Correspondence - Updated 5/15 — Alameda City Council, May 11, 2023

From: Gary Tillman
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gary Tillman Full Statement at the City Council Meeting on May 11, 2023 Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 10:37:45 AM
Dear Council members,
Please see below my full statement, in particular, the last 3 paragraphs that I was not able to state orally due to expiration of my two minutes:

Thank you,
Gary Tillman
*************
My name is Gary Tillman, a signatory on an email that went to all of you on Tuesday concerning the conversion of the tennis courts to pickleball multi-use courts at Kruis park.

Our desk top research has documented:

1. There is a very strong national trend that the pickleball noise pollution is a significant nuisance, not appropriate near neighborhoods, and is being addressed by the respective authorities in favor of impacted residents (6 cities since November 2022 that have either banned or relocated pickleball courts, and another 4 since 2019);

2. Noise studies continue to prove that the pickleball decibel levels violate city noise ordinances;and has a negative impact on health of nearby residents

3. Existing noise abatements / mitigation are failing to adequately diminish the pickleball noise pollution; they are expensive; and switching to mitigating pickleball paddles and balls is not being adopted by the pickleball community and would be near impossible to enforce.

4. There is clear and overwhelming evidence that there is no need to "test" pickleball. It's proven to be noisy, disruptive and unhealthy to nearby residents, and will be so to nearby residents of Krusi Park from day one, 8 am to 10 pm.

We request the city of Alameda re-consider placing pickleball courts at Washington park, where no residents will be impacted, and stop the ARPD's discriminatory and negligent pursuit of pickleball at Krusi Park.

We frame this as a moral choice: the right to play a game, or even more narrow, the right for shorter pickleball wait times than Lincoln Park, vs. a home owner and family’s quality of life, health and protection of property value.

We are engaging a lawyer who has stopped pickleball several times in a California city, and we may pursue legal action. We have the financial resources to see that through to a successful conclusion.

Thank you
From: James Cummons
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] CIP Moratorium
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 4:48:35 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties. CIP pass-throughs threaten all Alameda tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

As the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $24 million, South Shore tenants face having to pay for these improvements in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Some of these tenants live in non-habitable conditions. This must be stopped for South Shore tenants, and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.

Current CIP policy puts property owners in a position to attract new renters at market rate to take the place of tenants who can’t afford the additional payments. In this case, the CIP will be a gift to Blackstone, Inc., one of the largest real estate investors in the world.

Please don’t let South Shore and tenants city-wide face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now, for all rental property city-wide, including especially South Shore Apartments.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Jim Cummons
Sent from my iPad
From: diane appelbaum
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] CIP Moratorium on CIty Council Agenda May 11 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:56:07 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am a tenant of South Shore Apartments. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on ALL Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs in all rental properties including SouthShore!
CIty Council members know the current policy is flawed, and have addressed ways to revise/change this policy this in Council meetings over the years. From watching the videos of these sessions, I know you are caring, humane people, concerned about tenants' rights. You have discussed imposing a cap on Capital Improvement plans, and a cumulative cap on all the monthly payments a tenants must pay (the AGA, currently at 3.5%, banking, and capital improvements). You have discussed the alternative to having tenants cover 100% of costs, as many other cities have done. You have pondered what really qualifies as capital improvements vs routine, needed maintenance and upkeep.

I understand that even after all these discussions, a new law was not passed. You said you needed time to confer with tenants and other stakeholders. Now is your chance. Please hear the input from South Shore tenants tonight. Please consider now the input you have received in the past months, including the petition asking for a moratorium on any final determination of the South Shore CIP, signed by well over 200 South Shore tenants. The moratorium will also allow you time for more scrutiny of the work and expenses actually done. In the meantime, the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $20 million - but it's not to late to do the right thing. South Shore tenants face having to pay for these improvements in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Some of these tenants live in non-habitable conditions. This must be stopped for South Shore tenants, and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.

The proposed moratorium only for the future doesn't make sense, especially since the Rent Program admits they have received very few CIP applicaitons in the past 10 years, and nothing comparable in size or expense as the SouthShore CIP. THis is what the urgency is about. Otherwise many of the families at South Shore will be displaced.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

WE ANTICIPATE AN INCREASE, but not without protection, not without equity, not without reason, not without oversight by the City Council insuring this falls under rent controls previously put in place.

PLEASE Keep the CIP under rent control boundaries. Please include South Shore Apts in the moratorium and figure out what's right.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Diane Appelbaum, retired, age 81
South Shore resident for 15 years
From: Alameda Renters Coalition
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 5/11/23 Council Meeting/Moratorium on Capital Improvement Plans Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 11:13:53 AM
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The Alameda Renters Coalition again requests a moratorium on approval of any and all Capital Improvements Plans (CIP) until a new policy can be crafted that resolves inconsistencies between Alameda’s current rent control ordinance and the current capital improvement policy and is more equitable for tenants.

We join with South Shore tenants in demanding that City Council craft a fair solution that includes all tenants. South Shore Apartments' application is no exception, and should not be excluded from this moratorium.

Further, we request that the Council review the response to the South Shore CIP which the Rent Program has proposed, and determine whether it is fair and equitable to tenants, and consistent with the City’s current policies on rent control.

We understand that the main purpose for the May 11th Special City Council Meeting is to review the capital improvement policy and to consider additional protections.

The Rent Program‘s Regulation 23-01 attempts to bridge the differences between the 2016 Capital Improvement Resolution and the current 2019 Rent Control Ordinance. To do so, it borrows from proposed 2021 and 2022 capital improvement policies that never received final Council approval.

For example, the 2016 Resolution makes reference to the 2016 Rent Stabilization ordinance, which defines all rent increases as monies paid by the tenant to the landlord, which would include capital improvement costs. Regulation 23-01 introduces the term for CIP charges as a “pass through” to the tenant as if it were not a rent increase and therefore not subject to the 2019 cumulative cap on rent increases.

However, City staff did recognize the State’s AB 1432 which states that monies paid to the landlord within a twelve-month period as a rent increase is subject to a 10% cap. So why not accept the City’s 8% cap for all rent increases?
It is not clear what “rent increase” or “increases to rent within a 12-month period” should mean in this context or if it has any meaning. This is a badly written, outdated policy.

Why exclude some renters from the proposed moratorium, when these issues are impacting all renters? Why the arbitrary cutoff at 25 units? Why allow tenants to be charged for capital improvements at all? And how could it be acceptable to have a policy that will displace tenants from their homes?
Council is well aware of these inadequacies in Alameda’s capital improvement policy and has discussed extensive revisions with better tenant protections in the past. At the July 2022 City Council meeting, City staff were instructed to meet again with tenant and landlord stakeholders and come back to City Council to finalize the capital improvement policy.

Instead, City staff have struggled to interpret and implement a mix of policies that achieve neither goal. Small landlords can’t qualify for Alameda’s CIPs and Alameda tenants have few protections when compared to other cities.

Rather than amending the Fair Return ordinance which would help small landlords, Council has opened the door to billion-dollar corporate landlords such as Blackstone, to erase the tenant protections of the 2019 Rent Ordinance.

It is imperative that the Council take action to protect Alameda’s renters, who make up more than half of all the city’s households and are generally among the lowest income and most vulnerable residents, and who can be hit with a CIP charge with only a few weeks’ notice to respond.

We call on you as our elected officials (and not city staff) to publicly address the ambiguities in this policy and craft a fair solution that includes all tenants.

Steering Committee
Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC)
P.O. Box 6549 Alameda, CA 94501
Recorded tenant resources: (510) 473-2332
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.TheAlamedaRentersCoalition.org
Follow us on Facebook
From: Amy Little
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment for Council Meeting on 5/11/23 at 7pm Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:40:07 PM
Dear Alameda City Council Members,
My name is Amy Little and I am a renter in Alameda. Thank you for all the time that you spend serving our City and for holding this special meeting about the proposed CIP Application Moratorium.

I am happy that the moratorium has been introduced, as a limitation on the CIP pass throughs. I understand that the number of CIP applications submitted and approved in Alameda have been few since 2016, but it’s hard to know if that trend will stay the same or the numbers will increase in the future.

For now and when the City Council reviews the CIP Policy later this year, I suggest that a detailed means / affordability test replace the 25 unit figure. Even if many units at properties of fewer than 25 units are below Fair Market Rent, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the rents are truly affordable for some households. Many renters are still struggling each month to pay those rents along with their other life expenses, so CIP costs on top of the rents could mean displacement.

For the means test, I suggest that the landlords present documentation to show that they have been saving money consistently for large and small maintenance and repairs, and that even with their savings, they still cannot afford the major capital improvements. Also, as an additional requirement, I suggest that the landlords applying for the CIP must pass a building and rental unit inspection for general upkeep (details to be determined).

Additionally, I would like to see a CIP percentage and/or amount cap added to the Regulation 23-01, so that 100% of approved construction costs cannot be passed on to tenants. I am not sure what the percentage would be, or if it could change depending on certain factors, but 100% seems deeply unfair, unexpected by most renters, and impossible for many renters to afford.

Regarding the South Shore apartments: if you determine that their CIP application cannot fall under the moratorium, I urge you to consider the many failings on behalf of the building owners to keep up the habitability and maintenance of the units, and to limit the CIP pass through amount to the greatest extent possible. I ask this for the sake of the 400+ tenants and their families who could be displaced.

In the end, landlords are the party with the initial means to acquire property and the responsibility for the building’s repairs, and they will be the ones to benefit from the higher appraisals and increased equity from the capital improvements. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Amy Little
Paru Street, Alameda
From: Cheryl Kettell
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect Alameda renters instead of enriching a fat-cat out of state company Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:06:43 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am a long-time Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties. CIP pass-throughs threaten all Alameda tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

Current CIP policy puts property owners in a position to undermine rent control for their current renters and replace them with new renters who are able to afford market rates. The former blameless citizens who should be protected by rent control will then be without housing during this fraught time of inflation and housing shortages. In the present case, the CIP will be a gift to Blackstone, Inc., one of the largest and perhaps most unethical real estate investors in the world. This is the same company that owns PSSI, which has been exposed as employing child labor in meat packing plants. Yes, that's who will be profiting by the displacement of Alameda citizens, your constituents and neighbors.

In 2017, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that PSSI had among the highest numbers of severe injuries — defined as an amputation, hospitalization, or the loss of an eye — among the 14,000 companies tracked by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 29 states. (Yahoo! Finance)
Please do not let South Shore and tenants city-wide face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now, for all rental property city-wide, including especially South Shore Apartments.

At the very least, add a financial hardship plea process to the CIP ordinance as San Francisco has done.
https://sf.gov/tenant-financial-hardship-applications
Tenant Financial Hardship Applications | San Francisco
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. This is your opportunity to do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Kettell
Request deferral of a rent increase or passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship. sf.gov
From: Mariana Grajales
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Urgent Action Needed - South Shore Tenants NEED YOUR HELP Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:46:12 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor & Members of City Council:

I am a tenant in Alameda. Tenants in Alameda urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties.

CIP pass-throughs threaten all Alameda tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

As the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $24 million, South Shore tenants face having to pay for this work in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Too many of these tenants live in non-habitable conditions. This must be stopped for South Shore tenants, and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.

Please don’t let South Shore and tenants city-wide face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council.

We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now, for all rental property city-wide, including especially South Shore Apartments.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

-Mariana Grajales

Mariana Grajales
Executive Assistant - Legal
(M) 510/604-4275

From: Heather Rippere
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Urgently Need An Emergency Moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Alameda Tenants Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 5:06:01 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants in ALL rental properties. CIP pass-throughs threaten Alameda tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

This must be stopped for South Shore tenants and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.

Please don’t let South Shore and tenants city-wide face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now for all rental properties city-wide, especially for South Shore Apartments.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent matter.

An Alameda Tenant
From: Gregory Michael
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; City Clerk; Yibin Shen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] May 11, 2023 Council Meeting - comment opposing proposed CIP moratorium Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 5:25:22 PM
Attachments: 2023.05.10_76_Alameda_Council_May_11_2023.pdf Dear Mayor Ashcraft, City Clerk, and Mr. Shen:

Please see the attached statement on behalf of my client, Valley Investments-Redwood LLC, urging the City to reject the proposed CIP moratorium being considered at tomorrow’s City Council Meeting.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory R. Michael, Esq.

Partner | Michael Yamamoto LLP
1400 Shattuck Ave., #412 | Berkeley, CA 94709
Direct: 510.277.4907
| Fax: 510.296.5600
[email protected] | https://www.my.law

This email may be an attorney client privileged communication. If you received it in error, please destroy and inform the sender.

1400 Shattuck Ave., #412
Berkeley, CA 94709
T: 510.296.5600
F: 510.296.5600
https://my.law/
Gregory Michael
[email protected]
May 10, 2023

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mayor Marilyn Ashcraft
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave
Alameda, CA 94501
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: May 11, 2023 City Council Meeting
Statement Opposing Adoption of CIP Moratorium
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

I write on behalf of the owner and operator of Barnhill Marina & Boatyard, home to several floating homes and liveaboard vessels in the City of Alameda, to encourage you to reject the proposed Urgency Ordinance and Ordinance imposing a moratorium on applications made under the City’s Capital Improvement Plan Policy (“CIP”) for properties comprised of 25 or more rental units. We understand that the proposed ordinance will be considered tomorrow, May 11, 2023, at the City Council Meeting.

CIP presently allows landlords to request from the City’s Rent Program the authorization to pass through to tenants the costs associated with bona fide, long-term capital improvements to rental properties. The purpose of CIP, according to its own terms, “is to encourage Landlords to improve the quality of the City’s rental housing stock, to ensure Landlords receive a fair return on their Capital Improvement expenditures and that Tenants are not unreasonably displaced as a result of Capital Improvements to their Rental Units.” The City’s unnecessary rollback of CIP will jeopardize the City’s ability to meet these goals.

The housing security of Alameda’s current and future renters rests largely on the development of additional residential properties and improvement of the existing housing supply.

Without a sufficient and well-maintained housing supply, renters are forced to fight for increasingly expensive units of often increasingly diminished quality. Housing development and Re: May 11, 2023 City Council Meeting – CIP Moratorium

Page 2 of 2 ends

improvement, in turn, depends on the willingness of individuals and groups to make substantial financial investments in Alameda’s housing future, with no guarantee of making any profit.

The City’s adoption of the proposed ordinance will discourage housing development and improvements, doing a grave disservice to the long-term health and vibrancy of Alameda. At the same time, the ordinance will be of no immediate benefit to anyone; since the City’s adoption of CIP in 2016, the City has received a grand total of two CIP applications by property owners with more than 25 rental units. One of those applications was either denied or withdrawn, and the other will be allowed to proceed unimpeded by the proposed moratorium. Conversely, Alameda’s landlords are already subject to the City’s rent control ordinance and existing state laws regarding rent increase limitations which already provide the City’s renters ample protection.

Addressing a problem that does not exist, only to jeopardize the City’s stated policy goals relating to the City’s housing crisis is the wrong choice for Alameda. We urge you to vote NO on the proposed moratorium.

Sincerely,

Gregory R. Michael, Esq.

From: Julie Feinstein
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop the landlord pass-through of improvement costs to renters Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 4:55:20 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties.

CIP pass-throughs threaten all Alameda tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

As the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $24 million, South Shore tenants face having to pay for these improvements in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Some of these tenants live in non- habitable conditions. This must be stopped for South Shore tenants, and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Julie Feinstein
Tenant or a LandmarkSF-owned apartment complex in Alameda From: Elyse Tager
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Moratorium
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 1:23:56 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties. CIP pass- throughs threaten all Alameda tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

Current CIP policy puts property owners in a position to attract new renters at market rates to replace tenants who can’t afford the additional payments. In this case, the CIP will be a gift to Blackstone, Inc., one of the largest real estate investors in the world.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
--
Elyse Tager
tenant of South Shore Apartments.
(510) 912-2884
Faceook
Linkedin
Instagram
From: Eric Kozak
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk; Bill Chapin; Ryan Halpern
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Urgent concern regarding South Shore CIP application validity (roofing related) Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:52:12 AM
Mayor, Vice-Mayor, members of City Council, and Rent Program I've written many times as an Alameda resident and South Shore tenant. I'm doing so again ahead of tomorrow's moratorium session to illuminate a major concern with the South Shore application. I've met and corresponded many times with Bill Chapin and Ryan Halpern, starting shortly after the application was submitted.

Since that time, I have educated myself on the CIP policy and South Shore's application. This construction was a mix of CIP-eligible work and non-eligible work. The entirety of the work was done by two contractors. In reviewing the documentation, I have noticed many questionable parts of the documentation. One example is the nearly $1M roofing expense.

I live on the top floor of one of the E building. In the 9 months of construction, I was working from home literally every day. I never heard a human footstep, drop of a hammer, or torn shingle. In consulting top-floor residents in other tenant buildings, no one else did either.

In the meantime (after construction was complete), with the storms, there have been multiple instances of significant water intrusion in the tenant-occupied buildings. In my building hallway, it was so significant that the ceiling caved in and had to be patched over. Just yesterday a building inspector was looking at a damaged ceiling in the C building. A neighbor snuck onto the B building roof (one of the few with easy access) and found pools of sitting water and warped shingles that looked aged. Photo evidence can be found here .

This leaves me with two possible conclusions:

The work is terribly flawed and will need to be redone
The work was never done at all and the invoice is actually for work on the new CIP- exempt structures, but it was passed off in the 800-page application as a CIP expense Either way, South Shore residents are soon to be stuck with a nearly $1M bill. This raises many urgent points.

If the work was not done to tenant buildings yet submitted in the application, wouldn't this be akin to fraud?
It's possible that South Shore tenants will have to endure another CIP in the future to fix the shoddy work... or to do it in the first place
What protections are in place to ensure that the work was done sufficiently? We, the tenants, had no oversight into how the work was done or if it was done at all. Who has validated this work beyond a reasonable doubt?
Yet, we are expected to pay for it. We have to trust that the city has double-checked these things. Have you? Because the tangible evidence is that there is something very questionable happening. Is there some form of documentation that can relieve my concerns? Or at the very least, are we protected from having to pay for a new roof after we've been stuck with the first CIP bill?
And the roofing is just one example. If any of the above scenarios are true for the roofing, how can I say that something similar didn't happen with the $11M of seismic work? As we all know, the majority of the renovation was done with the intention of attracting higher-income residents. The current units go for nearly double what they were when I moved in during COVID. If non-CIP-eligible work is being slipped through the application, this means that we, the existing tenants, are only paying for our own displacement. There is no way this is benefitting those of us who have had to endure the construction.

I understand that South Shore applied under the existing policy and the city faces legal vulnerability if it denies the application. I am not asking that the full application be denied.

But I am asking that your teams are absolutely certain that all of the work is legitimate and can provide documentation to the residents. In the meantime, I believe that South Shore needs to be included in the moratorium while your offices investigate.

Otherwise, this is a true tragedy for all of Alameda, both the city and renting tenants. The only entity to gain is an out-of-state real estate investment firm that is partially owned by the 12th largest real estate investor in the world. They do not care about Alameda.

Again, photo documentation can be found here
regarding the roofing.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
-----
Eric Kozak
Senior digital producer
415 306 9287 office
415 518 9741 mobile
duncanchannon.com

From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen Cc: Manager Manager; Yibin Shen; Rent Program; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 2-A, May 11, 2023, City Council Agenda-CIP Moratorium Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 9:03:07 AM
ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Daysog & Councilmembers Spencer, Vella and Jensen:

ACT fully supports the review of the current provisions of our Rent Control Ordinance regarding a "pass through" of the amortized costs of capital improvements to tenants (CIP).

However, we do have concerns about the proposed moratorium on CIP approvals. Our greatest concern is with the fact that no sunset date is included.

The CIP has been an intractable issue for several years with large time gaps between City Council seeking staff review and receiving new recommendations. The staff report states that since inception of the policy in 2016, the City Council has considered amendments to the same but has not taken action.

Staff did present a revised CIP ordinance to City Council on April 21, 2021, which was opposed by both landlords and tenants and was rejected by Council with a direction for further staff review. The issue arose again at a March 1, 2022, City Council meeting wherein the staff advised that they were in the midst of an outreach and comparative analysis of proposed changes in the CIP policy and planned to have a proposal ready for consideration by City Council later in the spring. On July 12, 2022, the staff presented City Council with a proposed new CIP ordinance accompanied by extensive feedback from landlords and tenants. After a long discussion, the City Council sent the matter back for further review. Now, almost a year later, the matter remains unresolved.

The history above indicates that the enactment of a moratorium without a sunset date raises the risk of landlords in the affected class being without any CIP protection for a long period of time.

We do not see the "fair return" provisions of the Rent Control Ordinance as a temporary substitute for the CIP policy. A CIP application is approved ministerially, based upon objective standards. A Fair Return Petition is a discretionary decision of a hearing officer reviewing a landlord’s current income. A fair return petition is not an effective process for a landlord to plan future capital improvements.

Our second concern is that the moratorium contains no provisions to allow application of the current CIP to emergency situations.

The omission of both a sunset date and an emergency exception could inhibit needed capital improvements for a long period of time and create the very threat to health and safety that you seek to avoid.

Based upon the above we urge the following revisions of the CIP moratorium.

1. Include a sunset date of not more than 90 days.

2. Provide a defined objective emergency exception to the moratorium and authorize the Rent Program Administrator to grant applications that meet the emergency standards.

Sincerely,
ACT Board of Directors

From: Anne Beavers
To: City Clerk; [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to pass through rent increases - MORATORIUM! Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 7:44:25 AM
I am an Alameda voter and renter.
place MORATORIUM on proposed rent increases for capital improvements !! It is very difficult economically during these times. Don’t allow harm to be added! Allowing additional fees on top of rent is TERRIBLE and extreme HARM to renters struggling in this economy!

STOP, REJECT INCREASES
Anne Beavers
Alameda resident
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Advocate for Inclusive Emergency Moratorium on CIP Date: Friday, May 5, 2023 11:19:38 PM

Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant at South Shore. I have been a resident for two years and I love living here in Alameda. Unfortunately, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass- throughs threaten my housing situation. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs. CIP pass-throughs and should be regulated by rent control. This moratorium should be inclusive of (1) South Shore Apartments and (2) applicable for tenants living in properties with 25 or less rental units.

As a resident of South Shore, the revised "CIP" discussed during the 5/1 special meeting does not go far enough to protect tenants, especially vulnerable populations like the elderly, people of color especially black/African American and Latinx, and those living on fixed incomes.

Please don’t let South Shore tenants face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an inclusive emergency
moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now.

Thank you.

From: Kristopher Cooper
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Advocate for Inclusive Emergency Moratorium on CIP Date: Thursday, May 4, 2023 2:42:17 PM
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda resident and love this city. Unfortunately, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs pose a threat to my neighbors and fellow residents. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs. CIP pass- throughs and should be regulated by rent control. Furthermore, this moratorium should be inclusive of (1) South Shore Apartments and (2) applicable for tenants living in properties with 25 or less rental units.

As a friend of residents of South Shore, the revised "CIP" discussed during the 5/1 special meeting does not go far enough to protect tenants, especially vulnerable populations like the elderly, people of color especially black/African American and Latinx, and those living on fixed incomes.

Please don’t let South Shore tenants or tenants living on smaller properties face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an inclusive
emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs
now.

Thank you.

From: Cheryl Cooper
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Advocate for Inclusive Emergency Moratorium on CIP Date: Thursday, May 4, 2023 1:47:46 PM
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda resident and love this city. Unfortunately, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs pose a threat to my neighbors and fellow residents. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs and should be regulated by rent control. Furthermore, this moratorium should be inclusive of (1) South Shore Apartments and (2) applicable for tenants living in properties with 25 or less rental units.

Thank you.

From: Bill Chapin
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: CityCouncil-List; Ryan Halpern
Subject: letter regarding CIP for South Shore Apartments Date: Thursday, May 4, 2023 12:11:48 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Dear Rev. Myrna Bernadel-Huey,

Mayor Ashcraft and members of the Council shared your April 23, 2023, letter with me. Thank you for your interests and concerns for the housing security of tenants at South Shore Apartments. I assure you that the entire Rent Program staff and I are equally committed to protecting housing security for all Alameda residents, including the residents at South Shore, within the confines of the law.

In addition, I want to share some updates on the matter. The Rent Program conducted a very well-attended community meeting on this topic on May 1, 2023, and we shared similar information with the attendees and online participants, many of whom were South Shore residents. First, while local law does not cap rent increases resulting from CIP pass throughs, state law provides a 10% cap on annual rent increase. Accordingly, any annul rent increases, whether through Annual General Adjustment (cost of living), banked increases or CIP increases, in total are capped at 10%. Additionally, based on our near-final analysis, the CIP increase will be closer to $113 for studios to $169 for 2 bedroom. The anticipated increases will not be anywhere close to $300 a month. We of course recognize that any increases can be extremely impactful to tenants, and we stand ready to answer their questions.

If you are interested, video of the meeting is available online at https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?
ID=1100075&GUID=F54843B6-AEE8-4F5E-BF4A-
F401EED90736&Options=info|&Search

Finally, on May 11, 2023, we are scheduled to seek Council authorization to place a moratorium on future CIP applications at larger properties. Our recommendation does not reach back to the South Shore application because that application was submitted more than half a year ago; work commenced in August 2020 and completed in February 2022 in contemplation of existing local law that permits CIP pass throughs; and throughout the process the landlord has relied on information Rent Program staff have given about current, existing local law.

Again, the Rent Program is committed to helping tenants through this difficult process. We are happy to take their and your inquiries at any time. Rent Program staff can best be reached at 510-747-7520 or
[email protected]
.

Sincerely,
Bill Chapin

---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Chapin
Rent Program Director
City of Alameda
www.alamedarentprogram.org
ph: 510-747-7521 | [email protected]

From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Re: special hearing southshore tenants Attn: Ryan Halpern Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11:54:48 AM
Attachments: rent board.docx
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alan Snyder <[email protected]>
Date: May 2, 2023 11:39 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: special hearing southshore tenants Attn: Ryan Halpern To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc:

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:35:24 AM PDT, Alan Snyder <[email protected]> wrote:
alan
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Alan Snyder <[email protected]>
To: Diane Appelbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 03:21:45 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: special hearing southshore tenants Attn: Ryan Halpern alan
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Alan Snyder <[email protected]>
To: Jong Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 03:06:31 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: special hearing southshore tenants Attn: Ryan Halpern alan
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Alan Snyder <[email protected]>
To: Rent Program <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 03:02:45 PM PDT
Subject: special hearing southshore tenants Attn: Ryan Halpern Mr. Halpern
I sent the following letter to Bill Chopin in November when we were informed what Southshore had planned regarding capital improvement pass thru fees. I got a call from Mr. Chopin and we talked about my proposal to extend the amortization period from 15 to 30 years; referencing the "useful life" of many stated items. He explained that the rent board was constrained by ordinance/statute and the board could not do this.

I understand that this is now open for discussion with the rent board as well as the city council.

As stated in my letter there is a big difference between the proposed $300.00 per month increase and what should be around $150.00 per month. As pointed out, the property will recoup it's expenditures but over a longer period of time.

I do urge you to consider this solution as something both parties can find benefit.

Alan Snyder
Southshore Apts. A213
510 631 6438

November 2, 2022
Alameda Rent Program 950 W. Mall Square, Room 172 Bill Chopin director Alameda, CA 94501
[email protected] 510 747 7520
We live at South Shore Apartments and the tenants were
informed that ownership is applying to increase our rent by over $300 per month citing the capital improvement plan.

South Shore did make improvements. The majority of the work and expense were: seismic retrofitting the buildings, a new roof for every building, external upgrades; concrete work, new swimming pool decks, energy efficiency, office and building construction as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars for dozens of palm trees.

South Shore maintains that the useful life of these improvements is 15 years. Many of these items have never been addressed since the project was completed over 50 years ago so we take issue with that number. Especially since the rent increase is based on that 15 years.

We would submit that the amortized cost passed on to the tenants reflect a realistic "useful life" of 30 years. That being the case the $300 rent increase should be about half or $150. The owners will recoup the expenses but this figure will not be such a hardship on all of us who live here. We hope you will consider this alternative.

From: Ryan Alipio
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for an Emergency Moratorium on CIP Pass Throughs Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:45:06 AM
I’d like to follow up and understand why the rent board has proposed a moratorium that EXCLUDES SouthShore residents? SouthShore residents should be and have been front and center on this topic and current CIP proposals should be included.

Ryan Alipio, MHA
[email protected]
On Apr 26, 2023, at 10:38 PM, Ryan A <[email protected]> wrote:

Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant at South Shore. I have been a resident of Alameda for over two years and honestly, I've never felt more at home.

Unfortunately, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs threaten my dream. Alameda tenants, including myself and my partner, urgently need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs. CIP pass-throughs and should be regulated by rent control.

As the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $23 million, South Shore tenants face having to pay for these improvements in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Some of these tenants, including myself and my partner, live in non-habitable conditions. Examples include, unsecure access to building and no running hot water for community laundry rooms.

Please don’t let South Shore tenants face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Alameda City CouncilMay 11, 2023

Alameda City Council
May 11, 2023