apartment Association, Alameda.
Stated that he is a renter within a property of 41 rental units; many of the current billing systems do not show an individual user under RUBS or the total cost breakdown for utilities; stated that his RUBS charges occur one to two months in arrears; charge breakdowns are only available by contacting property management and have not been received; the costs do not fluctuate even when tenancy does; urged Council approve Option C: Timothy Hilton, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff’s work on the complicated topic; stated the matter is regarding fundamental fairness for both renters and landlords; expressed concern over the system being used as a runaround for the City’s rent control ordinance; stated Alameda’s rent program provides education for both landlords and tenants and has reduced housing insecurity and homelessness by making tenants aware of rights; she believes landlords want to do the right thing and they are able to attend various educational forums; she does not understand the assertions made about the City of San Jose from an environmental standpoint; noted people knowing their utility bills or wanting to be better stewards of the environment, would be motivation needed to keep track; stated more renters will likely become aware of the situation based on the local media; expressed support for keeping people housed; stated there is need for rental units marked as very-low income; noted that she did not support the capital improvement program due to improvement costs being passed through to tenants who will not gain the benefit over-time; stated the ideal scenario for most landlords would be to have their tenant pay for half the cost of a separate utility meter as well as the tenant paying for utility costs being metered; expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Pryor expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that she does not think there will be a preferred solution and Option C is currently the best; noted the term transparency has been proposed by public speakers as well as within Option A; stated if transparency were easy, the process would already be in place; stated it is uncomfortable for tenants to be charged fees without knowing why or how much; expressed concern for tenants being charged fees two months later; noted business is not conducted in that manner and people typically know what is being paid for; the topic of transparency is the biggest issue and part of the reason for supporting the ban on RUBS; the rollout is fair for all parties and allows for a process; should a water or utility bill increase by 50%, a landlord can easily prove the increase; the rollout will help provide predictability to a renter; noted many renters are one paycheck away from being homeless and predictability for bills provides more peace of mind; having a bill increase by $200 per month is a $2,400 per year cost and a lot of money for some families.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Alameda renter deserves transparency when it comes to costs and the focus should be on transparency in costs; expressed support for a RUBS system which is more transparent than what is currently in place; stated there is a challenge in holding workshops to figure out how to make the information more readily available to the renters that ultimately pay the associated bills; renters would like to see a more transparent system and know what they are paying for; Council is contemplating significant changes to the City’s rental regime when the data shows on average only 16 people per year have come forth to the Rent Control division; he is not convinced that with 16 concerns regarding how their utilities are being charged, that the amount rises to the level of performing a change to the rent regime; expressed support for working toward more transparency for the RUBS.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Councilmember Daysog would go about making the RUBS system more transparent, to which Councilmember Daysog responded that he would rely on staff’s assistance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Councilmember Daysog has indicated the City should have a more transparent RUBS system than currently exists; staff and renters have indicated third party billers are the ones who handle billing and are hard to reach for renters and City staff; there has been a case ongoing for 16 months; inquired whether the City has any control over third party billers, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is some way the City could have control, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would rely on the guidance from City staff, including the City Attorney’s office, the rental community, and the apartment association; it is worth the time to measure twice before cutting once; the City is making tremendous policy change over 16 concerns per year on average and a lack of understanding of the associated costs including the cost of installing meter equipment; renters require more transparency; he turns to staff to perform more analysis and return to Council.
The City Attorney stated often times, staff receives one complaint from a building with 100 units; the 99 colleagues that remain are still experiencing the same problem; there are likely 3,200 units impacted while experiencing the same issue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a way for the City to make the RUBS system more transparent.
The Rent Program Director responded once staff completed outreach, a decision was made to focus on Option C; stated there are some good local options, such as Los Angeles, which provide a ban on RUBS with additional transparency and would be a good model to look at; staff did not focus on other agencies once Option C was endorsed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Los Angeles proposal.
The Rent Program Director stated that he will need a little time to bring up the proposal.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the 3,200 unfairly impacted RUBS units are an estimate, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff is extrapolating when one tenant in a 100-unit building complains, there is no reason to believe that the other 99 tenants are not being affected; RUBS is implemented in a similar way across the building.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether there is a way for staff to be more precise, to which the City Attorney responded extreme amounts of resources would need to be expended; stated staff would have to physically contact tenants; the process would be an extreme use of resources.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether landlords submit AGAs annually, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the AGA increase happens automatically or whether the landlord must submit paperwork, documentation, or any information about tenants.
The City Attorney responded should a landlord choose to increase rent, they will have to file proformas with the Rent Program for the increases; stated the filing is part of the annual rent registry process.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the amount would be reviewed using staff resources, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated to some extent, algorithmic resources as well.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the approach of asking landlords how utilities are distributed or whether they have a separate meter would be burdensome, to which the City Attorney responded the approach is not currently part of the rent registration process; stated landlords do not report RUBS information.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she understands the current registration process; questioned whether landlords must report number of units, rent being charged, and whether units are vacant as part of the rent registry.
The Rent Program Director responded landlords must currently report the rent amounts, whether a unit is tenant-occupied, vacant, or owner-occupied, and new tenancies are required to report which housing services are included with the base rent and could include selecting utilities.
Councilmember Jensen stated there appears to be some data that is collected for new tenants regarding whether utilities are included with base rent, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether new tenants would have more information about whether they are being charged RUBS.
The Rent Program Director responded ideally every tenant would have a good understanding of exactly what their rental agreement includes; stated staff often finds that tenants do not have a good understanding or there is no written lease agreement; there have been instances of verbal agreements for rent payments over the years; there is a wide range.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether new tenants would understand whether they are being charged RUBS or whether utilities are included in the base rent amount.
The Rent Program Director responded one of the things the Rent Program does each year, after the annual rent registration closes, is to send an advisory letter to tenants which reports what the landlord reported to the Rent Program during registration.
The Rent Program Analyst stated the letter is not sent annually; the initial registration for tenancy does not tell staff whether there is a RUBS system present or how it works; the data is not collected by staff.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether there is an annual letter sent to all tenants, to which the Rent Program Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated staff annually sends out a rent notification advisory to every fully regulated unit.
Councilmember Jensen stated it is understood that the City does not have all data but it would not be completely impossible to send a letter to tenants asking if they know how they are paying for utilities.
The Rent Program Director stated the approach is possible; staff can include an insert with the annual mailing requesting participation in a survey to provide the utility information; staff previously included inserts with the annual mailing.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she understands the issue at-hand; a tenant should know whether RUBS is being used; an increase of one fourth or one fifth for utilities, should not be happening; she does not understand how landlords could re-allocate costs when utility fees decrease with vacant units; there is not quite enough information regarding how often an incorrect allocation of costs is occurring, however, 64 complaints is a lot; there have also been concerns raised by landlords that the approach will reduce their ability to provide housing in Alameda; concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft that expanding housing options and keeping tenants housed is a huge priority; the Rent Program is terrific, but she shares concerns from landlords regarding the ban on RUBS; the ban might be necessary but she has not received the data that the ban on RUBS will not impact available housing, and that landlords will not be impacted to a degree where they might not provide housing; the number of tenants being impacted is not persuasive at this time; noted Councilmember Daysog has recommended staff return to Council after performing research.
Councilmember Daysog stated the focus of the research should address coming up with a model where the City addresses the question of transparency and what tenants see on their bills.
The Rent Program Director stated some of the items included in the Los Angeles proposal are disclosure requirements for clear, written billing methods, itemized breakdown of charges clearly explaining the calculation methodology, and stating the administrative fees; noted the administrative fees had not been addressed in the staff report but is another common complaint about RUBS; hidden administrative fees can increase at any given time; stated the frequency of billing, providing access to master meter billing statements, and a dispute resolution process should also be included as is in the Los Angeles rent ordinance.
Councilmember Jensen stated the parameters of the Los Angeles ordinance are not being proposed under the current staff recommendation; expressed support for more safeguards and disclosures being included for staff to present.
The City Attorney stated disclosing the fees does not mean the fees are charged currently, which is one of the staff concerns; a landlord could disclose and charge massive fees; the result is better than non-disclosure, however, the approach does not solve the fundamental problem of the tenant paying higher rent.
Councilmember Jensen stated staff has reported there may be fair return petition alternatives to Los Angeles, such as having a streamlined petition for insurance or utilities; the disclosure requirements in Los Angeles are another alternative that she would like to hear more about before supporting the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Los Angeles does not currently have a rent ordinance, the matter is up for consideration; there is no track record.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated Council recently voted for and approved very-low income housing options; Council has also supported renter protections; it is clear that the renter protections are incomplete; her priority is to keep people housed and not to ensure people make a giant return on their investment as a luxury; she does not have any adversity toward landlords but there is a housing crisis and she does not fear that landlords will be unable to fill their rental units; she does not fear for landlords, she fears for the 53% of Alameda renters; 64 reports only shows the tip of the iceberg; questioned when the amount of reporting or the amount of those experiencing homelessness would be enough for the City to do something; expressed support for more information being provided; questioned what the City is waiting for; stated there is a housing crisis, and it is expensive to keep people in their homes; if the City is being transparent, the actions would already be taking place; over 99% of landlords are good people but there are bad actors and people who are exploiting renters; expressed concerns over where renters can go when the Bay Area is the most expensive place to live; stated renters do not have many options; renter protections are incomplete and the proposed ban fills a gap; the staff recommendation is not perfect but needs to be approved; expressed concern over waiting for 500 complaints; stated 64 incidents are enough to indicate that something needs to be done today.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes City staff are conscientious and that the statistics in the staff report are true; the round numbers presented are shocking; the majority of landlords are reputable and want to do the right thing; it is reasonable to assume people should be responsible for paying their own utilities; Council can separately revisit the rent ordinance at some point to see whether there are enough protections for small landlords should it be necessary; she believes that the 64 renters are the tip of the iceberg; a system needs to be put in place to protect everyone, including reputable landlords; surveying all tenants requesting vacant units is asking a lot; the proposal is a reasonable solution for a problem which is significant and affecting housing security for renters; expressed support for Council considering the staff recommendation; stated that she wonders whether 64 instances is not enough or whether the principle being addressed is more important.
Councilmember Jensen stated if the amount represented 64 out of 100, the amount is terrible however, Council does not know whether the amount is 64 out of 5,400; not having the data and without knowing how pervasive, RUBS becomes challenging; expressed support for the comments provided by Vice Mayor Pryor regarding tenant displacement; questioned how many tenants have been displaced due to unexpected utility cost increases; requested clarification about how the increase would affect someone’s ability to remain housed.
The City Attorney stated that he has an anecdotal reason for the difficulty in finding the number; discussed a rent control litigation case with Carmel Partners; stated the case consisted of many tenants which received rent increases and simply left; tenants do not tell City staff why they are leaving, they simply look at their bill, decide the amount is not affordable, and leave; staff only learned about the issues due to individualized complaints; upon further investigation, staff learned that many people were affected; therein lies the difficulty in collecting data about tenants unable to afford things and leaving; tenants do not report to staff; it is difficult to capture the data.
Councilmember Daysog stated the emphasis should be on making the utility billing process more transparent to renters; Council will amend the larger rent ordinance when relative information unearths egregious situations; the information must first be gathered; in order to gather the information, a more transparent system must be created; renters deserve a more transparent utility billing process.
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she needs additional speaking time.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of 5 additional minutes of speaking time.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Boller - 1.]
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that transparency is always good however, an egregious practice is an egregious practice even when fully disclosed; questioned whether a tenant should have to pay a user fee on top of their utility due to the charges made by third party billers; how can a third party biller be cooperative when the City’s Rent Program staff has yet to close a case that has been continuing for 16 months; stated the City has certain jurisdictions; the City Attorney has pointed out that it is fair to assume the entire building is under the same system; many people live busy lives, which is part of the reason many renters are not present for the meeting; people have jobs and families; there are lots of reasons the numbers might not be as high; questioned whether Council should be content with letting the trend continue; whether Council can come up with a system that benefits all; what would be the harm of ensuring people are really only paying for the utilities they use as a matter of fundamental fairness; stated Council’s heart is in the right place; expressed support for Council coming to an agreement; questioned what is holding the majority back; stated Council can always ask for more data but people are housing insecure now; noted that she often encounters people who have moved away from Alameda due to unaffordable rent; stated landlords are entitled to a fair return on their investment but they are not entitled to charge more than the utilities a tenant is using, which the current matter is attempting to correct.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated property inherently increases without any effort; there will be more recovery time should an adjustment be needed; landlords would be able to withstand some kind of recovery time if the matter were revisited; the reverse is not true for renters; most landlords are fair and want to remain fair; the staff recommendation is a reasonable request.
Councilmember Jensen inquired when the ordinance would go into effect.
The Rent Program Director responded the ban on charges for utilities that are not separately metered would go into effect 30-days after final passage; stated the approval would not affect tenancies that are currently under a RUBS; the system would continue until the annual petition process starts; staff purposely did not build a specific start date into the ordinance to provide staff with flexibility and ensure the necessary forms and people are acquired for implementation; for new tenancies, the ban on RUBS will be effective 30-days after final passage.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether any vacant unit acquiring a new tenant would have a ban on RUBS, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether other tenants, those that would be evicted, those that are paying exorbitant fees due to misallocation, or those with existing tenancies would continue.
The Rent Program Director responded the ordinance presented imagines that the current system for existing tenancies would continue until the annual petition is filed.
Councilmember Jensen requested clarification about the petition process and timing.
The Rent Program Director stated there is a staggered window; larger properties would file first, with an eight-month window to file documentation showing the average utility charges; staff would review the filing and confirm that the rent can be increased by the average; once the landlord is notified that staff has processed the petition, there is a deadline by which the rent adjustment can be imposed; as soon as the rent adjustment is imposed, the landlord is no longer able to continue charging for the utilities.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff starts with the largest properties first to provide protection to the largest number of tenants.
The Rent Program Director responded the approach is to address the properties that are most likely using RUBS with the idea that smaller landlords might also need more time to gather documentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated larger buildings by reasoning have more tenants than a medium or small building.
The Rent Program Director stated the process is designed in tiers with three windows for a relatively equal number of units in each; RUBS practices are more common with larger unit properties; staff has imagined that smaller landlords will have fewer applying for the adjustment.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the petition process would provide information regarding the use of RUBS and other data that is not currently available.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff would have a much clearer idea of how many properties are using RUBS and average charges for tenants at the end of the petition process.
Councilmember Jensen requested clarification about the tier breakdowns.
The Rent Program Analyst responded properties with 16 or more rental units would be phase one in the petition process, 5 to 15 units is phase two, and 2 to 4 units is phase three.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she appreciates the recommendation not going into effect immediately; tenants have expressed concerns about remaining under RUBS and being unable to afford housing until the first phase is completed; noted renters of less than 16 units will not be protected for some time.
The Rent Program Director stated existing tenants in smaller units would likely be looking at a window of two years before seeing a change in the billing practice; the approach had been informed in part by discussions with the City of Mountain View that has gone through a similar process; Mountain View indicated the process is a large undertaking which requires a large time window to properly execute.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of the staff recommendation Option C [including introduction of the ordinance] with direction to staff to provide the options to streamline the fair return petitions for substantial utility rate and insurance increases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is within the scope of the matter.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff indicated a willingness to perform the direction to staff; staff is happy to perform the Council direction to ensure the fair return process is simple enough for landlords if necessary.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like additional clarification about the petition streamlining process.
The Rent Program Director stated staff wants to ensure the Hearing Officer’s receive enough information to make an informed decision about overall maintenance of net operating costs and income; landlords will need to provide staff comprehensive information about the income received and categories of expenses; there is room for improvement in the form to be more clear about the types of income and expenses needing to be provided in order for the Hearing Officer to be informed; the current form leaves a lot up to the landlord to make the case why they deserve a fair return adjustment; the process will be explained through a combination of revisions to the form, more education, and more outreach to the landlord community, which will help the Hearing Officer make determinations and help landlords that are legitimately making income; a landlord is allowed to reset the base rent when a unit becomes vacant; the vacancy causes the landlord’s margin to increase over four percentage points however, it is much less likely for the landlord’s margin to decrease two percentage points each year with a non-vacant unit; turnover is difficult to prove; there is a need for upward rent adjustment in order to maintain a net operating income; there is likely little problem in maintaining net operating income despite what landlords assume once the numbers are realized; there is room for improvement with the form and in providing education and outreach to the community regarding the process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff can look to other jurisdictions regarding the petition process and the forms being used, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen expressed support for the process for fair return, and landlords being able to recoup any losses that may be associated with cost of living increases that are not part of the AGA or other costs when a tenant leaves; it is more challenging for smaller landlords when utilities, insurance, and economic costs increase with stable tenancies who do not tend to move; the increases will cost those landlords more and they will not be able to adjust the entire AGA to make enough; clarified her motion is to approve a more specific process; the matter is regarding RUBS; she would like the fair return petition process to be more specific; restated her motion is for Council to approve the ordinance as recommended, with direction to staff that there be a utility- and insurance-specific fair return process or paperwork that is less burdensome and more streamlined.
The City Attorney stated that he understands the motion on the table to be Council approving the form being as user-friendly as possible; staff accepts and is amendable to ensuring ease of use of the form; staff will conduct outreach workshops on a monthly basis while dedicating some to the topic of fair return, making sure that landlords are well-educated; staff hears that Council wants the process to be as simple as possible so people do not have to hire lawyers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has run into people who have attended RUBS related workshops; the workshops have been well attended.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a friendly amendment to the motion, approving Council direction to staff to ask about RUBS in the rent registry, since RUBS will still exist for a short while.
The Rent Program Director stated staff can take the request as Council direction, and figure out a way to make the topic part of the registration requirements.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the task is complicated.
The Rent Program Director responded that staff will need to talk to the online registry portal vendor for the update to be made.
Councilmember Jensen accepted the friendly amendment, and added staff should return to Council after phase one with information about the extent to which RUBS is being used and its impact on tenants and landlords.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Jensen, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3, Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Boller - 1.]
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
***
City Manager Communications
(26- ) The Interim City Manager announced the Australian Socceroos won their first match versus Turkey; stated another match scheduled for Friday versus United States of America (USA).
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
(26- ) Timothy Hilton, Alameda, discussed his experience as a renter in Alameda; stated many renters do not know where the property management office is located; urged notices be sent to current residents or occupants; urged more public outreach be provided for rent control.
(26- ) Alex Carrera, Alameda, expressed concerns over the City’s use of the Pride Flag.
(26- ) Gabriel Duncan, Alameda Native History Project (ANHP), announced an upcoming acorn processing workshop at the Alameda Free Library on Sunday.
Council Referrals
(26- ) Consider Providing Direction to Staff about Amending the Alameda Museum Agreement to Add Requirements related to Historical Settlements and Civilizations and Development of an Indigenous Program in Partnership with Local Organizations Representing Indigenous People. (Councilmember Jensen)
Councilmember Jensen gave a brief presentation.
The Assistant City Manager stated the Acting Library Director has been coordinating with the Alameda Museum and staff is happy to bring a presentation to Council on overall functions; the City has a contract with the museum for services; the update will also provide specifics regarding any updates on efforts being made with local tribes; the museum does have artifacts that were obtained some time ago; museum staff has reached out to local tribes per State law regarding repatriation of the artifacts; museum staff has been following the repatriation process and are working with the Lisjan-Ohlone tribe on an educational display to be placed at the Library.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the timeline for the presentation to Council.
The Assistant City Manager responded a timeline has not yet been confirmed; stated staff can try to place the presentation on the second meeting in July, however, it will likely be in September.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the presentation update satisfies Councilmember Jensen’s needs, to which Councilmember Jensen responded in the affirmative.
Expressed support for the referral; stated that the items belong to the City and a public process for exhibits should be conducted; discussed the history of Alameda: Gabriel Duncan, ANHP.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council providing staff direction is sufficient for the matter.
The City Attorney responded Council is free to provide staff direction; stated Council may choose to stand on staff’s report.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the Assistant City Manager and Acting Library Director are working to bring something forth to Council soon; expressed support for the work being performed by staff; inquired whether Councilmember Jensen would like anything additional.
Councilmember Jensen stated that the forthcoming report from staff will satisfy her Council Referral; expressed support for the public comment provided and for Council having the opportunity to obtain information about other contributors to the community.
Council Communications
(26- ) Councilmember Daysog discussed attending the Enlisted Personnel and Civilian Employee of the Quarter event at Coast Guard Island, an informal meeting with AC Transit staff regarding bus availability; noted the Inter-Agency Liasion Committee meeting will be rescheduled for July; discussed attending UnityFest in Chochenyo Park.
(26- ) Councilmember Boller noted that this Council meeting is the Interim City Manager’s last meeting; expressed appreciation for the Interim City Manager’s stewardship and leadership.
(26- ) Vice Mayor Pryor expressed appreciation for the Interim City Manager; stated the transition has felt seamless; discussed attending a swearing-in ceremony for Alameda Police Department staff, the Mayor’s Conference in Piedmont, the Chamber Leadership graduation, and UnityFest in Chochenyo Park.
Councilmember Daysog concurred in expressing appreciation for the Interim City Manager.
(26- ) Councilmember Jensen expressed appreciation for the Interim City Manager; discussed attending the Chamber Leadership graduation, UnityFest in Chochenyo Park, the Alameda Wellness Festival at Radium Runway, and the Economic Summit at the Chamber of Commerce; mentioned a recent power outage affecting 3,000 households; stated the cause of the outage was a single mylar balloon hitting power lines; discussed her previous Council Referral requesting a ban on the sale of mylar balloons in Alameda; stated the cost to repair the grid is borne by ratepayers; other cities’ bans on mylar balloons help decrease power outages, impact to utility users, and reduce the impacts to wildlife; discussed the State ban on metallic coated balloons taking effect in 2031; stated other cities have implemented bans on metallic coated balloons; announced that she will be submitting a Council Referral to reconsider the ban on metallic coated balloons; urged residents to reflect on diversity of opinion, culture, and ideas this coming Juneteenth.
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supported the Council Referral to ban mylar balloon sales; Councilmembers need to be willing to collaborate and compromise; there were questions regarding enforcement; Council is a work-in-progress, which requires more understanding and grace; her home was affected by the outage; discussed attending the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), remote policy committee meetings for Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), including a joint meeting with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); noted Alameda was awarded $500,000 for the wooden bridge replacement feasibility study and the award amount will help with more than just the associated feasibility costs.
The Assistant City Manager stated Public Works is staffing the project; the award will supplement the funding already allocated by Council in the next fiscal year budget cycle; staff will be able to perform a feasibility study for long-term options; in addition, staff will be performing a short-term design for the next 10-15 years while the long-term replacement option is finalized; staff will work on funding and reconstruction of the existing bridge as well as the feasibility study of the long-term options.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the award is a reflection on staff and the good work put into the competitive grant application; noted that she accepted the climate award from the United States (US) Conference of Mayors on behalf of the City; stated the award came with a $15,000 grant that can be provided to a non-profit within the community that performs work with sustainability; staff has recommended the West End Arts District; discussed attending the welcome event for the Australian Socceroos, the US Conference of Mayors, various meetings with federal lobbyists in Washington D.C. regarding transportation; announced an upcoming watch party at the Alameda Theatre for the Australia versus United States soccer match.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ashley Zieba
Acting City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.