body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2019 7:00 P.M.
Chair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Schwartz, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair
Little - 4.
[Note: Commissioner Shabazz arrived at 7:41 p.m.; he had provided
notification that he would be late due to a previous engagement.]
Absent:
Commissioner Henneberry - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated he is concerned about the ability of the Commission to
function under the current circumstances; Section 2-93.8 of the Sunshine Ordinance
states that the Open Government Commission (OGC) decides complaints and can direct
Council action; however, the Interim City Attorney has stated the Section is in violation of
the Alameda Charter and State law; he disagrees with the Interim City Attorney; the issue
is a real problem.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Tilos moved approval of having Commissioner Henneberry serve as Chair.
Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
3. [Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.]
Commissioner Tilos moved approval of having Commissioner Schwartz serve as Vice
Chair.
Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent:
Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.]
3-B. Minutes of the November 14, 2018 and December 17, 2018 Meetings
Not heard.
3-C. Accept the Annual Public Report
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the Annual Report.
Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
1
February 4, 2019",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,2,"[Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.]
3-D. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed January 25, 2019
Serena Chen, Complainant, gave a brief presentation.
The Interim City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Chair Little stated a comprehensive summary provided by former Commissioner Foreman
outlines the issue.
Commissioner Tilos inquired whether the powers of the Commission is a topic that needs
to be addressed, to which Chair Little responded the discussion needs to be separate.
In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated Ms. Chen's
complaint is that not attaching the Commission's decision to a January 15th report is a
violation of the Sunshine Ordinance; the City's position is that not attaching the decision
to the report is not a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance since the Commission did not
direct that the decision be part of any subsequent action or report; Ms. Chen secondarily
contends that the agenda title was deficient with respect to describing the item the Council
was going to consider; the City's position is the title more than adequately described the
item which was the re-introduction of the cannabis ordinances and the repeal of the
ordinances which the OGC rendered null and void.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Interim City Attorney's position is that the
January 15th meeting was a first or second reading of the ordinance.
The Interim City Attorney responded had the Council majority voted to re-introduce the
ordinance, it would have been the first reading.
Chair Little inquired whether the failure of the Council to make a decision maintains the
circumstance that the ordinances are still null and void as decided by the OGC.
The Interim City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Council has been advised
that the ordinances will remain in full force and effect unless and until Council repeals the
ordinances.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired what information was given to the public and Council
about the impact of keeping the ordinances in effect.
The Interim City Attorney responded the information was adequately described in the
report itself but the agenda title does go into that depth.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired what in the agenda title would inform someone of the
effects and current state of the law, to which the Interim City Attorney responded the
information is described in the summary of the title.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 4, 2019
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,3,"In response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated
Attachment 3 of the report includes the information regarding the impacts.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired where the report state that the previously null and void
ordinances are back in effect.
The Interim City Attorney responded the City's position is that the ordinances never went
out of effect.
Commissioner Tilos stated the ordinances were never null and void because the
Commission did not have the power to do so.
The Interim City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated if the Commission
did not have the authority to render the ordinances null and void, by definition, they were
still in full force and effect.
Chair Little stated that she is concerned the Commission is entering into a slightly different
conversation by arguing the merits of whether or not the Commission has the right to
render any Council action null and void; she would like to focus on the complaint before
the Commission tonight; inquired whether there are technical questions; inquired what
was the rationale behind not including the Commission's decision.
The Interim City Attorney responded there was no purposeful thought of not attaching the
document; stated when the item was drafted, it seemed agenda report adequately
described the issue and paraphrased the Commission's decision.
Chair Little stated stating information in the background and paraphrasing created the
situation tonight; the Commission's purpose is to make sure issues are made available
publicly and not just in the background.
Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, read a letter the League submitted on the matter.
Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated the failure to attach the decision is a technicality; the real
problem is the title misled the public because it was not clear; the process should be two
steps: 1) repeal the ordinances, and 2) re-introduce the ordinances.
Irene Dieter, Alameda, concurred with Mr. Foreman; stated there was no way for the
public to figure out that any no vote was just symbolic; there was no opportunity for the
public to realize the item was not a re-hearing; the item should be re-noticed.
Serena Chen, Complainant, stated the written decision of the Commission should have
been issued within 14 days of December 17th; it was not, so it became a violation of the
Sunshine Ordinance.
Ryan Agabao, Alameda, stated the public was given plenty of notice and many
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
3
February 4, 2019",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,4,"opportunities to come out and speak; the OGC's concern was heard but just did not get
the votes.
The Interim City Attorney stated with respect to Ms. Chen's comment about the decision
not being issued, it was issued that night and was compliant with the 14 days as required
by the Sunshine Ordinance; regarding the structure of the ordinances, one section dealt
with repealing Ordinances 3227 and 3228; there was nothing that prevented the Council
from deciding not to re-introduce the ordinances and rather just repeal them; the Council
chose not to repeal the ordinances; the issue brought up by the League of Women Voters
recommending that the Commission has its own legal counsel to deliberate matters which
may have internal conflict makes sense and he has made a recommended to the Council
for that to occur.
Chair Little moved approval of sustaining Ms. Chen's complaint.
Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated, for the record, he attends the Quba
Mosque on Haight Street which is adjacent to one of the proposed dispensaries; if at any
point he feels there may be a conflict, he would recuse himself from the discussion.
In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry regarding the status of the discussion
since he arrived late, the City Clerk provided a brief summary.
Commissioner Schwartz thanked Ms. Chen and Mr. Agabao for their comments; stated
he takes no position on the underlying issue of the ordinance; the Commission should be
completely process-oriented and be totally without regard for the underlying content; his
concern is with transparency and democracy and whether the public had an opportunity
to be heard; the process is needs to be looked at; the process was not clear and the
public was confused; transparency is an important value that the City has and everything
should have been put out on the table; the Commission's decision should have been
included in the staff report and executive summary; the exact status of the ordinances
and impacts of passing a new ordinance should have been made clear; he felt it was
unclear and a reasonable member of the public would find it unclear as well; what needs
to be done for transparency and democracy is to just do it again; he understands that
both sides have important issues at stake and deserve to have the issue resolved, but
one more month to ensure transparency is worth it.
Commissioner Tilos stated he concurred with Chair Little's concerns about the issue being
paraphrased and put in the background; a lot of time and effort was put in to a
recommendation by the Commission, which was not included; although the issue passed
on the legal tests, it should pass the test of being fully transparent.
Chair Little stated that she takes the duties of the Commission very seriously; the issues
that have been brought before the Commission allow the opportunity to examine what
exactly is going on in the City's government; tonight's matter has nothing to do with the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 4, 2019
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,5,"underlying issues regarding cannabis and everything to do with transparency in
government and making sure the public does not have to hunt for information; the
Commission made a decision based on the Sunshine Ordinance to make a Council action
null and void, yet it is still unclear whether or not the Commission does have that authority,
and it is left for the Council to decide; ultimately she would like to ask the City Council
three things: 1) make a determination based on the OGC's decision in December to make
the ordinances null and void, 2) the null and void clause of the Sunshine Ordinance needs
review with the next City Attorney; if it is deemed unconstitutional, the Commission needs
to have some method of oversight, and 3) the Commission needs to have separate legal
counsel.
The Interim City Attorney requested the Commission review and provide a written
decision concerning the matter.
Commissioner Schwartz stated redlining the decision on the fly does not make sense; the
decision should simply state that the complaint is sustained; if the ordinance does not get
sent back for a first reading, the City could potentially be faced with a lawsuit; suggested
starting fresh and re-introducing the ordinances.
The Interim City Attorney stated the proposed decision could be amended to state there
was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 and the complaint should therefore be
sustained.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the decision adding that the Commission
based their findings on information presented during the hearing on the matter, including,
but not limited to, the fact that the Commission's prior decision was not included in the
January 15, 2019 City Council packet, causing average members of the public, or even
a well-informed members, to be confused about what the Council was voting on.
Commissioner Shabazz requested a friendly amendment; stated that he would not
include Commissioner Schwartz comment regarding ""average members of the public"" as
it is an assumption and he wants to remain as factual as possible; suggested the motion
state the OGC sustain Ms. Chen's complaint filed on January 25, 2019, and that there
was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 of the Sunshine Ordinance based on the
omission of the documentation of the Commission's decision in the Council packet.
Commissioner Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz and clarified the term he
meant to use is ""reasonable well-informed"" member of the public.
The City Clerk stated the motion is: Ms. Chen's complaint will be sustained with the
decision stating that the document of the Commission's decision was not attached to the
January 15th Council packet and that a reasonable well-informed person would be
confused as to what Council was voting on.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
February 4, 2019",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,6,"Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of requesting follow-up on the items regarding
the legal counsel conflict, as well as the authority of the Commission over City Council
decisions.
In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding the follow-up items, the Interim City Attorney
stated the items are not technically on the agenda, but the topic has come up within the
context of the issue so a motion would be appropriate; the Council is aware of the
Commission's concerns and there will be some movement on the issues raised.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the Commission should heed its own advice and not have
motions at the meeting on issues that were not noticed; he feels confident that the Council
will hear the message from tonight's OGC meeting.
Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Schwartz.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Little welcomed Commissioners Shabazz and Tilos to the Commission; stated she
enjoyed serving as Chair and expressed appreciation to former Commissioners Paul
Foreman and Irene Dieter for their guidance.
Commissioner Shabazz thanked the members of the public for communicating their
issues to the OGC; inquired who determines whether there is a conflict of interest.
The Interim City Attorney responded once a complaint is received, based on the nature
of the complaint, if it would appear that one of the outcomes of the complaint would be
contrary to what the law provides and what the Commission is authorized to do, that would
trigger having outside counsel advise the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 4, 2019
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,1,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
Present:
Chair Murray; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Member Chiu
Absent:
Member Johnson
Program staff:
Gregory Kats; Samantha Columbus
City Attorney staff: None
Staff called roll of case participants. All parties were present.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
Angie Watson-Hajjem from ECHO Housing provided information on ECHO's fair
housing and landlord-tenant services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the December 17, 2018 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,2,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
7-A. Discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked staff how they present the Rent Stabilization Program's
policy on confidentiality to RRAC participants. Staff replied that participants are
informed that their submissions become public record.
Chair Murray raised concerns about how Committee members would address and
communicate with participants if certain information, such as tenants' names, were
redacted, and whether the landlords' information should also be redacted.
Member Chiu voiced a concern that Committee members would be unable to disclose
conflicts of interest if they weren't informed of participants' names.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the confidentiality rules proposed in the memo
would make it difficult for the Committee to refer back to prior cases in future meetings,
as is sometimes desirable.
Staff informed the Committee that staff would take the concerns discussed back to the
CAO for further consideration.
The Committee tabled further consideration of the confidentiality memo to a future
RRAC meeting.
7-B. Case 1198 - 434 Central Ave., Apt. 301
Tenants: Tristen Schmidt and Thomas Waters
Landlords: Mayra Mizrachi, Chief Operating Officer; Juan Velazquez, Regional
Manager; Veronica Rodriguez, Community Manager
Proposed rent increase: $107.50 (5.0%), to a total rent of $2,260.00,
effective January 1, 2019
Ms. Mizrachi began by asking whether both of the tenants present were lawful
occupants as only Mr. Waters was on the lease. Mr. Waters replied that Ms. Schmidt
was his wife. Ms. Schmidt added that they had lived together in the unit since March
2015. She said that previous landlords knew them by name and felt it said a lot about
the current landlords that they did not even know that she lived in the apartment.
Ms. Schmidt stated that she was a victim of fraud in late 2018 which had caused
several financial hardships for them and made it hard for her and Mr. Waters to pay
December's rent, although they did pay it. She said they had to borrow money and ask
for advances to cover it, even though they did not have hot water for a period of time,
and the elevator was often not operable. She said that they had lived in Alameda for 22
years. Mr. Waters stated that although he was retired, he still had to work part-time to
be able to afford general living and medical expenses. He said that his income did not",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,3,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
increase 5%, making it hard to afford a 5% rent increase, as their budget was already
tight.
Ms. Mizrachi stated that this property had 53 units and was acquired by the current
owner in 2007. She said the building's income was about $1,000,000 per year, with
annual operating costs of about $475,000 and a debt service of about $485,000, which
did not leave much profit left for the owner. She said the building had a 10% monthly
vacancy rate, the owner was required to have a reserve, and the owner was currently
facing a deferred maintenance issue that would cost about $150,000 that would deplete
the reserve of $100,000. She stated that the tenants did not receive a rent increase in
2018 and responded to the tenant's maintenance concerns by stating that she had
reviewed the owner's records and found no outstanding maintenance issues for the
building. She said that they had done work on the elevator and it was currently
functioning and added that maintenance issues were taken care of within 24-48 hours.
Mr. Waters replied that the elevator had not been running properly for several months,
and he received no reduction in rent for the decreased service. He again voiced concern
that rent increases continued to outpace increases in his income. He pointed out that
the landlord owned another property from which they also received income and said
that since their tenancy began their rent had increased by 19.48%.
Ms. Mizrachi replied that the owner owns property at 935 Santa Clara, but that building
was currently vacant because they had to relocate some tenants and others moved out
so the owner could do plumbing and electrical work there. She said the owner ran at
a
loss of $87,000 last year on that building and had to continue paying a mortgage on it,
adding that the owner was waiting for the issuance of permits to continue some of the
needed work there. She said that in 2016 the tenants received an 8% rent increase,
and a 5% increase in 2017.
Member Chiu noted that the tenants had indicated on their paperwork that they
believed no rent increase was reasonable this year, and the tenants confirmed that this
was a position they wished to maintain.
Member Chiu asked the tenants if there were any outstanding maintenance issues and
they replied that there was a leak in the bathroom sink. The tenants said that the leak
was still not fixed even after management sent someone into the apartment without
providing them notice.
Member Chiu asked the tenants if they reported the elevator not working and they
replied that both they and other tenants did. Ms. Schmidt added that there is a disabled
tenant in the building who needs the elevator and that this issue was not resolved in a
timely matter.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,4,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
Chair Murray asked the tenants if there was a formal way to report maintenance issues
and they replied that there was not, and that they usually text the manager to make
reports.
Member Chiu asked the tenants if they could again explain why the proposed increase
caused a financial hardship. Mr. Waters replied that they had just enough income to
pay the bills and sometimes they had to juggle their financial obligations and defer
payments to make sure all bills got paid. They added that the bank fraud they
experienced had greatly contributed to their financial hardship, as it froze their accounts
and interfered with their direct deposits. The tenants said they felt that rent should not
account for half of their income. Mr. Waters said he receives a pension and works two
part-time jobs to make ends meet. Ms. Schmidt stated she works as a babysitter and
does a lot of unpaid volunteer work in the community.
Chair Murray asked the landlords if there was a formal system to report maintenance
issues. Ms. Rodriguez replied that there is an online system where tenants could file
maintenance requests, and they could also call, text, or drop into the management
office. Chair Murray asked what the management office hours were, and Ms. Rodriguez
replied the office is open Monday-Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Ms.
Rodriguez added that she always returned messages and phone calls within 48 hours.
She said she takes the stairs and therefore would not know whether the elevator
worked unless someone reports it. She said the building's elevator is the original one,
which was installed in 1965, and therefore came with maintenance challenges, but
management always tried to keep it running smoothly. She added that all tenants were
sent an email and text informing them of the new online system to report maintenance
issues. The tenants replied that they did not receive these communications. Chair
Murray suggested that management should work with tenants to ensure they knew how
to report maintenance issues and use the online portal.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked how the rent increase was calculated. Ms. Mizrachi
replied that management sought annual increases of 5% or less to keep in line with the
City's rent stabilization ordinance. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah pointed out that the City
does not have a cap on rent increases, but a process that is triggered when the rent
increase is above 5%, adding that tenants may request review of increases of any
amount.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked why management did not raise the rent in 2018, and
Ms. Mizrachi replied that the landlord was auditing their records and wanted a full
picture of their finances before requesting a rent increase. He asked what expenses had
increased at the property other than the deferred maintenance issues, and Ms. Mizrachi
replied that the owner had a mortgage on the property, its largest expense, as well as
regular maintenance and management costs. She stated that the deferred maintenance
required was a roof replacement. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if they were getting",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,5,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
bids on the roof and Ms. Mizrachi replied that they were, and that the highest bid
submitted thus far was $160,000.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants what utilities were included in the rent. The
tenants replied that water and garbage were included and they paid PG&E separately.
He asked if they had onsite parking, and they replied that they had one parking space.
He asked if there was anyone else living in the unit and they stated that their son also
lives in the unit, but he was not able to work or contribute monetarily as he was 14
years old.
Chair Murray asked the tenants about the condition of the unit when they moved in and
Ms. Schmidt said the unit was in fair condition. Mr. Waters said that the carpet was
clean and that the unit had an expected amount of wear-and-tear given the unit's age.
Chair Murray asked if there was currently anything in the apartment that needed
maintenance other than the leak that was discussed, and the tenants replied that there
were not currently any other maintenance issues.
Chair Murray asked the tenants what effect the proposed rent increase would have on
them. They said the increase already went into effect January 1, and that they would
have to make it work. Chair Murray asked what kind of effect it would have on their
budget, and Mr. Waters replied it put an increased burden on them. Ms. Schmidt added
that the increase would have the effect of increasing their credit card debt. They added
that their son attended high school in Alameda and they did not want to have to move
so they would make sacrifices in order to stay, if need be.
Member Chiu asked the landlords if they had talked to the tenants prior to the hearing
and the landlords said they had not.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the landlords if all their tenants had received a
comparable rent increase, and Ms. Mizrachi replied that all tenants received an increase
around 4.9% above their base rent.
Chair Murray asked if the landlords had learned anything new during the hearing that
would make them want to modify the amount of their rent increase request. Ms.
Mizrachi replied that she felt that the amount requested was fair and that their rents
were in the low-to-mid-range for comparable units. Mr. Velazquez added that the
landlord had a lot of expenses and felt the increase request was reasonable.
Chair Murray asked if the tenants had learned anything new during the hearing. Ms.
Schmidt said that their unit was without hot water for over 24 hours. She expressed
concern over how the landlord spent money on the property, e.g., hiring landscapers
instead of having the managers doing the gardening by themselves. She again
expressed their concern that wages did not keep pace with rent increases. Mr. Waters",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,6,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
stated that the increase would burden his household more than it would benefit the
owners.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Chiu asked for clarification that the Committee's decision would be non-binding
and program staff confirmed this was correct.
Member Chiu expressed frustration that the parties did not communicate with each
other regarding the increase prior to the hearing. Chair Murray replied that program
staff offers all participants the opportunity to mediate, but that the parties did not agree
to do so.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Rent Stabilization Ordinance excludes the
landlord's mortgage payment as a cost of operation that the Committee could consider.
He pointed out that many landlords request increases of 4.9% or 5% in order to evade
being subject to a binding Committee decision. He said he did not believe the amount
requested was unreasonable but also noted that it was a lot of money. He posited
whether the Committee could consider the landlord's expenses at another property as a
basis for requesting increases the subject property.
Chair Murray replied that she thought that the operating costs of the particular subject
property were the only costs that the Committee should consider in this case, and not
expenses at other buildings that may be owned by the same landlord.
Member Chiu said he did not hear the landlord bring up a lot of extraordinary expenses
at the subject building and thought an increase lower than the current request would
be reasonable.
Chair Murray opined that the business of providing housing was different than other
types of for-profit businesses, and this difference was an important consideration that
allows for regulations such as the rent stabilization ordinance in-place in Alameda. She
said that although she understood the landlord was running a business, she was
concerned that the landlords seemed to not acknowledge the impact and hardship the
increase would have on the tenants. She said she thought an increase of 4.9% lent
itself to being seen as a way for landlords to skirt a binding decision and squeeze the
maximum amount out of their tenants.
Motion and second for a $0.00 increase for January and February 2019, followed by an
increase of $50.00 from March through February 2020 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion failed 2-1.
Chair Murray pointed out that the tenants had already paid the rent increase for
January and February 2019.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,7,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
Motion and second for a $0.00 increase for March and April 2019, followed by an
increase of $50.00 from May 2019 through February 2020 (Chair Murray and Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-C. Case 1200 - 434 Central Ave., Apt. 111
Tenants: Patricia and Apolonio Ramos
Landlords: Mayra Mizrachi, Chief Operating Officer; Juan Velazquez, Regional
Manager; Veronica Rodriguez, Community Manager
Proposed rent increase: $104.00 (5.0%), to a total rent of $2,203.00,
effective January 1, 2019
Ms. Ramos stated that they moved into the building in June 2017, and noticed the
people that moved in after them were paying less rent for comparable units. She said
that they are the highest-paying tenants at the property and their unit was only about
650 square feet. She said they have had cockroaches for over a year and management
had not fixed the problem, only putting down two glue sticks which did not help. She
said after requesting RRAC review, management installed two more glue sticks and
scheduled fumigation for a later date. Ms. Ramos stated that her key to the pool and
fitness room did not work for a year, which prevented her and Mr. Ramos from using
the facilities during that time. She said she texted management to get a key but
management did not provide her with a key until after she requested RRAC review. She
told the Committee that they were both on fixed incomes - Mr. Ramos currently
received $1,975 monthly from Social Security and she currently received $579 monthly
from working, bringing their household income to $2,554 per month. A rent of $2,203,
she pointed out, leaves them with $301 to pay the rest of their bills, including PG&E.
She added that they also spent $500 per month on medication for Mr. Ramos. Ms.
Ramos said they had requested voluntary mediation regarding the rent increase but the
landlords refused to mediate.
Ms. Rodriguez responded that management evaluated the cockroach problem and
determined that the glue sticks were sufficient to treat the problem and did not know
the problem was ongoing. She added that she provided the tenants with a key to the
fitness room and pool shortly after they had requested one. She said that management
had offered move-in specials to some new tenants which may account for the
differences some tenants were paying versus others.
Mr. Ramos disclosed additional maintenance and service concerns - a lack of insulated
windows, a leaking door, old appliances, and no microwave. He said that adjacent
apartments pay less for even though they have new appliances and microwaves. Ms.
Mizrachi said she was not aware that the unit was not renovated and she would like to
learn more about why their unit did not seem to be renovated after the hearing.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,8,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
Ms. Mizrachi said that their attorney counseled them to not agree to voluntary
mediation. Mr. Velazquez added that the reason they did not agree to mediation was in
order to treat all tenants fairly and equally. He explained that if they mediated with one
tenant they would have to agree to mediate with all tenants.
Chair Murray asked the landlords how they determined what rate to charge for a given
unit, and Ms. Rodriguez explained that they looked at comparable units in the area to
see what they were charging to make the determination.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants if they knew about the online portal for filing
maintenance requests. Ms. Ramos said she did not receive any notification that the
online system existed and said she did not get many emails that the landlords claim to
have sent. Mr. Velazquez asked the tenants to verify that management had their correct
email address on file.
Ms. Rodriguez said she found it suspicious that the tenants brought up maintenance
concerns only after the management requested a rent increase. Chair Murray replied
that what the Committee has often heard from tenants is that they can be afraid to ask
their landlords for repairs and maintenance because they fear it may trigger a rent
increase. She explained that was a possible reason why these issues may not come up
until the landlord requests a rent increase.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah confirmed with the landlords that they were not committing
to making repairs but were intending to look into the issues raised by the tenants
during the hearing, and Ms. Mizrachi said that was her intention.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah voiced concern that the owner did not seem to know about
the maintenance issues going on at the property, and did not feel that the matter of
treating tenants equally was a concern that carried much weight with the issues raised
by the tenants.
Member Chiu expressed concern that the management did not seem to be adequately
hearing the concerns of the tenants.
Motion and second for a $0.00 increase from January through December 2019 (Vice
Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
7-D. Case 1201 - 1506 Lincoln Ave., Apt. A
No Committee review. The Committee did not have time to call this case. It will be
continued to a meeting on March 4, 2019.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-04,9,"Approved Minutes
February 4, 2019
7-E. Case 1203 - 553 Pacific Ave., Apt. D
No Committee review. The Committee did not have time to call this case. It will be
continued to a meeting on March 4, 2019.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Rent Stabilization
Program's online workshop presentation needed to be updated to reflect the change in
the amount of time allotted to each party under the Committee's newly-adopted
bylaws.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 25, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf