Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - OCTOBER 25, 2023- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Jensen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Jensen, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft – 5. [Note:
Councilmember Herrera Spencer was present via
Zoom and arrived at 6:05 p.m. and Councilmember
Vella arrived at 6:06 p.m.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
(23-611) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Arti cle XV of the Alameda Mun icipal Code, Amending and Enhancing the R ent Control Program’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Program and Terminating the Current Moratorium on CIP Applications for Properties that Have 25 or More Rental Units (“Option A”) and Making Other Necessary Updates. Introduced; or
Introduction of an Alternative Ordinance Amending Article XV of the Alameda Municipal Code, Terminating the CIP Program and Terminating the Current Moratorium on CIP Applications for Properties that Have 25 or Mor e Rental Uni ts (“Option B”) and Making Other Necessary Updates. Not introduced;
(23-611 A) Resolution No. 16107 , “Repealing Resolution 15138 that Established the Existing Capital Improvement Plan Policy for Rental Units in the City of Alameda .” Adopted;
(23-611 B) Recommendation to Authorize th e Creation of a Temporary Relocation Tenant Assistance Program to Provide Emergency Temporary Assistance for Tenants Facing Displacement and Authorize the Program Administrator to Adopt Regulations to Implement the Program; and
(23-611 C) Resolution No. 1610 8, “Amending the Fi scal Year 2023 -24 Gen eral Fund Budget to Appropriate $100,000 from General Fund Residual Fund Balance for the Temporary Relocation Tenant Assistance Program”. Adopted.
The Rent Program Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the tenant hardship provision does not include assets.
The Rent Program Director responded dependent on Council ’s vote, the tenant hardship provision would be implemented by an administrative regulation and adopted at a later time; stated the City does not need to adopt the specifics of how the tenant Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 2
hardship program will work at the current me eting, but staff can take direction from Council on changes to how staff is preliminarily proposing to run the program ; staff has looked closely at San Francisco’s policy and whether tenants qualify based on means or income.
Councilmember Jensen stated Alameda is the only jurisdiction that does not cap the dollar amount eligible to be passed through; inquired whether Option A includes a cap.
The Rent Pro gram Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff is proposing two caps; there is a 5% cap considered at the time staff is processing the appli cation to set a maximum allowable CIP pass -through; once the pass -through is implemented alongside the a nnual rent increase s, landlords will need to look at t he combination of the Annual General Adjustment (AGA), banking, a nd CIP, and will need to reduce the CIP pass-through or banking, if the total amount add s up to more than an 8% increase over the current rent.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the 8 % c ap was in place prior to the moratorium.
The Rent Program Director responded in the negative ; stated as staff processed CIP applications, the total documented, qualifying cost of qualifying would be reviewed , as well as the useful life of the improvements and what occurs when the amount is amortized over the useful life of the improvements ; there was no limit to the percentage of the rent increase.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s further inquiry related to limit testing, the Rent Program Director stated Assembly Bill (AB) 1482 is a rent control provision for tenants in California that generally refers to more stringent local protections; most of Alameda’s rent control protections are robu st; AB 1482 usually does not come into play; AB 1482 could be considered when adding together AGA, banking, and the CIP pass -through; staff believes the l imit is currently 9.2%; CIP pass-through should be considered when considering the limits of AB 1482; the approach has not been tested in court.
In response to Councilmember Jensen ’s inquir y re lated to the 8% cap , the Rent Program Director stated the 8% ca p would be a local protection which is more robust than the AB 1482 10% cap.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the fair return provision is covered.
The Rent Program Director responded there is no cap on upward adjustments based on fair return; stated fair return is a constitutionally protected right.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated South Shore has been working through the process; inquired whether the process can be made retroactive to include South Shore.
The Rent Program Director responded if Council accepts either option, the moratorium Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 3
on CIP s for pro perties with 25 or more units would rem ain in effect up until the new policy takes place; stated Option A or Option B would maintain the prohibition; Option B goes beyond the prohibition and would eliminate CIP for all units.
The City At torney stated the South Shore application would continue to be stayed ; if Council adopts the permanent policy, the application would be denied.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to the application ; questioned whether the City can indicate no CIP is enacted and only fair return is approved.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff has not received feedback on the matter from the owners of South Shore.
The City Attorney stated the City would deny the pending application.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the staff recommendation is to deny the application after months of involvement and a change in policy.
The City Attorney respon ded the South Shore application was brought to Council as part of the moratorium ; Council imposed the moratorium which remains in place; staff’s position is th at the morato rium is lawful ; if Council approve s the moratorium as permanent, it will remain lawful.
Stated CIP lends itself to abuse, especially by corporate landlords, such as South Shore; urged implementation of the fair return process be discussed ; expressed concern about the process being confusi ng; suggested the moratorium be extend ed:
Darcy Morrison, Alameda.
Stated private equity firms moving int o commercial real estate created a crisis; outlined concerns about corporate owners : Garfield Kincross, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC)/Tenants Together.
Urged Council to protect renters; quoted from an affordable housing proclamation; urged Council to vote against the CIP: Stacey Rodrigues, South Shore.
Discussed the State popula tion and housing stoc k; discussed CIP and fair return petitions; urged the moratorium be exten ded to allow t ime to review fair return: Efrem Williams, South Shore Tenants Association (SSTA).
Stated ARC opposes the CIP; discussed South Shore ; expressed concerns over the housing crisis and cos ts; stated corporations benefit from housing bubbles : Doyle Saylor, ARC.
Outlined concerns with the CIP policy; discussed habitability and limited code enforcement; urged Council to end the CIP or continue the moratorium: Laura Woodard, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 4
Urged Council to eliminate the CIP; outlined how the CIP impacts all renters; discussed rentals not being affordable for Alameda residents; stated the cost of living has increased faster than incomes: Kimberly Tyda, Alameda.
Urged Council to watch the film Push; stated regular maintenance is being labeled as capital improvements; urged Council not to allow Blackstone to further squeeze tenants:
Roberta Schwarz, SSTA.
Stated SSTA is i n favor of Option B; outlined fair return policy petitions: Nancy Lewis, SSTA.
Concurred with previous speakers; stated that he is afraid of corporate property owners abusing the CIP: Ivan Rudenko, Alameda.
Urged Council to eliminate the CIP; stated the CIP policy seems unf air; expressed support for transparency in understanding a landlord’s financial situation by documentation being provided to the City and tenants: Amy Little, Alameda.
Stated the CIP is unfair, undermines rent control laws, and places an heavy burden on tenants; homeowners do n ot receive a subsidy for home improvements; urged the City to develop a comp rehensive CIP to cover all residential propert ies: Toni Grimm, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether both options being presented include CIP and one suggests the fair return policy would require landlords to come to City Council.
The City Attorney stated Option B eliminates the CIP policy completely; if Council adopts Option B, there will no longer be a CIP policy in the City ; the only p rocess to obtain up ward rent adjustment s would be through a f air return p etition, which has existed throughout the history of Alameda rent control and all rent control since it required by the federal Constitution; CIP applications have never come before Council for individual review; staff is not recommending the review take place; CIP or fair r eturn petitions are highly individua lized; complicated financial and leg al analyses are being handled by well-trained City Hearing Of ficers who take in evidence and renders decisions, similar to a court process.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she has heard Option B would encourage or establish that fair return could be used for CIP recovery, which is not the case.
The City Attorney stated fair return petition s have always been available to landlor ds and ten ants in all controlled jurisdictions , including the City of A lameda, as federally required; a landlord has the choice to submit a fair return or CIP petition; the approval standard is high for a f air return petition; the CIP process is an easier path to recover capital improvements.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 5
Councilmember Jensen stated there is confu sion regarding Option B; Option B would eliminate the CIP , with an additional provision for staff to develop an amortization schedule listing the amo rtization per iod for different t ypes of common c apital improvements; questioned whether there is confusion surrounding Option B.
The City Attorney stated the City currently does not have amort ization schedules built into fair return; staff woul d l ook at the Int ernal R evenue Service (IRS) amortization schedule if a fair return petit ion is filed ; the proposal does not mean CIPs cannot be included in a fair return petition ; if Council eliminates the CIP, staff wants to ensure the tools and guidance are clear; staff is not proposing the fair return process be expanded.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the development of an amortization schedule would clarify and add fairness in the event of CIPs being used for fair return , to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen stated some have suggested that nei ther proposed option would be accep table; only the two proposed options are av ailable; inquired whether a third option is possible.
The City Attorney responded the thir d option would be to ret ain the existing CIP provisions, which provides little tenant protection and is not recommended by staff.
Vice Mayor Daysog expressed support for the staff re port and community outreach; questioned why a CIP program is available when fair return is an option; read staf f’s explanation of fair return; stated that he understands tenants request to eliminate CIP and have landlords rely on the fair return program; expressed concern over putting tenants at graver risk than the program currently in-place; stated the matter has come to Council due to the dire situation for South Shore tenants ; staff’s plan has succeeded in trying to implement protections for renters from the s ituation South Shore tenants face; staff has also introduced a wide ran ge of protections for all renters , especially in the form of two pass -through caps, as well as hardship eligibility; the protections in Option A, compared to having no CIP , makes Option A the wiser course; Council could modify Option A in the future if there is a desire to do so; expressed support for Option A; stated eliminating CIP s completely while moving toward the fair return mech anism will likely expose many people to consequences that have not been contemplated.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification; inquired whether there is no limi t to future rent increases.
Special Counsel responded the concern with solely having a fair return process is for a landlord’s ability to demonstrate a rent increase is warranted ;, stated the rent increase becomes part of the base rent, which then is based off any AGA or adjustment; a pass- through has a cap to both the pass-through percentage and the 8% cap; the pass - through amount is outside of base rent and stands separat ely; th ere could be better advantage for pa rticular tenants to have a pass -through versus having a rent incr ease Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 6
under a fair return process.
The City Attorney sta ted the fair return petition is tough; while there are no limi ts, data shows the process is not one with much success in other jurisdictions; the lack o f success is a factor Council must con sider; regardless of which option is approved by Council, fair return will always remain as an option to landlords.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why it is so difficu lt for landlords to ac hieve a fair return petition.
The City Attorney responded staff establishes a base-year for fair return petitions as the start of rent control; stated a landlord will need to show a future year will not be able to make the same return ; rental units turno ver often; landlords typically reset the rent to market rate , which results in an extra ordinary rent increase; the circumstances of turnover typically yield the landlord being able to re cover all of the added cost s; successful fair return petitions include long controlled units wh ich never turnover , especially in juris dictions with a long history of rent control, such as the original five to six jurisdictions that have had over 30 years of rent control; Alameda is in a different situation; control was imposed in 2019 ; Alameda is seeing turnover in larger units, so fair return applications will likely not be easy to file.
Councilmember Vella inquired wh at o ccurs when a ten ant volun tarily leaves a unit causing turnover.
The City Attorney r esponded whenever there is turnover, a landlord has a right to reset the rent to market rate or whatever the market will bear; stated there is typically extraordinary rent increases when there is turnover.
Councilmember Vella inquired the number of owner move -ins and Ellis Act actions being seen in the City ; questioned what trends are be ing seen in recent years; stated there has been a pandemic and moratorium since the ordinance was originally enacted.
The City Attorney responded the City ’s ordinance was paused due to the pandemic; stated the paused has only recently been lifted , which results in less than one year ’s worth of data.
Councilmember Vella stated it is difficult not to look at broader trends across the City; discussed affordable units and work arounds the City cannot enfo rce due to State law; stated affordable units are being lost due to turnover, which is a trend worth looking into; requested clarification about the differences between the proposed policies; stated Option A is for buildings with more than 25 -units having no CIP pass-through; there are questions and concerns related to S outh Shore Apartments; inquired whether both proposed policies have no CIP pass-through.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated any property with 25 -units or more, under either scenario, will be precluded from submitting a CIP application.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 7
Councilmember Vella inquired why 25-units was selected as the cut-off; a table in the exhibits breaks down units and cost recovery; discussed tiered cost recovery in Exhibit 1; inquired the reason for different categories.
The Rent Program Director responded staff started by looking closely at Mountain View’s policy to determine tiers; stated stakeholder sessions with landlords identified differences in the way s properties are manage d based on the number o f units; five or more units often require commercial loans; the break between 15 - and 16-units comes from State law requiring an on-site property manager for buildings with 16 or more units, which changes business functions; 25-units or more harkens back to the meeting adopting the moratorium; staff considered the number of properties affected by the moratorium at varying levels and found 25-units or more has fewer affected properties, but consists of 35% of the rental units in Alameda ; staff reviewed data related to how rents in the properties compare to fair market rents and discovered a higher likelihood of average rents in excess of the fair market as opposed to smaller properties with average rents more in lin e with fair market rents; data show s having 25-units or more can better absorb capital improvement costs ; staff used the existing moratorium as a starting point.
Councilmember Vella inquired the percentage of rental stock for the properties with 16- to 24-units, to which t he Rent Program Director responded that he would need to find the information.
Councilmember Vella stated that she understands the fi nancing changes once above a certain number of units, inquired how many units are being accounted for in the first t wo ranges; stated 66 properties e quating to 35% of the re ntal stock is accounted for in the 25-units or more catego ry; inquired the percentage for the 5 - to 24 -unit p roperties; expressed concern over the City creating a more complex syste m for middle range rental unit properties; inquired whether there is a way to simplify the process.
The Rent Program Director responded 16- to 24 -unit propert ies account for 6% o f overall rental units, but on ly 1% of rental pro perties; stated 5 - to 15 -unit p roperties equates to 20% of the total pro perties and 25% of total uni ts; 2- to 4 -unit prop erties equates to 76% of the total rental properties and 35% of rental units ; 25 units or more are excluded from the CIP proposal and are less than 3% of the total rental properties , but 34% of overall rental units.
Councilmember Vella stated the breakd own indicates how many people are being impacted within different tiers; the information is important for Council to consider when creating a tiered system; questioned the need for separate tiers between the tier with 1% of properties and 6% of the rental units; stated that she appreciates staff presenting different options as well as pre senting financing; Council’s previous discussions around CIP fo cused around health and safety; expressed support for focusing on lead abatement; stated proper abatement and repairs a re necessary; Alameda has a large stock of pre-1978 buildings and a number of complaints have come to the County Lead Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 8
Abatement Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) related to remedi ation issues ; it is worth adding details into the policy.
Councilmember Jensen stated only four CIP applica tions have been approved since 2016; three of th e four were from la ndlords who s ought to terminate tenancies due to improvements not being able to be completed and did not seek a CIP pass through; inquired whether the informa tion suggests only one CIP pass through has been approved since 2016 and what was the size.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated the property is 4-units, with 3 tenant-occupied units; one of the ten ants is newer and be gan after the capital improvements were made; the passthrough was only imposed onto 2 of the 4-units.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the three that sought to terminat e tenancies were also smaller.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affi rmative; stated fourteen applications were received; one was for South Shore with 4 52-units; the other thirteen all have less than ten units , including applications w hich were denied, withdrawn, o r suspended; instances of relocation were often for a single tenant whose tenancy was terminated.
Councilmember Jensen stated Option A draws distinctions between the number o f units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she spends much of her time working on housing issues; discussed the three P s: protect , preserve, and produc e; Council needs to protect Alameda’s tenants, as well as the housing stock ; the housing stock needs to be maintained and habitable; expressed concern over the financial burden of repairs being placed on tenants ; stated owning rental property is a value and can b e borrowed against; lines of credit or equity can be ta ken ou t for repairs , modif ications, or renovations; renovations a dd value to property and i ncrease its value; Alameda’s property values are rising and those fortunate enough to own property in Alameda are paying increased property taxes; expressed support for landlord’s performing; stated landlords must understand property related expenses ; property owners have different means of achieving repairs which should not need to be added to the bu rden for tenants; adding water saving devices is helpful ; discussed grant and rebate opportunities from E ast Bay Municipal Utility District (E BMUD); stated the City is working on converting from gas to electric and has been looking at the cost of providing equitable building e lectrification; the process appli es to property owners, not just landlords; many people working in Alameda a re unable to afford to live in Alameda , which causes impacts; there is an opportunity to have another funding source ; expressed support for enacting ordinances and finding solutions that are straightforward and use common sense; questioned unit breakdowns and why some tenants should be saddled with a higher cost; expressed concern over the keeping residents of all income levels in Alameda; stated many tenants have been struggling and have left Alameda; expressed concern over the process continuing; stated the City can a ccomplish goals Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 9
with common sense in adopting Option B.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about Councilmember Vella ’s comments related to ti ers; questioned whether there is support to combine or eliminate tiers.
Councilmember Vella stated that she understands the financing po rtion; the tiers with 16- to 24-units and 5- to 15-units do not make sense; expressed support for not having four different tiers and for approving only 4-units or less with no CIP for properties over 4-units; stated the number of rental units impacted makes sense and properties have different financing structures.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over equity firms; stated Council might be driving the concerns; she is a renter and is concerned over telling businesses or landlords how to operate; Council must choose whether to support smaller landlords with a passthrough percentage in order for re pairs to be made; Alameda’s CIP is not working; units need repairs; expressed support for finding balance and for a program that does not favor equity fir ms expressed support for the staff recommendation of Option A; stated Alameda has smaller landlords who own apartment buildings with 5 - or 6-units; she would prefer smaller landlo rds own buildings versus equity firms ; smaller landlords are likely to keep rents lower and perform on a personal level.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of Option A [including introduction of ordinance and adoption of the resolutions ] and to fund the authorization of cre ating a Temporary Relocation Tenant Assistance Program (TRTAP) to provide emergency temporary assistan ce for tenants facing displacement and authori ze the Program Administrator to implement the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated another way to look at opening the door for equity firms to come in is for Council to approve a structure that makes rents out of reach for struggling tenants; vacancies will occur and open the City up to gentrification or buildings being purchased by equity firms; she is unsure how much interest there is for equity firms to purchase property with fewer units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over equity firms pu shing the envelope related to rents, not smaller landlords; stated smaller landlords do not want to have vacant units and are trying to work within the City’s rent control apparatus.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion , Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he believes staff has presented Council with protections against passthrough challenges; the most important protection is the hardship exemption for lower-income renters; expressed concern over Council not adopting Option A; stated the City will likely find itself in the same situation with South Shore tenants returning to Council; the fair return process can be onerous, but is always available; having the mechanism offered in Option A is a roadblock to go through before Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 10
attempting fair return; if the City does not put up the necessary roadblock, landlords will have to use fair return; a trillion dollar entity will be challenged by South Shore tenants in fair return discussions; Option A provides protections.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is unable to support Option A; expressed support for mo difications; stated landlords able to take out a commer cial loan should do so ; Council can fashion new language with a lower unit cutoff.
Councilmember Vella stated there is a difference in buying a multi -unit property with a commercial loan; the finan cing is different; the transaction goal relate s to the profit margin.
Councilmember Vella proposed a friendly am endment to approve streamlined tiers with the cutoff of 4 or fewer units versus having the two larger unit ti ers; stated the larger tiers amount to less than 21% of total properties.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed co ncern over small landlords owning multiple, small unit p roperties within Alameda with different names; inquired how Council or the City would determine the proper protections for smaller landlords.
The Rent Program Director responded the staff report includes some sugges tions; stated tenants proposed that landlords owning multiple properties with less units and a total amount adding up to 25 should trigger the protection.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated data limitations and the use of corporate holding s would create difficulty in accurately determining the total number of units owned.
The Rent Program Director stated Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) sometimes have a single owner for multiple properties ; each property having its own LLC makes it difficult to ascertain the owners of multiple properties.
Mayor Ezzy Ash craft inquired whether commercial loans are based on the property instead of congregate holdings.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; s tated the process occurs for each property; investing in a 5 -unit property requires a commercial loan rega rdless of any other properties owned.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over someone owning 25 units in Alameda.
Councilmember Jensen stated the tiers were put into place with supporting data; looking at the data prior to the request from South S hore, staff approved four CIP applications all for a complex with less than 15 units.
The Rent Program Director stated the history CIP applications is generally as stated by Councilmember Jensen; the City has not received many applications.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 11
Councilmember Jensen stated CIP is a tool that is not overly used by property owners in Alameda ; expressed support for th e discussion related to Option A as well as the proposed amendments.
Councilmember Jensen proposed a friendly am endment to the motion to approve eliminating the opportunity for CIP to be used to displace tenants.
The City Attorney stated staff’s proposal eliminates permanent displacement.
The Rent Program Director stated the current CIP policy allows landlords to submit documentation showing work on a property is expected to take longer than six months; landlords submitting documentation showing the delay and related timelines are able to permanently terminate tenan cy; the tenant receive s a per manent relocation payment , but must move and find other housing; of the three approved applications, two were approved for permanent relocation and the third application included temporary relocation; the landlord expected the tenant to move back into the unit once the work was completed; staff has proposed that permanent rel ocation no longer be allowed under Option A ; temporary rel ocation options wou ld still be allowed so that improvements that cannot be complete d while a unit is te nant-occupied can be conducted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why Council is creating a policy with so few CIP applications being made, and why the fair return policy is not enough ; stated a number of speakers have mentioned personal hardships and no landlord indicated the proposed policy would not work; she expects landlords would indicate which repair financing option is desired; the City can vote not to allow landlords to displace tenants ; questioned whether a CIP can be enough to push a tenant out ; expressed concern over the State’s housing c risis and housing affordability; stated that she is unsure of the problem being solved; expressed concern over a problem possibly being created; stated that she is proud of Alameda b eing the first city to have its Housing Element certified ; CIP applications are little-used; she will not support a motion that does not have a carefully carved-out exception.
Councilmember Jensen concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft ; stated ideally, there will be more low - and moderate-income housing in the f uture; the City will a lso have more market rate housing ; market rate units will not be under rent control and landlords will be able to apply for CIP to increase rents; eventually, the City will have many units that will not fall under rent con trol where landlords can make money to pay loans by raising rents or through evic tion; there will b e challen ges, however, Council is under the constraints of the Costa Hawkins State law which does not allow the City to address the housing problem with all landlords in the City ; changes can be made to Option A in order to create fairness for tenants ; some landlords may sell property to a corporation that will be able to find out ways to file successful fair return petitions; Option A helps keep the cost under 8% and has strong requirements and policies addressing what projects can be a pproved; Option A establishe s that there is not an increase in the Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 12
base; expressed support for Option A and questioned whether there is support from Councilmember Vella for an amendment to change the tiers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated new units being built are helping increase the number of affordable units; brand new units typically do not need CIP funding for repairs due to being new construction ; landlords cannot charge any amount for rent and can cha rge what the market will bear; the housing being built increases the supply to meet the demand, which helps keep landlords in ch eck; new housing will motiv ate landlords to improve properties and perform necessary repairs.
Councilmember Herr era Spencer expressed concern over changing the ti ers; stated four tiers are currently proposed; reducing the tiers down to one is concerning; expressed suppo rt for consolidating the high er tiers into one while keep ing the remaining two tiers; stated Alameda has a lot of older housing stock that needs repairs; the current formula has not bee n working; the City has not bee n receiving applications and repairs are not being made; expressed support for trying something new and concern over eliminating all tiers ; stated fair return has al ways been an option and the City is trying to fin d a way to help smaller landlords perform repairs; there is benefit to tenants in homes where repairs are be ing made; questioned whether eliminating the higher tier and having no option for CIP would be sufficient; stated the approach appears to be a good compro mise; she is happy to make a friendly amendment to the motion.
Vice Mayor Daysog expressed support for the compromise.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would pre fer to have the 2 - to 4-unit tier as the compromise rather than including the 5- to 15-unit and 16- to 24-unit tiers.
Councilmember Vella proposed a substitute motion to approve Option A wi th CIP allowed for only 2- to 4 -unit p roperties [including introduction of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution repealing the existing CIP policy].
Councilmember Jensen seconded the substitute motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the substitute motion takes precedence even with the original motion bein g seconded, to which the Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated staff’s recommendation to include remediation for lead should also be considered.
Councilmember Vella amended her substitute motion to include approval for lea d remediation as a qualified improvement.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the motion needs to include the fund for relocation.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 25, 2023 13
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the relocation fund can be voted on separately.
Vice Mayor Daysog expressed concern over the motion process.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supportive of the mo tion as it is extreme and does not achieve the purpose of the goal.
On the call for the questio n, the motion by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Jensen: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy As hcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
In response to Councilmember Vella , t he Rent Program Director stated Council approved Option A amended such that properties with 2- to 4-units would be eligible for 100% pass through of qualifying improvements and propert ies with 5 or more units would not be eligible for CIP.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the 100% passthrough is still subject to a cap, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of adoption of the resolution amending the general fund budget.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Day sog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Jensen : Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being n o further busi ness, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.