{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2019 7:00 P.M.\nChair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Schwartz, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair\nLittle - 4.\n[Note: Commissioner Shabazz arrived at 7:41 p.m.; he had provided\nnotification that he would be late due to a previous engagement.]\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Henneberry - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nPaul Foreman, Alameda, stated he is concerned about the ability of the Commission to\nfunction under the current circumstances; Section 2-93.8 of the Sunshine Ordinance\nstates that the Open Government Commission (OGC) decides complaints and can direct\nCouncil action; however, the Interim City Attorney has stated the Section is in violation of\nthe Alameda Charter and State law; he disagrees with the Interim City Attorney; the issue\nis a real problem.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Tilos moved approval of having Commissioner Henneberry serve as Chair.\nCommissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n3. [Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.]\nCommissioner Tilos moved approval of having Commissioner Schwartz serve as Vice\nChair.\nChair Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent:\nCommissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.]\n3-B. Minutes of the November 14, 2018 and December 17, 2018 Meetings\nNot heard.\n3-C. Accept the Annual Public Report\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of the Annual Report.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nFebruary 4, 2019", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 2, "text": "[Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.]\n3-D. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed January 25, 2019\nSerena Chen, Complainant, gave a brief presentation.\nThe Interim City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nChair Little stated a comprehensive summary provided by former Commissioner Foreman\noutlines the issue.\nCommissioner Tilos inquired whether the powers of the Commission is a topic that needs\nto be addressed, to which Chair Little responded the discussion needs to be separate.\nIn response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated Ms. Chen's\ncomplaint is that not attaching the Commission's decision to a January 15th report is a\nviolation of the Sunshine Ordinance; the City's position is that not attaching the decision\nto the report is not a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance since the Commission did not\ndirect that the decision be part of any subsequent action or report; Ms. Chen secondarily\ncontends that the agenda title was deficient with respect to describing the item the Council\nwas going to consider; the City's position is the title more than adequately described the\nitem which was the re-introduction of the cannabis ordinances and the repeal of the\nordinances which the OGC rendered null and void.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Interim City Attorney's position is that the\nJanuary 15th meeting was a first or second reading of the ordinance.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded had the Council majority voted to re-introduce the\nordinance, it would have been the first reading.\nChair Little inquired whether the failure of the Council to make a decision maintains the\ncircumstance that the ordinances are still null and void as decided by the OGC.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Council has been advised\nthat the ordinances will remain in full force and effect unless and until Council repeals the\nordinances.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired what information was given to the public and Council\nabout the impact of keeping the ordinances in effect.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded the information was adequately described in the\nreport itself but the agenda title does go into that depth.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired what in the agenda title would inform someone of the\neffects and current state of the law, to which the Interim City Attorney responded the\ninformation is described in the summary of the title.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2019\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 3, "text": "In response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated\nAttachment 3 of the report includes the information regarding the impacts.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired where the report state that the previously null and void\nordinances are back in effect.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded the City's position is that the ordinances never went\nout of effect.\nCommissioner Tilos stated the ordinances were never null and void because the\nCommission did not have the power to do so.\nThe Interim City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated if the Commission\ndid not have the authority to render the ordinances null and void, by definition, they were\nstill in full force and effect.\nChair Little stated that she is concerned the Commission is entering into a slightly different\nconversation by arguing the merits of whether or not the Commission has the right to\nrender any Council action null and void; she would like to focus on the complaint before\nthe Commission tonight; inquired whether there are technical questions; inquired what\nwas the rationale behind not including the Commission's decision.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded there was no purposeful thought of not attaching the\ndocument; stated when the item was drafted, it seemed agenda report adequately\ndescribed the issue and paraphrased the Commission's decision.\nChair Little stated stating information in the background and paraphrasing created the\nsituation tonight; the Commission's purpose is to make sure issues are made available\npublicly and not just in the background.\nKaren Butter, League of Women Voters, read a letter the League submitted on the matter.\nPaul Foreman, Alameda, stated the failure to attach the decision is a technicality; the real\nproblem is the title misled the public because it was not clear; the process should be two\nsteps: 1) repeal the ordinances, and 2) re-introduce the ordinances.\nIrene Dieter, Alameda, concurred with Mr. Foreman; stated there was no way for the\npublic to figure out that any no vote was just symbolic; there was no opportunity for the\npublic to realize the item was not a re-hearing; the item should be re-noticed.\nSerena Chen, Complainant, stated the written decision of the Commission should have\nbeen issued within 14 days of December 17th; it was not, so it became a violation of the\nSunshine Ordinance.\nRyan Agabao, Alameda, stated the public was given plenty of notice and many\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nFebruary 4, 2019", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 4, "text": "opportunities to come out and speak; the OGC's concern was heard but just did not get\nthe votes.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated with respect to Ms. Chen's comment about the decision\nnot being issued, it was issued that night and was compliant with the 14 days as required\nby the Sunshine Ordinance; regarding the structure of the ordinances, one section dealt\nwith repealing Ordinances 3227 and 3228; there was nothing that prevented the Council\nfrom deciding not to re-introduce the ordinances and rather just repeal them; the Council\nchose not to repeal the ordinances; the issue brought up by the League of Women Voters\nrecommending that the Commission has its own legal counsel to deliberate matters which\nmay have internal conflict makes sense and he has made a recommended to the Council\nfor that to occur.\nChair Little moved approval of sustaining Ms. Chen's complaint.\nCommissioner Shabazz seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated, for the record, he attends the Quba\nMosque on Haight Street which is adjacent to one of the proposed dispensaries; if at any\npoint he feels there may be a conflict, he would recuse himself from the discussion.\nIn response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry regarding the status of the discussion\nsince he arrived late, the City Clerk provided a brief summary.\nCommissioner Schwartz thanked Ms. Chen and Mr. Agabao for their comments; stated\nhe takes no position on the underlying issue of the ordinance; the Commission should be\ncompletely process-oriented and be totally without regard for the underlying content; his\nconcern is with transparency and democracy and whether the public had an opportunity\nto be heard; the process is needs to be looked at; the process was not clear and the\npublic was confused; transparency is an important value that the City has and everything\nshould have been put out on the table; the Commission's decision should have been\nincluded in the staff report and executive summary; the exact status of the ordinances\nand impacts of passing a new ordinance should have been made clear; he felt it was\nunclear and a reasonable member of the public would find it unclear as well; what needs\nto be done for transparency and democracy is to just do it again; he understands that\nboth sides have important issues at stake and deserve to have the issue resolved, but\none more month to ensure transparency is worth it.\nCommissioner Tilos stated he concurred with Chair Little's concerns about the issue being\nparaphrased and put in the background; a lot of time and effort was put in to a\nrecommendation by the Commission, which was not included; although the issue passed\non the legal tests, it should pass the test of being fully transparent.\nChair Little stated that she takes the duties of the Commission very seriously; the issues\nthat have been brought before the Commission allow the opportunity to examine what\nexactly is going on in the City's government; tonight's matter has nothing to do with the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2019\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 5, "text": "underlying issues regarding cannabis and everything to do with transparency in\ngovernment and making sure the public does not have to hunt for information; the\nCommission made a decision based on the Sunshine Ordinance to make a Council action\nnull and void, yet it is still unclear whether or not the Commission does have that authority,\nand it is left for the Council to decide; ultimately she would like to ask the City Council\nthree things: 1) make a determination based on the OGC's decision in December to make\nthe ordinances null and void, 2) the null and void clause of the Sunshine Ordinance needs\nreview with the next City Attorney; if it is deemed unconstitutional, the Commission needs\nto have some method of oversight, and 3) the Commission needs to have separate legal\ncounsel.\nThe Interim City Attorney requested the Commission review and provide a written\ndecision concerning the matter.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated redlining the decision on the fly does not make sense; the\ndecision should simply state that the complaint is sustained; if the ordinance does not get\nsent back for a first reading, the City could potentially be faced with a lawsuit; suggested\nstarting fresh and re-introducing the ordinances.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated the proposed decision could be amended to state there\nwas a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 and the complaint should therefore be\nsustained.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of the decision adding that the Commission\nbased their findings on information presented during the hearing on the matter, including,\nbut not limited to, the fact that the Commission's prior decision was not included in the\nJanuary 15, 2019 City Council packet, causing average members of the public, or even\na well-informed members, to be confused about what the Council was voting on.\nCommissioner Shabazz requested a friendly amendment; stated that he would not\ninclude Commissioner Schwartz comment regarding \"average members of the public\" as\nit is an assumption and he wants to remain as factual as possible; suggested the motion\nstate the OGC sustain Ms. Chen's complaint filed on January 25, 2019, and that there\nwas a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 of the Sunshine Ordinance based on the\nomission of the documentation of the Commission's decision in the Council packet.\nCommissioner Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz and clarified the term he\nmeant to use is \"reasonable well-informed\" member of the public.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is: Ms. Chen's complaint will be sustained with the\ndecision stating that the document of the Commission's decision was not attached to the\nJanuary 15th Council packet and that a reasonable well-informed person would be\nconfused as to what Council was voting on.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCommissioner Henneberry - 1.]\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nFebruary 4, 2019", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of requesting follow-up on the items regarding\nthe legal counsel conflict, as well as the authority of the Commission over City Council\ndecisions.\nIn response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding the follow-up items, the Interim City Attorney\nstated the items are not technically on the agenda, but the topic has come up within the\ncontext of the issue so a motion would be appropriate; the Council is aware of the\nCommission's concerns and there will be some movement on the issues raised.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated the Commission should heed its own advice and not have\nmotions at the meeting on issues that were not noticed; he feels confident that the Council\nwill hear the message from tonight's OGC meeting.\nChair Little concurred with Commissioner Schwartz.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Little welcomed Commissioners Shabazz and Tilos to the Commission; stated she\nenjoyed serving as Chair and expressed appreciation to former Commissioners Paul\nForeman and Irene Dieter for their guidance.\nCommissioner Shabazz thanked the members of the public for communicating their\nissues to the OGC; inquired who determines whether there is a conflict of interest.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded once a complaint is received, based on the nature\nof the complaint, if it would appear that one of the outcomes of the complaint would be\ncontrary to what the law provides and what the Commission is authorized to do, that would\ntrigger having outside counsel advise the Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2019\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, February 4, 2019\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair Murray; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Member Chiu\nAbsent:\nMember Johnson\nProgram staff:\nGregory Kats; Samantha Columbus\nCity Attorney staff: None\nStaff called roll of case participants. All parties were present.\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nAngie Watson-Hajjem from ECHO Housing provided information on ECHO's fair\nhousing and landlord-tenant services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-B. Approval of the minutes of the December 17, 2018 special meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 3-0.\n6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\n7-A. Discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked staff how they present the Rent Stabilization Program's\npolicy on confidentiality to RRAC participants. Staff replied that participants are\ninformed that their submissions become public record.\nChair Murray raised concerns about how Committee members would address and\ncommunicate with participants if certain information, such as tenants' names, were\nredacted, and whether the landlords' information should also be redacted.\nMember Chiu voiced a concern that Committee members would be unable to disclose\nconflicts of interest if they weren't informed of participants' names.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the confidentiality rules proposed in the memo\nwould make it difficult for the Committee to refer back to prior cases in future meetings,\nas is sometimes desirable.\nStaff informed the Committee that staff would take the concerns discussed back to the\nCAO for further consideration.\nThe Committee tabled further consideration of the confidentiality memo to a future\nRRAC meeting.\n7-B. Case 1198 - 434 Central Ave., Apt. 301\nTenants: Tristen Schmidt and Thomas Waters\nLandlords: Mayra Mizrachi, Chief Operating Officer; Juan Velazquez, Regional\nManager; Veronica Rodriguez, Community Manager\nProposed rent increase: $107.50 (5.0%), to a total rent of $2,260.00,\neffective January 1, 2019\nMs. Mizrachi began by asking whether both of the tenants present were lawful\noccupants as only Mr. Waters was on the lease. Mr. Waters replied that Ms. Schmidt\nwas his wife. Ms. Schmidt added that they had lived together in the unit since March\n2015. She said that previous landlords knew them by name and felt it said a lot about\nthe current landlords that they did not even know that she lived in the apartment.\nMs. Schmidt stated that she was a victim of fraud in late 2018 which had caused\nseveral financial hardships for them and made it hard for her and Mr. Waters to pay\nDecember's rent, although they did pay it. She said they had to borrow money and ask\nfor advances to cover it, even though they did not have hot water for a period of time,\nand the elevator was often not operable. She said that they had lived in Alameda for 22\nyears. Mr. Waters stated that although he was retired, he still had to work part-time to\nbe able to afford general living and medical expenses. He said that his income did not", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nincrease 5%, making it hard to afford a 5% rent increase, as their budget was already\ntight.\nMs. Mizrachi stated that this property had 53 units and was acquired by the current\nowner in 2007. She said the building's income was about $1,000,000 per year, with\nannual operating costs of about $475,000 and a debt service of about $485,000, which\ndid not leave much profit left for the owner. She said the building had a 10% monthly\nvacancy rate, the owner was required to have a reserve, and the owner was currently\nfacing a deferred maintenance issue that would cost about $150,000 that would deplete\nthe reserve of $100,000. She stated that the tenants did not receive a rent increase in\n2018 and responded to the tenant's maintenance concerns by stating that she had\nreviewed the owner's records and found no outstanding maintenance issues for the\nbuilding. She said that they had done work on the elevator and it was currently\nfunctioning and added that maintenance issues were taken care of within 24-48 hours.\nMr. Waters replied that the elevator had not been running properly for several months,\nand he received no reduction in rent for the decreased service. He again voiced concern\nthat rent increases continued to outpace increases in his income. He pointed out that\nthe landlord owned another property from which they also received income and said\nthat since their tenancy began their rent had increased by 19.48%.\nMs. Mizrachi replied that the owner owns property at 935 Santa Clara, but that building\nwas currently vacant because they had to relocate some tenants and others moved out\nso the owner could do plumbing and electrical work there. She said the owner ran at\na\nloss of $87,000 last year on that building and had to continue paying a mortgage on it,\nadding that the owner was waiting for the issuance of permits to continue some of the\nneeded work there. She said that in 2016 the tenants received an 8% rent increase,\nand a 5% increase in 2017.\nMember Chiu noted that the tenants had indicated on their paperwork that they\nbelieved no rent increase was reasonable this year, and the tenants confirmed that this\nwas a position they wished to maintain.\nMember Chiu asked the tenants if there were any outstanding maintenance issues and\nthey replied that there was a leak in the bathroom sink. The tenants said that the leak\nwas still not fixed even after management sent someone into the apartment without\nproviding them notice.\nMember Chiu asked the tenants if they reported the elevator not working and they\nreplied that both they and other tenants did. Ms. Schmidt added that there is a disabled\ntenant in the building who needs the elevator and that this issue was not resolved in a\ntimely matter.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nChair Murray asked the tenants if there was a formal way to report maintenance issues\nand they replied that there was not, and that they usually text the manager to make\nreports.\nMember Chiu asked the tenants if they could again explain why the proposed increase\ncaused a financial hardship. Mr. Waters replied that they had just enough income to\npay the bills and sometimes they had to juggle their financial obligations and defer\npayments to make sure all bills got paid. They added that the bank fraud they\nexperienced had greatly contributed to their financial hardship, as it froze their accounts\nand interfered with their direct deposits. The tenants said they felt that rent should not\naccount for half of their income. Mr. Waters said he receives a pension and works two\npart-time jobs to make ends meet. Ms. Schmidt stated she works as a babysitter and\ndoes a lot of unpaid volunteer work in the community.\nChair Murray asked the landlords if there was a formal system to report maintenance\nissues. Ms. Rodriguez replied that there is an online system where tenants could file\nmaintenance requests, and they could also call, text, or drop into the management\noffice. Chair Murray asked what the management office hours were, and Ms. Rodriguez\nreplied the office is open Monday-Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Ms.\nRodriguez added that she always returned messages and phone calls within 48 hours.\nShe said she takes the stairs and therefore would not know whether the elevator\nworked unless someone reports it. She said the building's elevator is the original one,\nwhich was installed in 1965, and therefore came with maintenance challenges, but\nmanagement always tried to keep it running smoothly. She added that all tenants were\nsent an email and text informing them of the new online system to report maintenance\nissues. The tenants replied that they did not receive these communications. Chair\nMurray suggested that management should work with tenants to ensure they knew how\nto report maintenance issues and use the online portal.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked how the rent increase was calculated. Ms. Mizrachi\nreplied that management sought annual increases of 5% or less to keep in line with the\nCity's rent stabilization ordinance. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah pointed out that the City\ndoes not have a cap on rent increases, but a process that is triggered when the rent\nincrease is above 5%, adding that tenants may request review of increases of any\namount.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked why management did not raise the rent in 2018, and\nMs. Mizrachi replied that the landlord was auditing their records and wanted a full\npicture of their finances before requesting a rent increase. He asked what expenses had\nincreased at the property other than the deferred maintenance issues, and Ms. Mizrachi\nreplied that the owner had a mortgage on the property, its largest expense, as well as\nregular maintenance and management costs. She stated that the deferred maintenance\nrequired was a roof replacement. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if they were getting", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nbids on the roof and Ms. Mizrachi replied that they were, and that the highest bid\nsubmitted thus far was $160,000.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants what utilities were included in the rent. The\ntenants replied that water and garbage were included and they paid PG&E separately.\nHe asked if they had onsite parking, and they replied that they had one parking space.\nHe asked if there was anyone else living in the unit and they stated that their son also\nlives in the unit, but he was not able to work or contribute monetarily as he was 14\nyears old.\nChair Murray asked the tenants about the condition of the unit when they moved in and\nMs. Schmidt said the unit was in fair condition. Mr. Waters said that the carpet was\nclean and that the unit had an expected amount of wear-and-tear given the unit's age.\nChair Murray asked if there was currently anything in the apartment that needed\nmaintenance other than the leak that was discussed, and the tenants replied that there\nwere not currently any other maintenance issues.\nChair Murray asked the tenants what effect the proposed rent increase would have on\nthem. They said the increase already went into effect January 1, and that they would\nhave to make it work. Chair Murray asked what kind of effect it would have on their\nbudget, and Mr. Waters replied it put an increased burden on them. Ms. Schmidt added\nthat the increase would have the effect of increasing their credit card debt. They added\nthat their son attended high school in Alameda and they did not want to have to move\nso they would make sacrifices in order to stay, if need be.\nMember Chiu asked the landlords if they had talked to the tenants prior to the hearing\nand the landlords said they had not.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the landlords if all their tenants had received a\ncomparable rent increase, and Ms. Mizrachi replied that all tenants received an increase\naround 4.9% above their base rent.\nChair Murray asked if the landlords had learned anything new during the hearing that\nwould make them want to modify the amount of their rent increase request. Ms.\nMizrachi replied that she felt that the amount requested was fair and that their rents\nwere in the low-to-mid-range for comparable units. Mr. Velazquez added that the\nlandlord had a lot of expenses and felt the increase request was reasonable.\nChair Murray asked if the tenants had learned anything new during the hearing. Ms.\nSchmidt said that their unit was without hot water for over 24 hours. She expressed\nconcern over how the landlord spent money on the property, e.g., hiring landscapers\ninstead of having the managers doing the gardening by themselves. She again\nexpressed their concern that wages did not keep pace with rent increases. Mr. Waters", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nstated that the increase would burden his household more than it would benefit the\nowners.\nThe participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Chiu asked for clarification that the Committee's decision would be non-binding\nand program staff confirmed this was correct.\nMember Chiu expressed frustration that the parties did not communicate with each\nother regarding the increase prior to the hearing. Chair Murray replied that program\nstaff offers all participants the opportunity to mediate, but that the parties did not agree\nto do so.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Rent Stabilization Ordinance excludes the\nlandlord's mortgage payment as a cost of operation that the Committee could consider.\nHe pointed out that many landlords request increases of 4.9% or 5% in order to evade\nbeing subject to a binding Committee decision. He said he did not believe the amount\nrequested was unreasonable but also noted that it was a lot of money. He posited\nwhether the Committee could consider the landlord's expenses at another property as a\nbasis for requesting increases the subject property.\nChair Murray replied that she thought that the operating costs of the particular subject\nproperty were the only costs that the Committee should consider in this case, and not\nexpenses at other buildings that may be owned by the same landlord.\nMember Chiu said he did not hear the landlord bring up a lot of extraordinary expenses\nat the subject building and thought an increase lower than the current request would\nbe reasonable.\nChair Murray opined that the business of providing housing was different than other\ntypes of for-profit businesses, and this difference was an important consideration that\nallows for regulations such as the rent stabilization ordinance in-place in Alameda. She\nsaid that although she understood the landlord was running a business, she was\nconcerned that the landlords seemed to not acknowledge the impact and hardship the\nincrease would have on the tenants. She said she thought an increase of 4.9% lent\nitself to being seen as a way for landlords to skirt a binding decision and squeeze the\nmaximum amount out of their tenants.\nMotion and second for a $0.00 increase for January and February 2019, followed by an\nincrease of $50.00 from March through February 2020 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair\nSullivan-Cheah). Motion failed 2-1.\nChair Murray pointed out that the tenants had already paid the rent increase for\nJanuary and February 2019.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nMotion and second for a $0.00 increase for March and April 2019, followed by an\nincrease of $50.00 from May 2019 through February 2020 (Chair Murray and Vice Chair\nSullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-C. Case 1200 - 434 Central Ave., Apt. 111\nTenants: Patricia and Apolonio Ramos\nLandlords: Mayra Mizrachi, Chief Operating Officer; Juan Velazquez, Regional\nManager; Veronica Rodriguez, Community Manager\nProposed rent increase: $104.00 (5.0%), to a total rent of $2,203.00,\neffective January 1, 2019\nMs. Ramos stated that they moved into the building in June 2017, and noticed the\npeople that moved in after them were paying less rent for comparable units. She said\nthat they are the highest-paying tenants at the property and their unit was only about\n650 square feet. She said they have had cockroaches for over a year and management\nhad not fixed the problem, only putting down two glue sticks which did not help. She\nsaid after requesting RRAC review, management installed two more glue sticks and\nscheduled fumigation for a later date. Ms. Ramos stated that her key to the pool and\nfitness room did not work for a year, which prevented her and Mr. Ramos from using\nthe facilities during that time. She said she texted management to get a key but\nmanagement did not provide her with a key until after she requested RRAC review. She\ntold the Committee that they were both on fixed incomes - Mr. Ramos currently\nreceived $1,975 monthly from Social Security and she currently received $579 monthly\nfrom working, bringing their household income to $2,554 per month. A rent of $2,203,\nshe pointed out, leaves them with $301 to pay the rest of their bills, including PG&E.\nShe added that they also spent $500 per month on medication for Mr. Ramos. Ms.\nRamos said they had requested voluntary mediation regarding the rent increase but the\nlandlords refused to mediate.\nMs. Rodriguez responded that management evaluated the cockroach problem and\ndetermined that the glue sticks were sufficient to treat the problem and did not know\nthe problem was ongoing. She added that she provided the tenants with a key to the\nfitness room and pool shortly after they had requested one. She said that management\nhad offered move-in specials to some new tenants which may account for the\ndifferences some tenants were paying versus others.\nMr. Ramos disclosed additional maintenance and service concerns - a lack of insulated\nwindows, a leaking door, old appliances, and no microwave. He said that adjacent\napartments pay less for even though they have new appliances and microwaves. Ms.\nMizrachi said she was not aware that the unit was not renovated and she would like to\nlearn more about why their unit did not seem to be renovated after the hearing.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\nMs. Mizrachi said that their attorney counseled them to not agree to voluntary\nmediation. Mr. Velazquez added that the reason they did not agree to mediation was in\norder to treat all tenants fairly and equally. He explained that if they mediated with one\ntenant they would have to agree to mediate with all tenants.\nChair Murray asked the landlords how they determined what rate to charge for a given\nunit, and Ms. Rodriguez explained that they looked at comparable units in the area to\nsee what they were charging to make the determination.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants if they knew about the online portal for filing\nmaintenance requests. Ms. Ramos said she did not receive any notification that the\nonline system existed and said she did not get many emails that the landlords claim to\nhave sent. Mr. Velazquez asked the tenants to verify that management had their correct\nemail address on file.\nMs. Rodriguez said she found it suspicious that the tenants brought up maintenance\nconcerns only after the management requested a rent increase. Chair Murray replied\nthat what the Committee has often heard from tenants is that they can be afraid to ask\ntheir landlords for repairs and maintenance because they fear it may trigger a rent\nincrease. She explained that was a possible reason why these issues may not come up\nuntil the landlord requests a rent increase.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah confirmed with the landlords that they were not committing\nto making repairs but were intending to look into the issues raised by the tenants\nduring the hearing, and Ms. Mizrachi said that was her intention.\nThe participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah voiced concern that the owner did not seem to know about\nthe maintenance issues going on at the property, and did not feel that the matter of\ntreating tenants equally was a concern that carried much weight with the issues raised\nby the tenants.\nMember Chiu expressed concern that the management did not seem to be adequately\nhearing the concerns of the tenants.\nMotion and second for a $0.00 increase from January through December 2019 (Vice\nChair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-D. Case 1201 - 1506 Lincoln Ave., Apt. A\nNo Committee review. The Committee did not have time to call this case. It will be\ncontinued to a meeting on March 4, 2019.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-04", "page": 9, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 4, 2019\n7-E. Case 1203 - 553 Pacific Ave., Apt. D\nNo Committee review. The Committee did not have time to call this case. It will be\ncontinued to a meeting on March 4, 2019.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INTIATED\nChair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Rent Stabilization\nProgram's online workshop presentation needed to be updated to reflect the change in\nthe amount of time allotted to each party under the Committee's newly-adopted\nbylaws.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 25, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf"}